The problem with the bailout is that being for it or against it are both somewhat indefensible positions. If you were for it, then you are favoring huge corporations that had stupid, greedy policies that nearly tanked the economy. If you were against it, then (like it or not) you were in favor of the economy tanking to a degree not seen since 1929, which would disproportionally hurt the non-wealthy. This should be the obvious clue to how much the game is rigged in their favor: the lesser evil was to bail them out and basically reward bad behavior, but at least fewer of the huddled masses were financially destroyed.
I remember an idea that was proposed that instead of bailing out those financial institutions we instead divided up the bailout money evenly and distributed it to all Americans equally, whatever damage the banks incurred would be offset by the economic boost of millions of Americans suddenly being able to pay off debts (so in a sense the banks are still getting the money), or at least being able to buy a new car or afford to go out to dinner once a week (so local businesses would get a boost.) Economics is a complicated field, and there could be unintended results, but I donât see how this idea didnât take hold on both sides of the aisle: if you are a Tea-Party Libertarian then you are basically getting your own money back from the federal government, if you are a quasi-socialist liberal then itâs a âbig government solutionâ that helps the lower classes equally.
Of course the overwhelming majority of people in congress are actually wealthy, and this idea would benefit them less (or not at all if they had investments in those big banks), so they would never favor it.
No â it doesnât, Itâs a meaningless graph with nonsensical axes (what units are these political ideals measured in? How are they meaningfully assessed? The axes could just as well be labeled âStrawberry<->Grapeâ and âMetal<->Punkâ).
The site is even sillier than the graph â the questions are designed that any attempt at social policy is considered âAuthoritarianâ â including providing health care and welfare! The only way to be considered non-authoritarian is to not give a damn about others, Ayn Rand style. No thanks.
Or say âFuck the government and capitalists, weâre taking control of our community and workplaces for the good of allâ.
The libertarian capitalists want you to think that they are the only libertarian choice. This is not true! What about Anarchist Catalonia in the 1930s, or the Zapatistas? They may not be perfect, but they exist!
I have been let down by the statists and the capitalists too many times. I say try something different.
Well it sure as shit isnât working now because the people put up to run have already be vetted to carry on the fuckery, since they have been paid off before they hit the gate.They are already the same people with name recognition, ârespected business menâ and the like, who are programed to perform for their overlords. Extreme may be the thing we need. By that, I mean something very different than either parties are offering. I think Arizona is fairly âout thereâ now, at least in contrast to other parts of the country.
Er, no. (1) Thereâs not a full-court press on to disarm the public; the NRA and its ilk are doing quite well keeping machines designed to kill humans in ordinary peopleâs hands. (2) Thereâs no reason for the federal government to disarm people of weapons that amount to spitball-shooters in comparison to the array of weaponry and disarming capabilities of local, state, and federal governments â do you honestly think that if a revolution started, ordinary people could shoot their way to a victory? Jesus Christ, dude, think about it.
Howâs that oligarch-serving propaganda taste? Seems like you really enjoy it!
The existence of some successful strivers does not negate the fact that most strivers are kept in place with a boot on their throats. In fact, letting a few succeed only helps to sell the cynical, sickening myth that anyone can succeed, if they just try hard enough. Never mind that most people do try with all their sweat and blood and guts and life, but still die sick, too young, and mostly unhappy. Keeping all the peasants focused on the possibility that âYou too could win the lottery!!â keeps the realities of life for most out of view.
Libertarians are not the only ones making this argument, though. Nader is hardly a libertarian, and thatâs been his core argument about American politics for years.
Iâm not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but in this case, I agree. Of course, on the surface, policies differ, especially along the lines of social policy, but I think the Dems have become fare more likely to champion right of center economic policies since the 90s. Remember that NAFTA and welfare reform were on Clintonâs watch, and the ACA is basically a republican plan. The Dems are not owed our votes just because they vote for progressive policies like gay marriage. Keep in mind that they have not really any sort of really progressive policies for decades.
Sorry to reply twice, but read What is Communist Anarchism? by Alexander Berkman for a view on how to be libertarian without being an objectivist sociopath. Things have moved on since it was written but it is a fairly good starting place.
I also understand that the Political Compass site is funded by an organisation run by Glenys Kinnock, former MEP and wife of the former UK Labour party leader Neil Kinnock, both of whom would be authoritarian on that scale.
Well, one way is to severely limit campaign financing by the public (in the form of direct contributions to the politicians) and then provide campaign financing directly from the governmentâs budget based on a fixed amount per vote received in the previous election.
Then, make it law that the broadcasters must carry political/campaign advertising at no charge - as a partial repayment for making so much profit off of the Commons. Yâknow, the airwaves.
You have to decide which is more important: profits or democracy. Then, once you decide, you can decide which policies are more important.
But I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Dems have moved to the right since the end of the Cold War, in regards to economic policies, which I think is at the root of these issues. At what point do we actually punish them by voting with our feet and supporting actually progressive candidates? They wonât enact policies we deem progressive unless we pressure them to do so. And we have the additional problem that the Dems get just as much corporate money as the republicans. I said elsewhere in this thread that itâs not just libertarians saying this.
If we donât hold their feet to the fire, no one will. As Alice Walker once said, âwe are the ones we have been waiting for.â
There is a minuscule difference. They are both captive to corporate money and economic neoliberalism, at least in terms of who really wields power in either party. The Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but not by much. Donât forget it was Clinton who ended Glass-Steagall and handed the economy over to Rubin. Itâs also the Democrats who passed so-called âwelfare reformâ and support the insane copyright regimes demanded by the entertainment business. And when they did manage to pass some kind of health care reform it consisted of yet another corporate-government partnership with the private insurance industry gaining out of the process.
âletting a few succeedâ Hmm, just how does this conspiracy theory of yours work? Some group of ******* (insert whatever group you think controls the world) has a teleconference and decides that the Lee family grocery down the street will be allowed to succeed while secret agents will be sent to thwart your dreams? Pray tell just who you think is conspiring to hold you back. This should be good.
