Things To Do

[gauchecritic]

economic sanctions on certain rogue nations. And that's not counting despicable regimes like those in Russia and China. High tariffs are the key to offset the revenue loss.

But then China will want their money back and you'll be really fucked.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

OGG

Youve become daft in your old age.

I propose that America summarily execute any non American with mischief on his mind. The proposition remedies most of your list and nips the problem in the bud, before we ever get to prisons and water-boarding.

 

[rgraham666]

My question is "Don't you support free trade, Sev?"

 

[oggbashan]

JBJ (I won't quote him) obviously hasn't read George Orwell's 1984.

He is advocating execution for thought crime.

Og

 

[Selena_Kitt]

JBJ (I won't quote him)

I U!

 

[epiphany65]

Excises on newly legalized things like pot could pay for a lot. Not to mention save money wasted on the war on drugs. We could scrap the DEA, for instance.

But I don't see that happening, so I favor a repeal of GATT, drastic changes to NAFTA, and economic sanctions on certain rogue nations. And that's not counting despicable regimes like those in Russia and China. High tariffs are the key to offset the revenue loss.

Of course, we could end the embargo on Cuba and impose a tobacco tariff, but not yet. Wait for Raul to make serious reforms first.

You can forget any changes to NAFTA. Canada has said months ago that if the US tries to renegotiate it they'll back out and sell our oil to China. Without it you're fucked, since were the 2nd largest supplier to crude to The States.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/02/28/canada_nafta_and_obama/index.html

 

[trysail]

Actually quite a lot gets done from Washington. I think you'd be shocked if Washington just stopped getting you all of the services and protections you receive without being able to grasp all that is involved in keeping a country ticking.

But, you are almost right in one respect--the new president will only be able to make changes on the margin, and, if he's smart, mostly gradually. Where you miscue, though, is that this isn't because of what politicians do/don't do--it's because most of the business of the government is in the hands of the professional bureaucracy working with established laws/regulations/customs/powers. Politicians can only effect change on the margin too.

I disagree, believing very little of any use or consequence emanates from "Cancer on the Potomac," a/k/a "The District of Confusion." The only things the place produces is hot air and corruption. Otherwise, it serves little purpose other than a seat to eat and spend the fruit produced by auslanders.

From the vantage point of a family that built railroads, bridges and schools, manufactured textiles and innovative plastics, the advent of a United States Congressman ( other than several eighteenth and early nineteenth century forebears ) into our fold was a novelty. An uncle observed that he could never undertake such a thing because it would provide "no sense of accomplishment." Observing the Congressman's multi-decade career has done nothing but reinforce that sense. I honestly do not understand how he tolerates the fundamental silliness of his position or the place. As for people like Barney Frank, John Warner, "Chuckie" Schumer, "Babs" Mikulski, Dick Cheney, William Blythe and their ilk: I do not understand how they look in the mirror. I'd shoot myself.

There's a simple reason the people of Wall Street and Washington are interchangeable; both fields are fertile ground for mastering the art of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Listening to "Mac" McClarty's babblings this morning, I am reminded of the horrid susceptibility of the trough-feeders to Potomac Fever. Possessing no other useful skills, far too many of the parasites fall back upon influence peddling as a means to earn a living. For seven decades, the rubes have migrated to their perceived source of wealth and power— and all of 'em forget to go back where they came from after "serving the people" ( more accurately, "themselves" ).


"A patriot is one who loves his country— and expects to be paid for it."
- H. L. Mencken

 

[sr71plt]

I disagree, believing very little of any use or consequence emanates from "Cancer on the Potomac," a/k/a "The District of Confusion." The only things the place produces is hot air and corruption. Otherwise, it serves little purpose other than a seat to eat and spend the fruit produced by auslanders.

From the vantage point of a family that built railroads, bridges and schools, manufactured textiles and innovative plastics, the advent of a United States Congressman ( other than several eighteenth and early nineteenth century forebears ) into our fold was a novelty. An uncle observed that he could never undertake such a thing because it would provide "no sense of accomplishment." Observing the Congressman's multi-decade career has done nothing but reinforce that sense. I honestly do not understand how he tolerates the fundamental silliness of his position or the place. As for people like Barney Frank, John Warner, "Chuckie" Schumer, "Babs" Mikulski, Dick Cheney, William Blythe and their ilk: I do not understand how they look in the mirror. I'd shoot myself.

There's a simple reason the people of Wall Street and Washington are interchangeable; both fields are fertile ground for mastering the art of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Listening to "Mac" McCarty's babblings this morning, I am reminded of the horrid susceptibility of the trough-feeders to Potomac Fever. Possessing no other useful skills, far too many of the parasites fall back upon influence peddling as a means to earn a living. For seven decades, the rubes have migrated to their perceived source of wealth and power— and all of 'em forget to go back where they came from after "serving the people" ( more accurately, "themselves" ).

You of course have every right to disagree with me on this. Your response just indicates to me how little you know about all of the work out there that has to be done and how it gets done--and that you are just another one of a large heap of uninformed (and not interested in being informed) folks who like to moan and scapegoat while doing squat about it themselves.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My question is "Don't you support free trade, Sev?"

Free trade with some countries, not with all. Canada is okay. Free trade with Mexico is national suicide. Doubly so with China.

As for China, I say that we pay 'em back ASAP and get our country back. Even if we have to delay my tax plan a couple of years. That can wait, as useful and necessary as it might be. National sovereignty is more urgent. I hope that we won't have to delay my tax reforms, but if we have to, then it will be a temporary phase and sacrifice that will pay off when we're free.

