Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Aug 8, 2019.
Ah! These subtle, subtle distinctions!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I get it, you're not into "subtle". The anarchist side of you is more of the fire bombing type, I suppose.
I appreciate the verbal gymnastics of PR as much as the next literate.
The influential US armed forces do as much of that in a minute as all the anarchists of the world have done in all of history.
Valid points - but, do you think it was wrong when the US fought against the horrors inflicted by Nazi Germany?
I guess my question is where should the US draw the line between being the world’s police to helping to fight for others’ freedoms? There are other countries, innocent children and other civilians, who can’t fight for themselves, so does the US have a moral obligation to defend them?
I think most people, including me, don't have a problem with what the U.S. did in WWII. As a matter of fact, when people talk about how "bad" the U.S. is, they tend to forget about the U.S. contribution in WWII and the rebuilding afterwards.
There are a lot of other countries who can/could fight if they would build up their militaries and not rely on the U.S. The U.S. as a "superpower" is going to selectively be one of the world's policemen.
The U.S. budget seems excessive however.
It's as out of control as this...
Reagan. Remember the welfare queen taking her Cadillac to the food stamp dispensary?
Clinton's rightwing enthusiasm in pushing the unaccomplished aspects of Reagan's agenda was thankfully moderated by his superior competence and lack of ideological fanaticism - he winnowed out some of the crazy, and had to be dogged and threatened and crippled by impeachment to sign off on some of the deregulation etc.
But the Democratic Party's unseemly panic at the emergence of a charismatic Republican and the Party's ascension to power revealed its lack of ideological foundation - in reacting against the New Deal and aligning themselves with Reaganomics the Dems had lost touch with their base in economic reality, which left them vulnerable to bribery and corporate influence and the nuttier aspects of academic economics.
It was the moderation of "The 3rd way" of Tony Blair and the mid-year election results that made Clinton decide that business wasn't the "enemy", since it is in fact where the jobs come from. Before that, business was always the whipping boy. The mid-year elections disabused him on that notion.
Nobody in power in the US or England ever decided that "business was the enemy " in the first place - that's rightwing media bullshit. So is that nonsense about a "third way" - no such agenda was adopted by anyone in power anywhere in the English speaking world. (That is easily seen in, for example, Clinton's adoption of the Republican Party agenda, rhetoric, even race-baiting, from the day he lost the governorship of Arkansas - not as a reaction to the midterms of 1994, which changed nothing in Clinton's fifteen years' established political behavior, but to the national movement that led to the Republican capture of the Presidency in 1980 along with the governorship of Arkansas - Clinton's goal and strategical stepping stone to that goal. He never got out-niggered again, to quote a previous southern Democrat who had learned that lesson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Arkansas_gubernatorial_election )
Their administrations established their respective country's current political trajectory; Blair and Clinton followed their lead.
The policies Blair and Clinton continued launched forty years of economic and social decline in both countries, as is obvious in the still continuing demolition of public health care in both countries, the increasingly boom and bust (crime and collapse) nature of their economies, the return to laissez faire environmental exploitation and tragedies of the commons in the US, the increasingly dramatic disconnection of productivity as well as community accountability from financial reward and consequent destruction of "free market" capitalism in both countries, and the inability of their respective governments to act in the common interest or for the common good of their citizens,
coupled with morally bankrupt and economically disastrous warmongering in the common interest and for the common benefit of the wealthy and powerful in both countries.
Not to mention Russia's successful acquisition (via purchase, bribe, threat, and blackmail) of oligarch based power and influence in both countries - in the world of organized crime, game knows game.
The negative inflection points in the graphs of almost every economic and social indicator of both England and the US date to Reagan or Thatcher - not Blair or Clinton.
The third way was associated most clearly with the New Labour administration of Tony Blair, who served as prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007. It also was associated, less directly, with a number of centre-left administrations, notably those of U.S. Pres. Bill Clinton (1993–2001) and Chancellor of GermanyGerhard Schröder (1998–2005).
