Fair enough and I appreciate you instigating peace between us - well, a cease fire (lol).
It sounds like we want more or less the same thing but we just have different ideas how to get there.
Me?
I don't trust big business or government...at ALL.
But at least big business can be forced through economic boycott (like hopefully will happen to the Washington Redskins to change their name) to conform as the masses want.
But government cannot be once they are elected.
And, IMO, it is government that is helping big business.
I agree with socialization to a point...like free health are for children and food/shelter/basic medical for everyone that needs it.
But - IMO - all programs like too big to fail and corporate bailouts and QE's do is prop up lousy corporations at taxpayers expense.
I want the least possible power for the federal government (including a massive reduction in the military budget) and death to the Fed.
Obviously you disagree with much/some of this...and there is no point in beating each other up trying to convince the other.
Can we not agree we want the best for Americans but that we disagree on the method and move on?
Believe it or not - I don't like aggregating people.
I just believe strongly in things.
I don't ignorantly trust Big Government or Business.
The difference is that Government can serve much more good than Big Business... In *general*.
"But at least big business can be forced through economic boycott (like hopefully will happen to the Washington Redskins to change their name) to conform as the masses want."
I believe the All Mighty dollar gives Big Business more power than you think it does.
As for the Redskins name, as a support of the Native American plight, I think it's a Stupid waste of political capital. They should be more focused on lowering the rate of rape on the reservations, which is 3x the national average, than some ****ing sport team's name.
"But government cannot be once they are elected.
And, IMO, it is government that is helping big business."
I think the Government can be more adequately checked by a well-armed society. While, in theory, this cold hold true for Big Business I just don't see it as having such a great impact. The fear of guns may scare Walmart, but what about the Prison companies that push harder line punishments solely for the purpose of prolonging their access to slave labor? Something about scaring businesses with guns doesn't sit well with me, I don't think I can explain it in words. Something about scaring Politicians with guns... it does sit well with me. Maybe because I view them as our Public Servants, slaves that should be obsequescent (huge sp) to the last.
"I agree with socialization to a point...like free health are for children and food/shelter/basic medical for everyone that needs it.
But - IMO - all programs like too big to fail and corporate bailouts and QE's do is prop up lousy corporations at taxpayers expense.
I want the least possible power for the federal government (including a massive reduction in the military budget) and death to the Fed.
Obviously you disagree with much/some of this...and there is no point in beating each other up trying to convince the other."
1. Yes, that's exactly where I believe the line stops. At the *needs* of the Needy. Not much past that, at all.
2. QE was necessary because it traded toxic non-liquid assets in the market for liquid Gov't dollars. Too Big to Fail is bad, and generally (outside 2008 and other necessities) I agree it is indeed terrible.
3. I agree with a reduction in military budget, but only to make funds available for reforms that benefit the whole society. Including the rich, as their businesses would grow from increased consumer demand.
4. I think there is, not "beating" but, and I'll try my best part because I do have a temper lol, a cordial correspondence.
"Can we not agree we want the best for Americans but that we disagree on the method and move on?"
I actually could not give two god damn ****s about America.
I love my Fatherland, Nicaragua and its People's Party, the Sandinistas.
I just use American policy to sharpen my mental blade so that when I go back to the Fatherland once I get my PhD here (and renige on the gargantuan debt I'll tally) I can be versed enough to actually do some good with my book learning, unlike Wheelock whose reading only led to great pains for my nation during the terrorist campaign the US had against us from 1980-88.
American policy is my intellectual playground because it is the most discussed here. That is all. To me at least.
But I want to be wrong, because if somehow I get in power in my Fatherland (political, not top but as an advisory or National Assemblyman) and I make legislature that is bad it will hurt my Fatherland and its Great People. I want to limit that possibility as much as possible. So I come here, with what I've read and get into the grit of polemny because that's the only way to spread the wheat from the chaff of my personal ideals and economic concepts.