 

[sr71plt]

Free trade with some countries, not with all. Canada is okay. Free trade with Mexico is national suicide. Doubly so with China.

As for China, I say that we pay 'em back ASAP and get our country back. Even if we have to delay my tax plan a couple of years. That can wait, as useful and necessary as it might be. National sovereignty is more urgent. I hope that we won't have to delay my tax reforms, but if we have to, then it will be a temporary phase and sacrifice that will pay off when we're free.

Ah, national-interest pragmatisim trumping and making situational a foundational principle? And so we could do this with the Constitution too, then?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ah, national-interest pragmatisim trumping and making situational a foundational principle? And so we could do this with the Constitution too, then?

The Constitution is necessary to the rule of law. There is already a process for reform and change- the amendment process.

And I've long had doubts about the prudence of applying laissez-faire to international trade. It's a matter of national security and survival. That's why I voted for Buchanan in 1996, when I was a bit more to the right than I am today.

On the other hand, while small businesses are beyond the jurisdiction of Uncle Sam, most large corporations do so much interstate commerce that it would be impossible to avoid some federal regulation, albeit through the valid process of Congressional legislation, signed by the President of the United States (or passed over his veto if the votes are there).

 

[sr71plt]

Just pulling your leg. You seem to bend your "principles" to match your taste in cereals for breakfast on any given morning.

 

[DeeZire]

Politicians, their all the same. After as much power as they can get. None of them care about us, only in the power and money they can get before they get thrown out of office. (

Zeb - I think you may be projecting your own values onto others. I know it sounds farfetched, but not everyone is motivated by greed.

In a recent thread, the altruism gene was discussed. Apparently, some people are predisposed to being altruistic and others are not. This phenomenon has been tied to genetic structure. Just because a person lacks the altruism gene doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it only means it doesn't exist in that person's genetic structure.

So, if you combine this missing altruism gene with paranoia and a lack of information, it would be perfectly logical to assume that everyone is out for personal gain. I can only imagine how it must suck to go through life with such a cynical view of the world. You have my sympathy.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Just pulling your leg. You seem to bend your "principles" to match your taste in cereals for breakfast on any given morning.

Hardly. My philosophy is simply in transition from ultra-Libertarianism to a more expansive, but still limited and efficient role for government (though I still prefer to use the states when I think them "better tools", as Rob would say). My internal devil's advocate has been hard at work lately, you could say. And he reminded me that MNC's do commerce on a scale that would make them clearly in the Federal purview.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's time to rip the lid off the Area 51 cover-up.

 

[sr71plt]

Hardly. My philosophy is simply in transition from ultra-Libertarianism to a more expansive, but still limited and efficient role for government (though I still prefer to use the states when I think them "better tools", as Rob would say). My internal devil's advocate has been hard at work lately, you could say. And he reminded me that MNC's do commerce on a scale that would make them clearly in the Federal purview.

More likely you've seen as well as the rest of us have how Greenspan's Libertarian theories have torn up the U.S. economy. A defunct philosophy of untenable selfishness.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

More likely you've seen as well as the rest of us have how Greenspan's Libertarian theories have torn up the U.S. economy. A defunct philosophy of untenable selfishness.

I still find it hard to believe that Greenspan is a Libertarian. In the past, after all, he backed some of Clinton's policies. I thought him a Republican (though a moderate), but I stand corrected.

But as for it being the God that failed, it just proves that even I am fallible. Having previously discarded one flawed philosophy for another, that's not news to me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One idea is to hold a summit where all national debts are cancelled, from ours to the Third World's (that ought to make Bono happy). It would be a nice start for everyone, and an obvious, practical solution.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

An idea for the states: add a provision to all corporate charters requiring that all executives of failing companies lose their perks and bonuses automatically.

 

[sr71plt]

One idea is to hold a summit where all national debts are cancelled, from ours to the Third World's (that ought to make Bono happy). It would be a nice start for everyone, and an obvious, practical solution.

The Chinese would certainly be rightly pissed at that.

I rather think those who mount up the debt should take responsibility for it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The Chinese would certainly be rightly pissed at that.

I rather think those who mount up the debt should take responsibility for it.

Well, if Third World countries get off scot-free, so should we.

And since I hate the Beijing regime, I have no qualms about stiffing it.

 

[sr71plt]

And since I hate the Beijing regime, I have no qualms about stiffing it.

I think you're back to being one of those "memememe" Libertarians again.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think you're back to being one of those "memememe" Libertarians again.

No, I just hate the Red Chinese government and would love to punish them one more time. It's hate, not greed.

 

[sr71plt]

No, I just hate the Red Chinese government and would love to punish them one more time. It's hate, not greed.

So, take responsibility for what you owe them before deciding you are better than they are.

There we go again--the problem of taking responsibility for yourself. Just not a Libertarian principle.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So, take responsibility for what you owe them before deciding you are better than they are.

There we go again--the problem of taking responsibility for yourself. Just not a Libertarian principle.

Funny. They would say the same thing of you.

And I'll wait until I've committed mass murder, silenced the press and media, outlawed opposition, harvested organs from executed political prisoners, suppressed religious minorities, threatened Taiwan with invasion, threatened to nuke LA and Frisco, held a "Cultural Revolution" that delayed any progress and practical growth, cracked down on Tibetan independence, exiled the Dalai Lama, and numerous other crimes, before deciding that there's any equivalence between the USA and Communist China.

Maybe instead of the cancellation, I should just deduct the war aid that we gave them against the Japanese, plus interest. That should amount to the same thing.