PDA

View Full Version : My insight of the day.



llotter
09-16-2011, 09:57 AM
I suspect that is insight is not at all new to you smart folks but to me it was quite interesting.

Marx postulated that the need for a strong central government would gradually disappear as would that government itself as his Utopian concepts were implemented. However, as history shows, central planning is not as easy as he thought and the strong central governors were doomed to grow even stronger in a futile attempt to fix all of their prior failed plans. This is the gist of Heyak's last book, Fatal Conceit.

Now, as we view the problems of our rapidly declining country, it seems that we have fallen into the same quagmire as all those Communist dictators, eternally working ourselves deeper and deeper into one statist solution after another. The failures of central planning are so conspicuous that one is only left to wonder how they can be eternally overlooked. Maybe it is not totally overlooked but the potential for major damage of failed plans becomes so great that fixing it becomes more imparitive than ever.

The myth that comes to mind is Sisyphus but in this case, the boulder gets heavier with each attempt and the necessity of reaching the top becomes all the more urgent the heavier to becomes.

In my opinion, the only solution is to totally dismanle the Nanny State, including entitlements. Though it may well take a generation or two to root our all the weeds, merely implementing a clear and certain plan would have rapid positive benefits. We really have no choice but to get the federal government back to its constitutional limits or we are doomed, just like USSR.

Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 11:58 AM
What you are proposing will occasion such revolt in the people that we would need to be a police state for the next generation (or more) to accomplish what you think is best, and THEN, we'd have essentially a medieval or feudal system of landed gentry (the rich) as lords and the rest of us as peons with subsistence levels of income.

There was no large and prosperous middle class until after the New Deal and entitlements kicked in. Without those, there will not be any large and prosperous middle class in the future.

Why don't those who honor the Founders and the Constitution realize that they were wholly against any large standing armies, against foreign alliances, and no less than their reaction against the entitlement state, they would be still more stunned and aggrieved to find what kind of military presence we have all across the world in our 900 bases in 106 countries.

From wars, and the preparation for wars, comes debt, and from the debt, taxation, and the death of any republic that takes on such an imperial policy as we have.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

-- James Madison </div></div>

One cannot claim to be for small government, yet support the titanic spending we do on the military, at a rate equal to the rest of the world put together. This is really more a kind of government socialism to the private arms merchant sector than it is for our true national security interests, and then the other key driver is to allow our national corporations protections they do not merit, as they have no loyalty to this country or its people.

LWW
09-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Actually ... a thriving middle class across America never existed until after FDR.

A thriving middle class existed in the north of the USA even in pre Civil War days.

It never took hold in the south however because of the democratic party and it's desperate clinging to control of political power through first slavery, and then Jim Crow laws ... poll taxes ... segregated and unequal schools ... gun control ... the KKK ... and the welfare state.

llotter
09-16-2011, 01:24 PM
The solution I mentioned was really just an addendum to what I thought was an insightful perspective i.e. 1) Why the central government continued to grow and become more oppressive, just opposite of what Marx believed it would do, and 2) Why the repeated and conspicuous failure of central planning continues as though there was no failure at all. Mega-failures outnumber successes by 100 to 1, I'm sure.

Your response really re-enforces my point. The consequences of undoing previous failures are just too great to admit so we become forever stuck in the 'reform' mode...something I've heard since the 50's.

As far and the size and expense of the military, with the exception of a spurt at the beginning for the Reagan years thru '86, it has been shrinking steadily for the last 60 years. Of course, the military at least is THE major function of the federal government. While that function has been shrinking, the Nanny State that is no where to be found in the Constitution, has grown to about 60% of the entire federal budget.

The headline on Drudge today reflect a quote by NYC mayor, Bloomberg saying there will be riots if jobs don't start materializing. So, we need not wait for the Nanny State to initiate rioting, it is happening now by people who have never been weaned for their Nanny and believe they are 'entitled' to whatever resources they want. Maybe teaching some independence and self-responsibility should be the message of the day rather than welfare and irresponsibility.

Gayle in MD
09-16-2011, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you are proposing will occasion such revolt in the people that we would need to be a police state for the next generation (or more) to accomplish what you think is best, and THEN, we'd have essentially a medieval or feudal system of landed gentry (the rich) as lords and the rest of us as peons with subsistence levels of income.

There was no large and prosperous middle class until after the New Deal and entitlements kicked in. Without those, there will not be any large and prosperous middle class in the future.

Why don't those who honor the Founders and the Constitution realize that they were wholly against any large standing armies, against foreign alliances, and no less than their reaction against the entitlement state, they would be still more stunned and aggrieved to find what kind of military presence we have all across the world in our 900 bases in 106 countries.

From wars, and the preparation for wars, comes debt, and from the debt, taxation, and the death of any republic that takes on such an imperial policy as we have.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few.

-- James Madison </div></div>

One cannot claim to be for small government, yet support the titanic spending we do on the military, at a rate equal to the rest of the world put together. This is really more a kind of government socialism to the private arms merchant sector than it is for our true national security interests, and then the other key driver is to allow our national corporations protections they do not merit, as they have no loyalty to this country or its people. </div></div>

BRAVO! Excellent!
And here is a good example of the kind of profiteering that is destroying our economy, and redistributing wealth, under the auspices of National Security!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

As former director of the National Security Agency and former director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell is widely portrayed as an authoritative voice on cyberthreats. He has given interviews, published articles and testified to Congress, repeatedly warning the nation is unprepared for a cyberattack.

