^^Wat??

Read the link I posted, Michigan has cut spending more than any other state. Why isn't it a libertarian utopia yet?

11/13/2011 10:20:42 AM

When the economy shrinks, the government needs to shrink fast enough to keep up. That Michigan has chronically not done so, makes it a problem of big government.

Government as a share of the Michigan economy has grown, not shrunk.

11/13/2011 2:54:42 PM

Thats not the graph I get when I go to that website. I think you included state AND local spending as a % of GDP. Detroit must be going crazy because this is what I keep getting


The cuts as a % of GDP aren't as big as I thought they were but it still shows state spending falling to almost 1992 levels

11/13/2011 8:38:53 PM

Pretty sure I read somewhere that Detroit has closed down like half of its public schools and majorly cut funding for police/firemen. So, I think that falls under gutting the government.

I think what I hate the most about some of you lipstick libertarians is that you refuse to acknowledge that the condition our country is in is not due to inflated government. It is due to the influence of corporate interests that have completely merged with the government. Mussolini had something funny to say about that, actually. The size of the government isn't the issue here. The issue is that the government and corporations are completely in bed with each other. How that isn't completely obvious to some people is beyond me.

Arguing about the size of government isn't even a relevant discussion until you can first establish that the government is looking out for the interests of its citizens.

Separate corporate interests and government first, and then you can argue about the most effective size/influence of government.

11/13/2011 8:53:11 PM

11/13/2011 9:09:23 PM

Terd, the red lines are estimates. No telling whether the cuts predicted will occur. As such, the best we can say is they are spending more as a percent of GDP than at any time in at least twenty years.

Quote :

"Separate corporate interests and government first, and then you can argue about the most effective size/influence of government."

And how do you suggest we do that? Elect more democrats so they can shovel more money and power to their favored corporate masters? You cannot separate money from power. The two seek each other out. However, if we abolished the size and power of the state, then the money interests will go elsewhere.

11/13/2011 11:25:51 PM

"go elsewhere"??

They will just grow more powerful.

The best solution is to intelligently analyze where the breakdowns and faults are and correct them.

This was harder to do 20 years ago, but with the pervasiveness of computers, this analysis can be done today.

11/13/2011 11:33:31 PM

Quote :

"And how do you suggest we do that? Elect more democrats so they can shovel more money and power to their favored corporate masters? You cannot separate money from power. The two seek each other out. However, if we abolished the size and power of the state, then the money interests will go elsewhere."

Electoral politics is mostly a sham. Thinking your vote in a national election makes a substantial difference is like thinking placing a bet on the Superbowl has an impact of the outcome of the game. The best way for the public to effectively bring about change is to educate themselves, organize, and collectively demand whatever it is they desire. I think the public has skipped the first step of education, but as the Occupy Movement continues to swell, steps two and three are definitely percolating.

You can separate money from power. But it requires a social/cultural evolution to address a glaring deficiency of values. WEB Dubois spoke of the talented tenth leading the rest into prominence. It seems to me (maybe just because I was watching There Will Be Blood recently) that we've largely acquiesced leadership over to the sociopathic tenth. People have been brainwashed into accepting the imminence of self-interest, the illusion of division, and the malnourishment of passive consumerism. This doesn't have to be a permanent sentence to our species, though.

What is isn't necessarily what will be. We have the Internet. We have slowly relaxing marijuana laws. We have psilocybin mushrooms. We have hope (and not the kind cynically co-opted by Pres. Obama).

11/14/2011 12:19:35 AM

How is getting high and watching youtube going to give me hope?

11/14/2011 12:52:52 AM

^^great post!!!

I agree with most of what you said wholeheartedly. I only really post using my pragmatic self on TWW because hyper-rationality and logic are all that seems to be really accepted here. Too much college for everyone I would guess -- or may be not enough lol. Regardless, prepare to be marginalized as a dirty hippie. Maybe we should start a new thread.

11/14/2011 10:14:28 AM

Quote :

"The best solution is to intelligently analyze where the breakdowns and faults are and correct them."

