America's Number One Problem

originally posted by: ipsedixit
Apparently, Shiite militia commanders and fighters in Iraq are asserting that they have seen American helicopters dropping supplies to ISIS positions. Webster, the academic historian, believes that the Saudis might be bribing some American military commanders "in theatre" and cites instances where bribes of officers or political disloyalty in the military have led troops to undermine the policies of the government they are supposed to be fighting for.

Personally, I think what is going on is that military officers in the Petraeus faction, who disagree with the Obama administration's tack on the question of Syria and ISIS, are, if the reports from the militia in Iraq are true, trying to keep ISIS alive in Iraq until after the next election, at which time, if Trump is elected, there will be a re-invasion of Iraq, "to oust ISIS."

I believe that Trump, if elected, will try to get US troops back into Iraq, to do what he says Bush and Obama did not do, i.e., "take the oil".

Hillary Clinton may very well do the same thing.

If this were accurate, wouldn't this be extremely illegal? Additionally, wouldn't this be the type of thing that Obama could stop simply by retiring the generals?

It's going to take a lot to make me believe a faction of the US military is committing treason on an ongoing basis (among other things) for the sake of getting their person into the White House.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
So no one should vote. Because they're all corrupt. Well, I promote a different type of voting, and it isn't with words. Key words: Tree of Liberty, blood of tyrants and patriots.

originally posted by: Aazadan

It's going to take a lot to make me believe a faction of the US military is committing treason on an ongoing basis (among other things) for the sake of getting their person into the White House.

We don't know that the story is true. The idea that the Iraqi militia people would tell that kind of lie is a little odd in the circumstances, also. They should have taken video.

But aren't you kind of doing what you accuse them of? Laying blame on the Big Problem?

Btw, we do not have Laissez faire economics. We have been living in a corporatist crony state for a long time now. People would actually know a free market if it bit them in the butt.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
America is taking tentative steps in the direction that the rest of the developed world took decades ago, the direction of socialism, not necessarily a "welfare state", but a hybrid system, like that of Canada, where there is a "social safety net" that catches those most in need of assistance, paying their medical bills for the most part and giving them enough money to stay above the poverty line, for the most part.

Technically we took the first steps towards Socialism in the 1930's. You also won't get many conservatives admitting this, but when America was supposedly "great", ie the largely considered golden years of American prosperity, America had a stronger Socialist net than we do now.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

When are you talking about the years of Coolidge?

a reply to: ketsuko

I've met very few people who talk about the 1920's (and easy credit spending) as the heyday of American exceptionalism. Usually they refer to the mid-1940's (post wwII) up through the mid-1960's (beginning of the hippie era) as that time frame.

Though if you feel that the 1920's were better, you must also have loved the 2000's easy credit decade as well right?

originally posted by: Tiamat384
a reply to: Teikiatsu
So no one should vote. Because they're all corrupt. Well, I promote a different type of voting, and it isn't with words. Key words: Tree of Liberty, blood of tyrants and patriots.

If that's what you promote, then why haven't you taken action yet? How can you say that's what you stand for if you peacefully stand aside hoping someone else makes the first move? Be the change you seek in the world, or admit that that's not what you really support.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
We don't know that the story is true. The idea that the Iraqi militia people would tell that kind of lie is a little odd in the circumstances, also. They should have taken video.

If this were happening I promise you they would have video.

actually-imoho
behind england ofcourse,
we have an obsession with invading people's personal boundaries- and try to justify being scared because they don't like their personal boundaries trod upon?

we invade each other's personal space like monkeys flinging poop at people at the zoo.

monkeys don't just automatically fling poop, someone first has to be invasive one way or the other?

if only our wants could be tamed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm talking about the boom years for business.

Of course, the years after WWII were not great thanks to the Social Safety net but in spite of it. Being the only developed economy in the world that wasn't bombed back to the stone age had something to do with it. There simply was no competition in other markets everywhere else had suffered intensely from the war.

Pretty easy to have a thriving economy when you more or less rebuilding the world and they have no other choice.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Btw, we do not have Laissez faire economics. We have been living in a corporatist crony state for a long time now. People would actually know a free market if it bit them in the butt.

I might be using the term incorrectly but my point is that America is where it is because of a system that allowed very few to accumulate too much. John D. Rockefeller was all for competition until he absorbed or ruined all of his competitors. Then he was for monopolies.

To me laissez faire capitalism means doing business without the hindrances of government regulation. That kind of thing leads to oligarchical control of the business and politics of a society.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes. That is something that people have forgotten about. The social history of America has a lot of twists and turns. In recent times the oligarchy has rolled back a lot of the gains made in the past and acted as if the history of the labor movement in the United States was completely unimportant.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ipsedixit

They should have taken video.

If this were happening I promise you they would have video.

I'm not so sure about that. We usually see video when they are detonating an IED or sniping at somebody. These are set piece events.

It's not the sort of thing I seek out, but I haven't seen much video shot from the ground of the Russians, or any of the coalition forces attacking ISIS. I'm sure there must be some because the strikes in some cases would involve ground coordination.

