Can someone come up with an intelligent repsone to this insane comment towards me. I'm not nearly as smart as some of you guys out here and i would love to put this guy in his place. comment: "eah ron paul only wanted to cut Military 15%
Ron Paul cuts would have been the most vicious brutal cuts the world has ever seen. And they were to the epa, food stamps, medicaid, department of education a whole bunch of shit that is completely crazy to cut. 1 trillion of cuts in 1 year is record breaking austerity for any country that ever was on earth Ron Paul was gonna put Wallstreets depression on the backs of the poor and Middle class. I'm not making that up either."
Any response to this?
you mean like having a 5 oclock shadow at 5 oclock? i mean 1700. or not asking permission to purchase anything over 100$? or not picking up a piece of trash 100 yards away that you didnt see? or getting a haircut on a saturday and not on sunday? or growing a mustache to close to the regulation limit? or having dusty air vents? or the organization of my barracks room furniture is too personalized? or wearing proper civilian attire, but some dumbass that hasnt looked at the regs in 20 years deems it as unacceptable? or using the bathroom without telling every single person in the chain of command? ya its a blast.
Being a former Marine myself, I find it odd that a high percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs are not only ex-military but the largest represented group is the Marine Corps. Regardless of the failings of the Marine Corps itself, I think it's success is due to the type of mind and individual that it attracts. If you ask for the toughest, baddest, smartest, strong-willed, stubborn, etc. You get 'em.
I find it reassuring that we seem to have shown up here as well! :) We're still the same stubborn self-directed strong-willed badasses we thought we were when we went in, we've just seen the man behind the curtain. I find it refreshing that in the corps though there is an esprit de corps, a social/collectivist style "band of brothers" mentality, it's built off of a core individualist concept. "Every Marine is a rifleman first." You have a personal obligation to be highly skilled, highly motivated, highly trained in basic combat skills and in your specific profession. Not only don't you leave a man behind, you get your ass kicked if you're a buddy fucker! Leadership training focused on the dual responsibility of leadership, both to the missions before you and to the men upon which that missions success depended.
Cortes: So, yes it's going to fall on the backs of the poor and the middle class, in that they will suffer the most. How? I don't think there's any need to make that assertion. Doesn't most of the welfare state support the rich? Wouldn't it free the economy to encourage more efficient development of charity groups and networks promoting finance and sound investment for the poor? Wouldn't it relieve the massive tax burden and the regulatory ceiling in the job market that keeps the poor from prospering? The more I read stuff here the more I see a sound case to be made: that the poor and working class would be the best off, yet few writers here really take advantage of whats in their arguments to fully realize it. Cortes, I think we blithely run past true statements and allow them to be used as refutations instead of supporting us as they should. We concede the moral high ground when we should not. Accumulated wealth, regardless of the form it takes, can, in lean times, be used as a buffer to get one through to the next period of growth and expansion. During these lean times, the only way to make it through is to consume the stored up wealth, while the underlying causes correct themselves. We're all forced to make hard decisions about consumption, and rightly so. A poor man, a homeless man, will be at the mercy of those who have accumulated wealth. The three options are : make money by selling labor, get direct support through voluntary donations or charity, or steal wealth from others. Nothing changes those facts. If it is a lean time, and a man has no savings, those are the options. Instead we must come behind and demonstrate how the social ecosystem encouraged people to not save and to instead go into debt to consume. How the credit expansion and inflation encouraged malinvestment that must be reallocated in order to get the global economy into a healthy productive state. How specific interventions simply medicate the patient without curing the root cause. How those solutions basically allow the wealthy to temporarily avoid the losses inherent in the malinvestment, or to shift those losses onto the poorer members of society, further enlarging that segment. Of course the poor will feel the burden the most. Dammit, they already are, and that population is growing every day. The question is how long must this go on? How long before we perform the corrective surgery? The longer we engage in this capital destroying pseudo charity called wealth redistribution, the closer we get to the day these state apparatuses actually collapse and go bankrupt under the weight of their failed policies and interventions. On that day we will face massive epidemics of famine, crime, death, and disease. It will take decades if not a century to recover. That's the story that needs to be told. Not, the poor will be ok, if we just get government out of the way. They're not ok now, and it's going to either get worse rapidly or get worse slowly, and then get worse(much worse) just as rapidly. If we suffer the correction now, most of the poor and disadvantaged will survive right now. If we wait for massive government failure, the resulting correction will be much worse and far more deadly. The poor will grow and grow as long as government stays in the way, and the end result will be an almost total implosion of global society as we know it. A poor man looking for bread and water, and some basic medicine for his starving dying children, doesn't want to hear that government is making things worse. He needs someone to save the lives of his children. Sadly, the great thing about this interconnected world is that with things the way they are, some simple secession and deregulation political memes could rapidly reshape the entire socio-political ecosystem. It should be damn near impossible for micro-authoritarian regimes to survive and thrive in such a world. Part of me wonders if what we aren't seeing is the beginning of the end of large scale social democracies. Our "national" identities are becoming fractured, throught the growth of social media. We're realigning ourselves around causes and ideologies across borders. So, can we get through the death throes of these state entities without a global catastrophic armageddon? Please excuse my diatribe. My frustration is not with you Cortes. I'm becoming a bit agitated at the sheer ignorant depravity of modern political discussion. | Post Points: 5
So, yes it's going to fall on the backs of the poor and the middle class, in that they will suffer the most.
How? I don't think there's any need to make that assertion.
Doesn't most of the welfare state support the rich? Wouldn't it free the economy to encourage more efficient development of charity groups and networks promoting finance and sound investment for the poor? Wouldn't it relieve the massive tax burden and the regulatory ceiling in the job market that keeps the poor from prospering?
The more I read stuff here the more I see a sound case to be made: that the poor and working class would be the best off, yet few writers here really take advantage of whats in their arguments to fully realize it.
The economy would be better off. We're giving money to unproductive, useless people and organizations. We might as well flush the money down the toilet. "But they're consumers!" So what. They do not produce anything useful. You don't create a job just for the sake of a job. To paraphrase Peter Schiff, you want to create jobs that maximize labor productivity. All of those government employees will have to find real jobs in the private sector. They will have to worry about themselves and how to feed their families, not everyone else.