Run it by the lady of house, she'll remember it.
What we, from a Canadian perspective, refer to as the Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney Axis. Those administrations were ruthlessly destructive, but their propaganda machines were - still are - extremely effective.
Not in the US.
In the US Reagan predated HW, who predated Clinton, who predated Blair (and with more authority) by six years and more. The US had been restructured under Reaganomics - as it remains, despite the obvious consequences - before Blair took office. The three US Presidents who accomplished that also advocated reforming various other economies and legal systems in the Americas along those lines, with varying degrees of success
The last "centre-left" Federal administration in the US was FDR's. Economist Hernando De Soto was less than seven years old when FDR died.
Clinton continued Reagan's policies and agenda, as passed on by the HW administration, without fundamental modification or opposition beyond curbing the crazy (such as attempts to get rid of Social Security, privatize the Postal Service, sell the National Parks to the highest bidders, convert the Federal highway system to toll roads, etc). Clinton was a solidly rightwing and authoritarian President - his governing ideology both farther Right and more Authoritarian than either Eisenhower's or Nixon's, for example - and his superior political skills made him more effective than either of those Presidents at rolling back the "centre-left" New Deal. Afaik President Clinton did not advance any policy initiative even slightly Left of center, and did oppose several.
That was well-known and openly discussed at the time, by the entire American Left - it was expected, but considered a betrayal nevertheless. He is still described, by the reality based punditry his influence helped to ghetto in the fringes of US public debate, as the best Republican President of the 20th Century.
"Woman Of The House" is a four word five syllable idiomatic term.
How do you guys manage to fuck up everything you try to paraphrase in my posts? Deliberate trolling?
Do you think that "lady of the house" is not also an idiomatic term (that happens to also be four words and five syllables)?
As idioms, what difference in meaning do you think there is between the two?
That's not true for 99% of small business owners. Most small businesses fail after 10 years, for example - so having the assets of a failed business isn't going to contribute much to your net worth. And a great many small businesses make less profit than a typical salary for someone in a similar field.
What qualifies as "a small business"? The Trump administration's definition seems rather -- uh ... elastic.
Most small business fail within the first year. So what? After 10 years a third are still around. No one is arguing that you are going to have assets with a failed business.
That just argues for not being so hard on businesses. It takes risk, a good idea and excellent execution so it's not a good idea to try to tax away those hard earned assets.
Let's face it. You are arguing that the government should provide all/most jobs. That's one point of view. It's not mine.
So such business owners will not end up with ten million dollars.
Nope, not at all. You are once again creating a strawman argument because you are losing the argument badly - and you need to change the subject.
I'm not creating a strawman argument nor am I losing the argument.
You're arguing for higher taxes but then denying that it will hurt anyone because it won't apply to anyone?
There are local businesses and that's who it will hurt. Your logic seems to be all business is "big" business and it's OK to hurt them. Of course you get to define "big" as well so anyone that isn't successful you can define them as "small" and anyone who is successful as "big".
You're not as bad as Iceaura but "you guys" have to argue that there is only one "correct" point of view. Anyone who disagrees is a "wingnut", "tribe", etc.
Having a bigger government involvement in jobs is a legitimate point of view as is not doing that.
Right here: "Let's face it. You are arguing that the government should provide all/most jobs." That is a strawman. I never said it. You have imagined I did so you can argue against it.
Depends on what the government involvement is.
Research that helps solar panel manufacturers build better PV cells? You bet that bigger government involvement will help businesses.
Don't be so literal. I am implying that is what your viewpoint is implying.
I didn't say no government involvement in anything. You like your discussions "black and white" it seems. Neat and tidy.
Can we at least agree that most small business owners do not become "rich"? They make an okay living, have a nice house (which they periodically re-mortgage to bail the business out of some setback) probably drive a nice car, pay for a decent health insurance policy, maybe send a kid or two to university. But they do not have private jets and golf courses or 58-68-storey towers.
Unless "small" means a restaurant chain or casino empire....
Separate names with a comma.