1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI didn't defend Obama's continuation of Bush's policies and don't.
If you want to see the result of your political views put into action vs the result of conservative views put into action, look at Russia vs the US. Compare greater China to Hong Kong.
I find it predictable that your defense of Obama's continuation of Bush policies is that Obama is a leftist who will put forth a version of this society closer to the way you'd like to see things. It is a pathetic attempt to side step the issue.
Before progressive reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the economic system was a mess. The issue isn't "socialism" v. "capitalism" but an unregulated system designed to profit a few v. sound policies meant to further economic growth by spreading income and wealth throughout the people.
The Great Recession of 2008 triggered by the collapse of the financial system due to deregulation should have illustrated this point clearly, but right wingers are in denial about the causes of it.
1 edit
I see nothing wrong with government regulation to prevent corruption. I guess that means that I'm not the kind of person you describe.
Now how about commenting on the present scandal, you know, the topic of the thread. Yes, this started under Bush, but it was continued by Obama.
Originally posted by EladarAs regards the NSA-Verizon issue, I agree with this statement from the ACLU:
I see nothing wrong with government regulation to prevent corruption. I guess that means that I'm not the kind of person you describe.
Now how about commenting on the present scandal, you know, the topic of the thread. Yes, this started under Bush, but it was continued by Obama.
"From a civil liberties perspective, the program could hardly be any more alarming. It’s a program in which some untold number of innocent people have been put under the constant surveillance of government agents," said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director. "It is beyond Orwellian, and it provides further evidence of the extent to which basic democratic rights are being surrendered in secret to the demands of unaccountable intelligence agencies."
The program was put in place under the Patriot Act’s Section 215, a controversial provision that authorizes the government to seek secret court orders for the production of "any tangible thing" relevant to a foreign-intelligence or terrorism investigation. Recipients of Section 215 orders, such as telecommunications companies, are prohibited from disclosing that they gave the government their customers’ records.
"Now that this unconstitutional surveillance effort has been revealed, the government should end it and disclose its full scope, and Congress should initiate a full investigation," said Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This disclosure also highlights the growing gap between the public’s and the government’s understandings of the many sweeping surveillance authorities enacted by Congress. Since 9/11, the government has increasingly classified and concealed not just facts, but the law itself. Such extreme secrecy is inconsistent with our democratic values of open government and accountability."
The first information about the government’s use of Section 215 was made public in response to Freedom of Information Act litigation filed by the ACLU 10 years ago. More recently, members of Congress have warned that the government has secretly interpreted Section 215 in a way that would shock Americans. In 2012, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.) wrote, “When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they are going to be stunned and they are going to be angry.”
In May 2011, shortly before Section 215 was scheduled to expire, the ACLU filed a new FOIA request in an effort to learn more about the “secret interpretation” to which Sens. Wyden and Udall had referred. Congress reauthorized Section 215 without amendment until 2015, and for the last two years, the government has refused to describe its secret interpretation. Whether or not the program described by The Guardian reflects that “secret interpretation,” today’s disclosure confirms that the government has interpreted Section 215 extraordinarily broadly.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/massive-nsa-phone-data-mining-operation-revealed
I think the Patriot Act should be repealed in its entirety; if there are any provisions worth saving there should be an open and public debate as to why they are justified.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe are in total agreement.
I think the Patriot Act should be repealed in its entirety; if there are any provisions worth saving there should be an open and public debate as to why they are justified.
Nice to see that you agree with me that our government needs to shrink!
Originally posted by no1marauder"The Great Recession of 2008 triggered by the collapse of the financial system due to deregulation should have illustrated this point clearly, but right wingers are in denial about the causes of it."
I didn't defend Obama's continuation of Bush's policies and don't.
Before progressive reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the economic system was a mess. The issue isn't "socialism" v. "capitalism" but an unregulated system designed to profit a few v. sound policies meant to further economic growth by spreading income a ...[text shortened]... illustrated this point clearly, but right wingers are in denial about the causes of it.
Repetition of this myth doesn't make it any truer.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Before progressive reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the economic system was a mess."
I didn't defend Obama's continuation of Bush's policies and don't.
Before progressive reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the economic system was a mess. The issue isn't "socialism" v. "capitalism" but an unregulated system designed to profit a few v. sound policies meant to further economic growth by spreading income a ...[text shortened]... illustrated this point clearly, but right wingers are in denial about the causes of it.
You mean like naked imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt? Or the eugenics movement?
"an unregulated system designed to profit a few" True, some individuals became wealthy, but they did so by providing products and services to the masses, that in many cases even the wealthy didn't enjoy before the industrial revolution. In short, most of the benefits of capitalism go to the consumers who get what they want.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignNo, like the abolition of child labor, improved health and sanitary conditions, etc. etc. etc. among many other improvements that capitalism in and of itself cannot provide.
"Before progressive reforms of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the economic system was a mess."
You mean like naked imperialism of Teddy Roosevelt? Or the eugenics movement?
"an unregulated system designed to profit a few" True, some individuals became wealthy, but they did so by providing products and services to the masses, that in . In short, most of the benefits of capitalism go to the consumers who get what they want.
The "consumers" in the laissez faire era by and large lived in squalor and poverty and died early due to disease and starvation. Read this and learn something: http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html
Originally posted by no1marauderSame old same old.
No, like the abolition of child labor, improved health and sanitary conditions, etc. etc. etc. among many other improvements that capitalism in and of itself cannot provide.
The "consumers" in the laissez faire era by and large lived in squalor and poverty and died early due to disease and starvation. Read this and learn something: http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html
No1 you can regulate all you like but if there's no prosperity there is going to be poor health, poor sanitary conditions and child labor. All the busybodies, control freaks and little hitlers ride in on the back of prosperity, they like to make out they had some hand in it but they don't create it
Originally posted by WajomaThere was prosperity for a few allowing and even prospering from such conditions. But if you want widespread economic prosperity it is necessary to move away from your religion of laissez faire.
Same old same old.
No1 you can regulate all you like but if there's no prosperity there is going to be poor health, poor sanitary conditions and child labor. All the busybodies, control freaks and little hitlers ride in on the back of prosperity, they like to make out they had some hand in it but they don't create it
Originally posted by WajomaI bet one creates prosperity best by banning all polluting manufacturing.
Same old same old.
No1 you can regulate all you like but if there's no prosperity there is going to be poor health, poor sanitary conditions and child labor. All the busybodies, control freaks and little hitlers ride in on the back of prosperity, they like to make out they had some hand in it but they don't create it
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTake all of government spending for things it has constitutional powers for divided by total government spending. If that number is not equal to one, then government is too big. The federal government is involved in way more than is is supposed to be so exact numbers are not necessary or even possible to get.
How do you measure the size of government?
Originally posted by joe beyserWho decides what constitutional powers it has?
Take all of government spending for things it has constitutional powers for divided by total government spending. If that number is not equal to one, then government is too big. The federal government is involved in way more than is is supposed to be so exact numbers are not necessary or even possible to get.