It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The end of the Conservative movement?

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nwtrucker

So, you're implying that you know better than the author of the book who has decades of personal experience interviewing Wall Streeters?

Dude. It's NPR - National Public Radio. Intelligent stuff. Equivalent to TEDtalks. Refusing to read it or check on links is rather, erm, stubborn and reeks of self-righteous superiority. I didn't write the book. The woman is a managing editor at TIME magazine. How you know better than her is the question, therefore....

it's beneath you to read a book or listen to a brief intellectual treatment of the topic?

Shame.


NPR. TEDtalks. Time. Oh and an interviewer.

sigh.

Theoretical does not equate to practical.

Just because it looks good on paper does not mean it works. Time and time again, practical experience beats thought experiments and intellectual conjecture.




posted on May, 28 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
No, we understand basic economics and know that such a system is not sustainable. And by the time such a system inevitably self-destructs, the populace would be too weak-minded and low-skilled to do anything about it.

And then what?

Sounds like you forgot the punchline.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
No, we understand basic economics and know that such a system is not sustainable. And by the time such a system inevitably self-destructs, the populace would be too weak-minded and low-skilled to do anything about it.

And then what?

Sounds like you forgot the punchline.



Doesn't really need one.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Doesn't really need one.

Well if what you say was to happen and nothing really comes of that situation then who cares.



posted on May, 28 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Bro, you are losing me. First, you posted 'Germany', not East Germany. The only thing that the East improved on was walls, internal security and interrogation techniques. Lada Vs Porsche.....LOL.


Stop quoting textbooks and LOOK....



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan


Bro, you are losing me. First, you posted 'Germany', not East Germany. The only thing that the East improved on was walls, internal security and interrogation techniques. Lada Vs Porsche.....LOL.


Stop quoting textbooks and LOOK....



I figured the Germany I was referring to was obvious, my fault it wasn't clear.

East Germany however was critical to the USSR as they produced the best items. Even today you can buy equipment like refrigerators manufactured by them in the 50's that still work while western models fail after 10 years. It's due to the differences in design philosophy. When you have unstable supply lines quality and unchanging models become more important (fewer repairs, material to make repairs exist) become more important, when you have stable supply lines that leads to more waste when building because you can afford to do so.



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I feel like I should point out that Capitalism actively encourages low object lifespans and quantity over quality. A man whose fridge never breaks will need only buy one fridge, a man whose fridge breaks five times...



posted on May, 29 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


OK. That makes sense. Yet it's still stressing the exception that proves the rule, IMO.

As you pointed out, fridges didn't mitigate the need for a wall to keep their citizens from leaving due to the overall sheer destitution of East Germany over West Germany. The so-called great socialist system set West Germany back decades, financially, re-establishing infrastructure and the like in the east.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I know those sites and stations are just too grown-up for you. They do have Big words and Serious discussions that require actual thinking.
I get it.

Practical application is your venue? Is proof what you need?

Okay, I have that, too. If it makes it any easier:

KANSAS
edit on 5/30/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: typo



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
What do you people not get about the fact that your plan WILL NOT WORK?????
The Republican Party Must Answer for What It Did to Kansas and Louisiana


In 2010, the tea-party wave put Sam Brownback into the Sunflower State’s governor’s mansion and Republican majorities in both houses of its legislature. Together, they implemented the conservative movement’s blueprint for Utopia:




    They passed massive tax breaks for the wealthy and repealed all income taxes on more than 100,000 businesses.

    They tightened welfare requirements,

    privatized the delivery of Medicaid,

    cut $200 million from the education budget,

    eliminated four state agencies and 2,000 government employees.


In 2012, Brownback helped replace the few remaining moderate Republicans in the legislature with conservative true believers.

Those are The Dominionists, people! Ted Cruz & The True Believers. (They're a crap band.)

Mkay? So - he did it. The rest of the country was all "pfftt!! Go ahead!!!"

And then this happened:

The following January, after signing the largest tax cut in Kansas history, Brownback told the Wall Street Journal, “My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say,


'See, we've got a different way, and it works.' "




But it didn't. It doesn't. It hasn't. He tried it....so yes, here's to hoping that fantasy "conservative utopia" idea is dead.


edit on 5/30/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Fair enough...Now lets' look at Michigan and Detroit and tell about The democrat's raving successes...


