homer
Forum elite
Posts: 686
|
Post by homer on Oct 5, 2012 2:57:47 GMT 2
The democratic platform for debt reduction involves slight changes to the military-industrial complex ("military reform"; "ending" the war in Iraq, but really preparing for war with Syria and Iran) and new revenue from allowing the bush tax cuts for earners over 250,000 dollars to expire. Tax code reforms also took place, and the Dems and Repubs made some changes to the health and education systems in 2011 to reduce their costs. But the problem is really that the US is doomed because the enormous weight of the military-industrial complex is slowly (now more quickly) crushing the american economy. The same thing happened to Britain in the years before the First World War. You can read about Obama's platform here: www.barackobama.com/issues/The President has put forward a specific, balanced plan of spending cuts and revenue increases that reduces the deficit by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, including $1 trillion in spending cuts he signed into law last summer as part of a deal with Congressional Republicans. His plan includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases, while bringing annual domestic spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level in 50 years. But what I find stunning, Homer, if that you seem to maintain that Obama and Romney are actually antagonists with different goals, when in fact they have very similar goals: reduce government spending, strengthen the military, preserve American power, protect the power of the wealthy and elite. Their budgets may differ slightly and there are of course some minor ideological difference between the center right and the center far right, but on the whole the two have almost identical platforms. Romney's is just a little more aggressive. Romney would probably build the super-dreadnought carriers, nuclear powered attack submarines, future soldiers, and space-fighters and anti-ICBM weapon systems and skunkwork project aircraft a little faster. That's about it really. I know they both have the same goals.... Both want a successful powerful nation... I deem the Democractic means for turning around the economy as unrealistic, the focus on Bushes tax cuts expiring are a small part of the solution, saying you want to cut government spending and actually doing it are two very different things. Of course the idea behind programs like welfare is that they run themselves out of business over time right? |
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 5, 2012 3:02:04 GMT 2
I assume you then approve of the Ryan plan?
|
|
homer
Forum elite
Posts: 686
|
Post by homer on Oct 5, 2012 3:02:07 GMT 2
|
|
|
|
Post by myrk on Oct 5, 2012 3:39:11 GMT 2
How come there's no retarded crackpot post from Honkey in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 5, 2012 4:11:23 GMT 2
Honkey didn't watch the debate?
|
|
amino1
A better forum warrior
Posts: 117
|
Post by amino1 on Oct 5, 2012 5:25:19 GMT 2
I remember watching this before the last election. Has anyone been able to discredit its presentation of the so-called 'facts'?
Interesting aside, the word 'credit' at its root stems from the Latin for 'belief'.
It would be interesting if this information were accurate. That would actually vindicate the raison d'être of the oft-vilified Occupy movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 5, 2012 6:34:53 GMT 2
Zeitgeist is a front for the Venus project which is the technocracy advocacy group of some guy.
|
|
amino1
A better forum warrior
Posts: 117
|
Post by amino1 on Oct 5, 2012 6:48:47 GMT 2
Jacque Fresco. Yes, but what of the video? Is it an accurate depiction of what occurs when money is created? I am particularly interested in the idea that if all debt were repaid, no money would exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman on Oct 6, 2012 2:51:17 GMT 2
I'm not saying this is what is going to happen, I'm saying this is how things are already going. Broke government institutions do dump crazies on the streets, go hang out in the downtown center of any major city.
I'm in student debt too, and paying it off, but I'm also lucky enough to be able to and not to have taken on as much as others had to. I want debt amnesty for students & third world countries, a green new deal, a less oppressive police presence (I'm glad you can see how fucked this is... funny how it never, ever comes up in debates), minimal military, etc.
For those interested in whether or not national debts really need to be repaid or not, or in the history of debt or money in general, there is a really great book "Debt" by David Graeber, a historian and anthropologist at Yale & U of London, but quite accessible for non specialists. I don't really expect anyone to read something but if anyone is interested its really entertaining I promise.
PS Please do not get your information from Zeitgeist, or youtube for that matter, thx.
|
|
|
|
Post by milkman on Oct 6, 2012 3:27:44 GMT 2
From the amazon description: "Drawn from memos, contemporaneous meeting notes, emails and in-depth interviews with the central players... providing verbatim, day-by-day, even hour-by-hour accounts" Sounds umm, rivetting |
|
amino1
A better forum warrior
Posts: 117
|
Post by amino1 on Oct 6, 2012 4:08:20 GMT 2
PS Please do not get your information from Zeitgeist, or youtube for that matter, thx. Clever, but I fail to see how that discredits the material. Which is the very thing I was asking, if someone could do that or not. Saying youtube is unreliable on principle is, as far as I'm concerned, a little like tossing the baby out with the bathwater. I've taken several courses wherein youtube videos were viewed during lecture., demonstrating that youtube can be an immediate, indispensable resource. And, to be fair, I have not seen the entire Zeitgeist catalogue. You'll notice that I linked a specific portion of the only video I have watched by them. My question remains: Can anyone refute their description of the money creation process? |
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 6, 2012 5:16:21 GMT 2
Amino1, I think the principle of the video is that the economic system is a socio-political creation, which should hardly be surprising to students of history. As milkman's source mentions, most debt is never repaid anyway. But I'm not a political-economist so... I've forwarded the video to some economist friends of mine at Princeton and Chicago, we'll see if they're interested in providing a more technical explanation.
|
|
amino1
A better forum warrior
Posts: 117
|
Post by amino1 on Oct 6, 2012 5:46:49 GMT 2
Right, I'm not suggesting I understand it entirely myself. However, I do think the video, notably the part beginning around the 8 minute 30 second mark, may be of singular relevance regarding the urgency of the concerns brought up by Homer, and shared, I assume, with the majority of the American voter base, about the national debt 'crisis' as it were. Perhaps the 'crisis' is calculated, as I think you and Milkman seem to be suggesting that at least a modicum of debt need not ever be paid off.
Interested to hear some additional interpretations.
|
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 7, 2012 5:40:33 GMT 2
|
|
|
|
Post by switch on Oct 7, 2012 20:48:04 GMT 2
Also:
|
|
