asian_roger
Well-Known Member
How about we just let the economy fall apart so we can finally have real life Death Race and Hunger Games? We can even revert back to a crazy society like in The Giver. YAY!!!!!!!!
How about we just let the economy fall apart so we can finally have real life Death Race and Hunger Games? We can even revert back to a crazy society like in The Giver. YAY!!!!!!!!
So how does massive unemployment and the resulting decimation of tax revenues , not to mention increased unemployment payments and other transfer payments from government to unemployed, REDUCE the risk of USA bankruptcy?
I am not familiar with the above movies. Were the chicks attractive, plentiful, and passionate? If so, I am in too.
not bad , not bad at all.... but the guy girl ratio is very important.... ideally , all the heros and and zeros kill each other, leaving cowards like me to comfort multiple grateful women in these emotional times of change and loss
not bad , not bad at all.... but the guy girl ratio is very important.... ideally , all the heros and and zeros kill each other, leaving cowards like me to comfort multiple grateful women in these emotional times of change and loss
I'll address the bolded part first. This is where Franklin and I disagree.
One of the oldest criticisms of Marx focuses on his teleology (in short, that capitalism is a [necessary] stage in a progression that leads to communism). Here, human agency and contingency in general is radically reduced to the progression of a machinic interlocking of forces of which we are never more than a mere function, and this progression has a destiny of sorts. Scholars were right to critique this (even though, as I argue in some of my writing, these critiques have gone way too far). With Franklin, we have a sort of inverted Marxism, where instead of the collapse of capitalism, we finally get the promises that it has promised all along. There is a laundry list of examples that demonstrate that this so-called increasing civility and reduction of poverty on a global scale is, in a word, wrong; and, wherever this might apply, it is not civility and development in some transcendentally good sense, but always "civility" and "development" with respect to the laws and processes which bring people and places into the global market -- an articulation which ALWAYS causes displacement, environmental transformation (which is sometimes catastrophic), loss of diverse ways of understanding the world, new zones of poverty, etc. (off the top of my head, look at Northern Australia, Papua New Guinea, lots of Africa, parts of India, etc.).
Next, the blue text:
While this might be loosely true across history, it has been particularly true in the States and governments of monotheistic and apocalyptic people. As soon as Christianity and Islam are adapted into the ideology of expansive empires, this dialectical way of seeing the world goes into hyperdrive. This is a long discussion, but, trust me, this apocalyptic thinking is at the very foundation of theories of life and rights, despite the fact that many know this to be contrary to evolutionary theories of life and a more kind ethics. This is the beginning of the discussion as to why I try to scrub Christian moralizing from my ethics. Paradoxically, I regard it as unethical or "immoral" (if I have to use that term for the sake of conversation). Contrary to what Spazz thinks, I'm deeply indebted to ethics and spirituality, but just on different terms. (If I appear to be a dick around here, it's only because this place allows me to be rough and sharp with my language, where most of the time I have to be overly-explanatory and pedagogical... that gets tiring).
This is already too long, so I won't launch into my own positive political program.
Thanks again to Franklin for sharing.
Because if you raise the taxes high enough on the people that still have jobs and especially the rich people, the government can recoup the amount they had budgeted. This is important because the more we bring in as a government for taxes, the more we can borrow. Oh, we don't want to reduce the risk of USA bankruptcy... what are you crazy? What we need are more government programs from more tax money for as long as it takes to go bankrupt. We are already morally bankrupt, why not finish it up and be financially bankrupt as well.
You seem to have completely disregarded the Joseph Smith quotes I provided earlier. Did you consider the implications of what he was calling for?
All that stuff added up to a cup of coffee per person...
I would agree with eliminating most of them.
Most of them did create jobs.
Many of them did have some public benefit,
but I agree money could be spent more intelligently
That's what I've been talking about. Fix that stuff before asking me to pay more taxes.
Big middle finger up until then.
The "waste" doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as the corruption. There's a company building a sequestration plant down in Louisiana with American Recovery & Reinvestment Act funds with the express purpose of providing EOR medium to the oil industry. It's basically a subsidy for big oil (thanks Obama) & this company will skim a nice fee off the top. I'll also benefit from owning the stock & will likely never pay taxes on any of this, nor will the company due to some strategically placed accounting maneuvers.
This is the main reason I'm all for higher taxes. This stuff needs to be balanced out.
That's what I've been talking about. Fix that stuff before asking me to pay more taxes
You don't really believe that weas a fair assessment of the expenditures, do you?
For example, regarding the scientific studies, depending on the year only 25-50% of studies presented to the NSF/NIH get funded. Do you really think they waste money on stuff that's not important?