Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

There's a difference between being "demonized" and just paying slightly more as a result of being able to bear it. Nobody makes it anywhere on their own. You're one of the few people who's actually gotten farther with less help, but you still hitched a ride with the government (serving counts) and made the most of what you had thanks to federal programs. Truth is, hard work isn't always enough for livable circumstances. We need factory workers. We need farmhands. We need street cleaners. Those people will never, ever be wealthy. But they should, since their work is necessary until we make machines to replace them, be paid enough (or otherwise taken care of through federal/state-mandated programs) to eat, live somewhere that doesn't require a two-hour commute, and occasionally have some free time.

Should people hate you if you become rich? No. But you should subsidize them a little more in turn, because they're the reason your standard of living is possible.




I don't think the states are in any better position to manage themselves than a federal bureau is. "States" are a relic of a premodern age, which we've kept mostly out of habit and tradition, but the whole concept is ludicrously outdated now that communication is instant and infrastructure supports rapid transit. But truth is, I don't trust individuals to manage their personal and financial affairs. People are underinformed, lied to, and manipulated. How the hell can they successfully manage themselves when half the stuff they think they know is misinformation? There's a reason people have financiers, and that's because they don't want to learn how to handle their money all by themselves. And it makes perfect sense, because financiers are good at that sort of thing. There's a reason people hire lawyers and psychologists, and that's because they can't manage their personal affairs on their own. The entire service sector exists because people aren't multi-disciplinary geniuses.

I don't think people should be entitled to keep (relatively) extravagant lifestyles when debt crushes them. I don't think those who live above their means deserve to be bailed out to such a point that they continue living on credit. But I think hunger and homelessness in a country like this is appalling. We have more than enough food and housing to fix those problems. Forcing people to downgrade and live modestly is fine. Forcing people to die on the streets isn't fine.

And I don't ever trust companies to do the right thing. I realize you said you have no problems with certain regulations, but I just want to reiterate. Without regulation, as Aestu pointed out, we'd have no clean water, no clean air, not a single acre of arable land in the midwest, no seat belts, no minimum wage, no job security in any field, no caps on fees for certain services rendered, no guarantee to running water or electricity, no construction standards, no safety in the workplace standards, etc.


Oh and React, Obama's not a pacifist. I'm well aware of that. He's just more in-line with what I stand for than the other party, and I'm gonna vote instead of doing nothing.

If destruction exists, we must destroy everything.
Shuruppak Yuratuhl
Slaad Shrpk Breizh

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Actually, I don't quite agree.

I would argue that financiers and shrinks don't really know what's good for anyone other than themselves. Setting aside my well-known hatred of the shrinks, I would highlight the vast disagreements between equally qualified economists about the basics, their willingness to ignore obvious facts, their inability to predict tomorrow and their constant tendency to rationalize yesterday in light of today. As for finance people, they pay themselves huge sums to play with other people's money.

But the fact that people turn to them reflects the weakness of the individual and the yearning for the reassuring strength of a unifying wisdom - however flawed it may be.

I do, in fact, believe that individual people and the states are at least as good judges of what is good for them as the federal government. History bears this out; historically, smaller countries are more efficient and innovative. They have less bureaucracy and therefore fewer drones and other disaffected citizens. This has been true from the days of ancient Damascus to the Greek city-states to Switzerland, the Netherlands, Malaysia and Hong Kong.

The problem is that when people talk about states' rights in the context of American politics, they usually mean something other than sheer efficiency; what they really mean is either free beer - the idea that local governments taking on the responsibilities of the imperial government will mean lower taxes (it won't, due to economy of scale) - or the nefarious intent of multinational corporations to play local governments off against each other.

The flip side of the efficiency of people and governments in dealing with what's on their plate is their inability to influence the big picture, always being victimized by forces far beyond their control. The common people and the local government always lose out in the end.

Which brings us back to that nasty little question - "what's good for us"? Does that mean choosing the best of all possible worlds, or the best of many bad options in this one? People and local governments are weak, and for all their flaws, the power of Congress and the FBI keeps life livable.

History again bears this out. I mentioned the Holy Roman Empire. It pretty accurately captures both sides of the issue. Go read Tacitus' Germania, written in the second century AD. He vividly describes the Germans as a lazy, squalid, guileless, ineffectual people who carry weapons everywhere, sleep all day, and live in piles of shit, but he also describes elements of their national character more familiar to us, such as their love of beer and sex appeal.

So what happened over the next two millenia, to turn the Germans into the smugly efficient, thoroughly benign and loveable chaps we know today? Local government. Feudalism. Direct accountability to local lords, and the tradition of excellence this engendered.