Slipping supplies in unexpectedly might be different. I would like to see video though.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I agree and Democratic Socialism could point us in that correct direction.

Democratic Socialism‬ DOES NOT do away with free markets. There's still money, still personal private property, still have the ability to get rich, still the possibility that you fall flat on your face if you don't work hard or just survive if you choose to do the menial or under valued. There would still be taxes to care for the incapable or people who for whatever reason are temporarily limited and to pay for government and infrastructure.

All information below can be found @ berniesanders.com...

There is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million Americans. The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country. This campaign is sending a message to the billionaire class: “you can’t have it all.”

You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.

Sen. Sanders has introduced legislation to end this absurdity, by lifting this cap so that everyone who makes over $250,000 a year pays the same percentage of their income into Social Security as the middle class and working families. This would not only extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years, but also bring in enough revenue to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments;

and lift more seniors out of poverty by increasing the minimum benefits paid to low-income seniors. Not only is this the right thing to do from a moral perspective, it is also what the vast majority of the American people want us to do. 61 percent of the American people support expanding Social Security benefits by lifting the cap on taxable income, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this year.

At a time when millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, even as virtually all of the new income in this country is going to the top one percent, Sen. Sanders’ legislation will begin to reduce the obscene level of income inequality in America. It’s time to expand Social Security to make sure that everyone in this country can retire with the dignity and respect they deserve.

One of every 9 bridges in our country is structurally deficient, and nearly a quarter are functionally obsolete. Almost one-third of our roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and more than 42 percent of all urban highways are congested. Transit systems across the country struggling to address deferred maintenance and 45% of American households lack any meaningful access to transit at all.

Senator Sanders’ Rebuild America Act would more than double the current level of funding for the highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund, and would create a National Infrastructure Bank to leverage private capital to finance more than $125 billion in new projects.

Much of our nation’s rail network is obsolete, even though our energy-efficient railroads move more freight than ever and Amtrak’s ridership has never been higher. While we debate the merits of high-speed rail, countries across Europe and Asia have gone ahead and built vast high-speed rail networks with trains that run at 125-200 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the Acela – Amtrak’s fastest train – travels at an average speed of just 65 miles per hour.

The Rebuild America Act will invest $75 billion to upgrade our passenger and freight rail lines, to move people and goods more quickly and efficiently. It’s time for America to catch up with the rest of the world.

a reply to: ipsedixit

No1: Guns
No2: Crazies

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm talking about the boom years for business.

Of course, the years after WWII were not great thanks to the Social Safety net but in spite of it. Being the only developed economy in the world that wasn't bombed back to the stone age had something to do with it. There simply was no competition in other markets everywhere else had suffered intensely from the war.

Pretty easy to have a thriving economy when you more or less rebuilding the world and they have no other choice.

Hey, whatever you want to rationalize to keep up with your beliefs. To me, I see it as evidence that Socialism can exist in a Capitalistic society and be successful. I'm sorry that you can't admit that.

oh if only there was one ultimate, most important problem that could be assessed and summed up for the public to gnaw on. I mean you can make the claim, but nah... the system is far too complex to distill it, try so damned hard many people do anyways.

we got think tanks, alphabet agents out the whazoo, blackswans still unfolding, nobody got a grasp in full. how bout this, the biggest problem is we think there's a biggest problem, or rather, that we believe a singular focus on a central problem could fix our woes. nope, not how this level of complexity works.

is this like a who's got the biggest dick type thing? how bout we work with however many dozens of problems we got, generally categorize them into orders of difficulty and impact, and throw resources at em all. the hell are we bickering about who's got the biggest dick? there's problems out there.

a reply to: ringdingdong

The old problem of "how to drain the swamp when you are up to your butt in alligators" looms large. Prioritizing must be done. Getting to the bottom of things is a must. Pretending that the root of it all is elsewhere is a non starter, but that is Trump's position. I believe it is Hillary's position too.

a reply to: ipsedixit

There's no root. There's systems interacting with systems, and too many relationships to possibly come at some one central root. Good intentions cause unexpected outcomes elsewhere. I think tweaking all around while assessing outcomes with feedback only way not to cause bigger mess. Nobody can effectively do this there's too much distribution of authority and lack of proper information flow. I think we need AI or some shiz, cause we seem to have reached the limits of what humans can do to govern their selves.

a reply to: ringdingdong

I think what you are advocating is what has been the norm for some time now, tweaking here and there with no overall sense of direction.

I do appreciate what you are saying. Turning the ship of state around requires a deft touch, but it also requires an overall sense of direction and that requires an understanding of the underlying causes of America's troubles.

Donald Trump is not going to supply any of that.

Bernie Sanders seems to have some notion of what is required, but doesn't seem to be able to gather more support than the Clinton political machine and even if elected, according to the Tax Wall Street Party, won't be able to get the tax dollars he will need to implement his plans.

The Tax Wall Street Party has lots of plans and ideas and a great taxing innovation, but almost no support at all. Why?

JFK said, "Those who make evolutionary change impossible make revolutionary change inevitable."