Hence the purpose of this thread CENTRIST! That's what worked...hello?



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I get it.
I appreciate your shift in position. I've shifted mine as well.

Still, it is irksome when journalists [and/or members] who really ought to know better spread this crap around.

Thanks.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Fair enough...Now lets' look at Michigan and Detroit and tell about The democrat's raving successes...


Hence the purpose of this thread CENTRIST! That's what worked...hello?



Michigan is completely screwed. State problems, Detroit, Flint, and others. There's a lot of reasons a place can be screwed up though. The town I used to live in (another small town in Ohio, couple hours from where I am now) was just recently screwed up by fracking. It has a very right wing government and ultimately the blame goes all the way to Kasich. The town now has permanently undrinkable water due to fracking chemical contamination in the ground water.

Ultimately, I think the lesson here is that the states cannot be trusted. In my opinion they are the most dangerous government body. Local governments are too subordinate, they can impact a lot of random BS hoops a person has to jump through, but anything of real importance isn't within their power. State governments however can OK business, develop regulations, and all the rest but mostly go ignored by the people. Kansas, Michigan, Illinois... all irreversibly screwed up by state governments. California's budget crisis is another example, or ARRA funds to prove all 50 states are dirty... and now southern Ohio's/West Virginia's drinking water. Completely ruined by the states either doing too much or too little. For all of their power, there are a million federal oversight groups, and are the only election most people actually care about... they can't screw up too badly.

Right, left, center, I don't think any of it matters. Oversight on what does exist is what matters and the states just don't have that.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


You cite valid examples. Yet, there are states that are doing OK. By that, I mean not screwing up 'too' badly. Fairly decent, is one was to put it.

Yet when it's the federal gov't adding into the very examples you cite, then there's even more of the messes you describe...except it's nation-wide.

What you leave out is the concept of limited gov't. You, instead, propose more gov't-under the label of oversight- to fix the problems created by the gov'ts you distrust. There's quite an irony in that from my view of things.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I like sane government, sometimes that means larger sometimes that means smaller. More to the point though, sometimes a larger bureaucracy creates transparency. For example those who work on our nuclear arsenal, where part of the security procedures is complete transparency of everyone else involved. No one ever gets near a nuclear weapon without two other sets of eyes on them, and the person being watched is also watching the watchers.

That is the situation I want at all levels of government. Sometimes those are public eyes, others it's just others sharing the same job who make sure everything is on the up and up.

The states are dangerous because they exist in competition with each other (which justifies a lot of actions) with nearly no oversight and virtually unlimited power. That is a recipe for disaster.

Edit: One example of where this could be beneficially applied is to the justice system. Right now prosecutors have over 99% conviction rates, public defenders almost always lose their cases, and the entire system is overloaded to the point of breaking. With more oversight we can force the government to only have the resources to prosecute 1/5 the people it does now, those 20% of people get fair representation, and we can actually focus on the crimes that matter while striking many laws from the books because we can't enforce them.
edit on 30-5-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


Sane gov't. Yeah right.
. I wonder why the founding fathers didn't think of that....

State gov'ts aren't in competition with each other. It isn't a popularity contest. That is blatantly false. If it were true, then the federal gov't IS in competition with other nations... far more so than any state to state 'competition'.

Your 'transparency' has decreased as gov't has grown....

As far as the nukes go, we have zero say in any of it. Their size, the protocols, targeting, locations...completely outside any 'public' influence.

Justice? I commit a felony if I move or harm a CROW...another symptom of a malignant growth rate of gov't. Too many laws, 'regulations'. I can't even use a rain-barrel without paying for a permit otherwise it's a crime. Too much 'law' not 'not enough prosecutors'....


You fail to mention the craziness of the federal gov't. Less Transparency, less choice, less legislative input.

I begin to think we live on different planets.



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Sane gov't. Yeah right.
. I wonder why the founding fathers didn't think of that....


Because most of them loved the concept of big government. That's why the constitution gives Congress virtually unlimited power, and why the Bill of Rights further clarifies that to mean the feds have control over everything, the states have control over anything the feds don't want, and the ordinary person has control over very little.