"The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing," McConnell wrote last year in the Washington Post.

But McConnell also has a financial stake in the matter: He is a vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting firm that has won hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to help protect government computer networks from the very danger he warns about.

Such intersecting interests are not uncommon in the opaque world of cybersecurity, where a small circle of influential experts often play dual roles.

To the public, they are depicted as former government officials whose careers in public service enable them to analyze the shadowy threats lurking in cyberspace. But some also have ties to cybersecurity companies -- a fact not always disclosed in the media -- and critics accuse them of over-inflating cyberthreats for their own commercial interests.

"If you hype it, money is going to get spent on cybersecurity and they're going to put themselves in the path of it," said Marcus Ranum, chief of security at Tenable Security, Inc. "They are the marketing arm of the cyber-industrial complex."
</div></div>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15...c1_lnk3%7C96202 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/former-government-officials-cybersecurity-boom_n_958790.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk3%7C96202)


G.

Gayle in MD
09-16-2011, 02:30 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html

cushioncrawler
09-16-2011, 04:17 PM
There iz no such thing az a good system -- or to put it another way stupid leaders will sink any system.
What u need mostly iz good pipple -- pipple like uncle adolf.
And a good system would help -- a system like uncle adolf's would be best at this moment, ie big huge giant gov.

But uncle sam would be ok if not for krappynomix -- uncle obama's fully funded wheelchair, or fully funded poizon -- its your choice.

Its going to make good tv -- i dont care what happens az long az i kan still watch american pickers.
mac.

Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 05:08 PM
As far and the size and expense of the military, with the exception of a spurt at the beginning for the Reagan years thru '86, it has been shrinking steadily for the last 60 years.

Except for where it almost tripled the last 10 years, you mean?

ROFL!

We're in an arms race where we've more than lapped the field, and to the point of our bankruptcy, following in the mythical path of the Soviet Union.

The DEFENSE of this country is indeed a duty of this government, but most of the full spectrum dominance and hegemonic policy of our military has nothing to do with national defense-- it's designed instead to dominate the world on behalf of our corporate 'persons' and to pad the bank accounts of the merchants of death (who find CREATING national security problems for the US to be very profitable indeed).

llotter
09-16-2011, 06:25 PM
You exaggerate a bit but have to admit that war has caused an modest increase but well below the historic level since the 50's.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_defense_100.png

Meanwhile, the Nanny State expenses were $2.3 trillion in 2010, a hundred billion more that total tax collections and nearly three times the military budget. That is 80 million checks per month in transfer payments, all undermining the the essence of Liberty, the essence of what was once America.

Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 06:44 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Defense&year=1950_2021&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=l&col=c&spending0=24.24_29.22_51.69_56.94_52.83_47.17_47.1 1_51.30_51.75_53.98_53.29_56.99_63.60_64.22_65.38_ 61.61_69.61_83.72_94.26_94.73_94.69_92.80_94.67_92 .83_98.43_110.19_114.47_121.62_130.94_143.72_167.8 8_193.59_221.55_246.57_268.88_295.19_313.86_320.40 _330.22_343.18_342.15_320.45_348.69_344.17_336.49_ 326.60_316.46_325.29_323.39_333.52_359.05_366.63_4 22.18_484.17_544.08_601.27_622.22_653.67_730.67_79 4.94_848.11_965.85_926.38_869.36_864.90_879.94_903 .32_0.00_0.00_0.00_0.00_0.00&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g_g_g_g_g_g_____

Qtec
09-16-2011, 10:36 PM
The US spends almost as much money on defence as all the other countries in the world combined.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-17-2011, 01:16 PM
Sorry, thought I'd edited out that failed attempt to put up a chart.

What the chart was supposed to show was that far from your claim of a declining defense budget, it has basically grown mountain-wise into a huge amount of money. Which it has-- basically tripling in the past 10 years.

Your chart shows the percentage of gdp that has been attributed to 'defense' as a line item of the budget. This is inaccurate for many reasons, starting with the fact that many defense expenditures are put into other cabinet level budgets. The VA wouldn't have its expenses except for the large numbers of military retired, the Dept. of Energy has all the nuclear sites used by the military for nuclear arms production, storage and treatment of nuclear wastes, the tritium-enhancements of nuclear blast yields, and more, all in ITS budget, and etc.

Moreover, what possible relation is there between gdp and our defense needs?

Assume in some past time that we determined all the national threats we faced, and the adequate amount of resources needed to counter them. If we suddenly had a doubling of gdp, this would not make our national threats any larger, but the same amount of money that was adequate for our needs (and was still adequate after our gdp doubled) would now supposedly show a 50% cut (in terms of share of gdp). Oh noes, should we then DOUBLE the military budget, to twice what is necessary, just to keep up the same gdp percentage? Of course not.

BTW, LWW has in the meantime conclusively shown that CARTER grew the defense budget much more than REAGAN (which see).