The downside of this arrangement is that for many centuries, it ensured Germany was a weak and disorganized country, at the mercy of France and the Pope, with most of its resources frittered away in exorbitant taxation to support local fiefdoms and their petty armies, and the best minds left to make their fortunes abroad. Italy had a similar experience, the flip side of all their innovation during the Middle Ages was petty feudalism and being victimized by forces within and without.

This had larger implications: Germans and Italians such as Dante, Gutenberg, Columbus, the experts who built Peter's fleet and the cannons that brought down Byzantium, all left home to make their fortunes abroad because their home countries were mired in "states rights" and the central government was too weak to capitalize on their greatness. Conversely, American greatness has been, or was, ensured by the security and stability ensured by a strong federal government.

So when federal government finally came to Germany and Italy in 1870, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, no one looked back to the bad old days, and everyone lived happily ever after.

The constant remains true. Loose confederacies suck, especially for the people who have the misfortune of living in one. Small states are more efficient but fritter away most of their gains being played off against each other by whatever common denominator defines their playing field. In this world, that's the international corporations.

So I have come to believe that the best solution is a strong federal government that empowers the states through template programs that can be implemented at the discretion of local governments, backed up by federal power and according to federal regulations. Taxation and the planning of national infrastructure should be left to the Feds to prevent corps from playing states and cities off against each other or forcing them into debt slavery, which is exactly what is happening now.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Something I read today that I think is germane to this conversation:

The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out lies.
Just look at the Other Side’s latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.
The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Naturally, the media won’t report any of this. Major newspapers and cable networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.
I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable. Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring its own candidates’ incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that reveal the Other Side’s true nature, which is genuinely frightening.
My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving, put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community. What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven, discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.
Don’t take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.
Let’s face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side’s policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.
To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don’t even know it.
These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers. It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus, many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about everything.
Besides, it’s clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.
That is why I believe 2012 is, without a doubt, the defining election of our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be greater. That is why it absolutely must win on November 6.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

No one is saying that except the Romney/Ron Paul supporters. Pretty much everyone here who has said they are against Romney and Paul have also said they think that Obama is worth voting for only because he's not them.

Just because there are two sides to a debate does not mean that both sides are equally right or wrong. Just because two sets of claims are similar does not mean that both claims are equally valid or invalid.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Can you take that analogy and apply it to your side, please? I'm really curious how you fill in your Mad Lib.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Mayo's a quick one, ladies and gentlemen.

I mean using things like specific events as opposed to being so incredibly vague that he's just right by default.

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

You're just playing, right?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Callysta of Reverence

I could fill in a few of the blanks on that thing and make it work regardless of whether you're an Obama supporter or a Romney supporter. You don't even have to be that creative.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I was under the impression that jubb's post was designed in JUST such a way that it could be applied to either side of the aisle.

but now i'm scared.

s^ | Kay

Well, if your thinking is so simplistic that you boil it down to an either-or choice, then sure, that makes sense, but while we might be stuck in the unfortunate situation of really only having two choices, it's still not so simple as either/or. What one side supports, the other side (generally) opposes. Regardless of what issue(s) are most important to you, one side or the other is probably going to better reflect your views than the other on what is most important to you. So while you might, for example, support Democrats because you're biggest concern is contraception rights, you may not necessarily agree with them on other issues. The choice is more complex than just "either/or." It's more about looking at the two parties/candidates during a given election and striking a balance between the issues you feel strongly about and the ones you don't feel as strongly about and choosing the party party/candidate that best reflects your various concerns.

Not every Republican is an advocate for "X" any more than every Democrat is an advocate for "Y." That's probably why some female voters aren't necessarily going to vote to re-elect President Obama despite the recent focus on contraception/abortion-related issues. Contrary to what every idiot on the internet who questions what the fuck women are thinking if they're not going to vote for President Obama believes, women are concerned about more than one issue. Contraception/abortion-related issues are not women's only concern, and many women are actually more concerned about the economy.

So while you might think it's actually a simple choice because you only have two options, that's only because you're probably not putting much thought into the choice, and projecting your lack of thought onto others who have chosen differently than you have.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You are trying to drag the analysis into the realm of metaphysics completely detached from the facts of the matter, because the facts of the matter are that the mainstream GOP proposals for our society and economy are crazy and non-viable and the mainstream Dems proposals are not.

The reasons why this is so have already been examined in this thread. They want taxes and public services to remain at an unsustainably low level, and they want corporations, local governments and individuals to be trusted with things that are beyond their responsibility. And they demonize the policies that have been proven to work in many other countries by way of lies. The Republican that argues otherwise really doesn't exist because such is the foundation of the party platform.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.