By sane government I mean that agencies like the EPA and IRS need more funding and should be larger (though the EPA should focus on real violations... not a couple rain barrels). Others like the Department of Education, NSA, and TSA should be made smaller.


State gov'ts aren't in competition with each other. It isn't a popularity contest. That is blatantly false. If it were true, then the federal gov't IS in competition with other nations... far more so than any state to state 'competition'.


Yes they are. They are all in competition to attract jobs, the best business, the most educated people. To produce the best education, to have viable infrastructure, to have the highest quality of life, to be a good place to raise a family. States that do worse in these metrics attract fewer people to live in them (out of those who choose to move around). Some attempt to attract all of a niche audience like Texas or Kansas while others are more generalist.

Nations are also in competition with each other, but not in the way you think. National competitions have to do with one nation influencing the other. The concept of sovereignty has all nations existing as equal bodies rather than our states which are hierarchical from the best state to the worst. As a result, nations try to manipulate each others policies and attitudes instead. This is part of why we give so much foreign aid, it gives the US immense leverage with those nations. The US happens to have a high degree of leverage all over the world but other nations play similar games.



Your 'transparency' has decreased as gov't has grown....


Because we focus on efficiency, in my example someone whose trying to maximize costs (and typically brings a business mindset to government) would ask, why we're paying 3 people to do a job when only one person is actually doing it. It would be seen as a 2/3 savings in that particular department. Government isn't supposed to run that way though, the business it most closely resembles is a casino: Everyone is watching everyone else to keep things on the up and up, large amounts of money are cycled through the place, the occasional large jackpot is handed out, and security is the top priority followed by entertaining the masses.


Justice? I commit a felony if I move or harm a CROW...another symptom of a malignant growth rate of gov't. Too many laws, 'regulations'. I can't even use a rain-barrel without paying for a permit otherwise it's a crime. Too much 'law' not 'not enough prosecutors'....


If the justice system were giving everyone who goes into court proper due process they would never be able to prosecute or even fine you over something as trivial as that but when we have a system that's trying to operate on volume and bring in revenue through prison labor, money changes hands and things happen.

The most concise way to fix this (but not necessarily the best) would be to eliminate the concept of plea bargains because those are what generate volume convictions for the courts. It also helps that the concept of plea bargains are completely unconstitutional according to the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments. If the court had to actually spend 10 hours in trial for every single person, in addition to another 12? hours of trial prep, the system would solve itself since only major crimes would ever see trial. Everything else would eventually be made legal.
edit on 30-5-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I give up. I refrain from an honest, un-edited response. Unlimited power....pure bunk.


The gov't shall not....it's simple enough. Your spin typifies what's brought this country to it's knees.

In your 'example' of states being in competition with each other, no oversight
would change that aspect without draconian federal power. It's not a country I'd stay in whatsoever. I assure you, other than universities and the like, Washington is NOT in competition with Oregon. California is forcing business out of State. The people of Texas-excluding yourself, apparently- love the growth in business, jobs and surplus(?).

This Union will dissolve before your scenario comes about....if not worse.

Plea bargains? Really? You spew this stuff as if your reading it from some schoolbook.

Here's a basic lesson-sorry, no credits- there is almost no regulation, law, 'memo' that spews out of gov't that isn't in favor of some vested interest/agenda. Period. Gov't has been purchased, lock, stock and barrel.

Less gov't, with exceptions, is the direction that will improve this lot. Certainly not the EPA or the IRS. My Gawd!!

You blow my mind, your so wrapped around your indoctrination/education you can't see what's going on around us. You know the Judicial system has nothing to do with justice and couldn't care less about it. you'd make more of those leaches. Oh, I forgot you did a year of law didn't you. You already know the fraud that branch is along with the rest...

I'm done with you. We ARE adversaries. sobeit




edit on 30-5-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I'm done with you. We ARE adversaries. sobeit

Oh noes, now how will bring balance to politics!



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I believe I hold a balanced view. We need gov't. I am willing to forgo 'some' of my 'right' views for the sake of agreement and a general centrist stance.

Unending gov't expansion is not among them.....



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join