Already done. The breakdown is that the only check on the corruption of government is the public's outrage. We need another check, something that doesn't go to sleep for decades at a time. We need to pass an amendment to the constitution, such as allowing states to overrule federal legislation. Or, ballot initiatives to repeal federal legislation. Perhaps make supreme court justices appointed by state legislatures.

What are your ideas?

Quote :

""go elsewhere"?? They will just grow more powerful."

With no government to protect them from competition, their power will wither away.

[Edited on November 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/14/2011 10:30:08 AM

Yes, I'm sure when the rich folks leave they'll head for more harshly-regulated economies.

11/14/2011 10:49:15 AM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.93c1b5af9b6cb71a17bf389563809eb2.671&show_article=1

l'sigh

11/14/2011 1:38:56 PM

Quote :

"The breakdown is that the only check on the corruption of government is the public's outrage. We need another check, something that doesn't go to sleep for decades at a time. "

That falls on the media. It's their job to be a check on government and to be critical of government policies. The only problem is that they've been bought, so they don't cover issues that actually matter to Americans. And in the off chance they do, they're lambasted for being too "liberal."

11/14/2011 3:40:22 PM

Quote :

"How is getting high and watching youtube going to give me hope?"

George Carlin once described marijuana and psychedelics as values changing drugs. In my experience, he's totally right. I believe our cultural faces a crisis of values that certain substances could positively address.

The Internet is the most important invention since the printing press. The collection and distribution of information and the facilitation of communication were essential to the development of man. Short of technology enabling the mass linking of actual individual consciousnesses, the Internet is the greatest possible tool for enhancing knowledge and connection.

Also, on youtube you can learn than the government was responsible for the murder of Fred Hampton. And some other stuff, too.

11/14/2011 4:32:25 PM

Quote :

"The breakdown is that the only check on the corruption of government is the public's outrage"

Public outrage isn't even a "check". No matter how outraged Americans get, they still vote for one of the two established parties.

11/14/2011 5:53:57 PM

^Yes. And now you understand why I will only support the one candidate that has the gall to criticize the banking cartel. Every other candidate will not take aim at the institutions that own them.

11/14/2011 7:08:25 PM

Quote :

"[N]ow you understand why I will only support the one candidate that has the gall to criticize the banking cartel. Every other candidate will not take aim at the institutions that own them."

Serious question (no sarcasm): Which candidate is that?

11/14/2011 8:57:12 PM

http://tv.breitbart.com/thrill-is-gone-matthews-turns-on-obama-i-hear-stories-that-you-would-not-believe/

damn.

go get em chris matthews-

11/20/2011 8:47:37 PM

Quote :

"We need to pass an amendment to the constitution, such as allowing states to overrule federal legislation"

This would be a lolarious nightmare. We have the court system to handle legislation the states don't like.

Have you not been paying attention to the recent state gov. initiatives lately?

I can't see what makes ANYONE think that state governments are less corrupt, more stable, more efficient, or more intelligent than federal government.

more often than not, states are worse than the fed.

11/20/2011 9:32:53 PM

Insight: Lessons for U.S. from Canada's "basket case" moment
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/us-crisis-idUSTRE7AK0EP20111121

11/21/2011 6:20:02 PM

I give Obama a +1 for saying he would veto efforts to undo to automatic cuts.

11/21/2011 7:06:42 PM

i was about to post that-

oh well, another +1 here.

11/21/2011 7:11:20 PM

Quote :

"I can't see what makes ANYONE think that state governments are less corrupt, more stable, more efficient, or more intelligent than federal government. "

Crazy talk thinking that residents of NC who run for office might have a bit more understanding of NC needs (schools, health, roads, etc) than a politican from Oregon or a President that spents 3 total days in the state combined while running for office.

11/21/2011 9:08:15 PM

Quote :

"President Obama said he would veto any effort by lawmakers to repeal a requirement for $1 trillion in automatic spending cuts to be triggered after the Super Committee failed to agree on terms to save the country $1.2 trillion over a 10-year span. “There will be no easy off ramps on this one,” Obama said at an afternoon press conference where he laid blame squarely on Republicans who refused to bend in their defense of tax cuts for the wealthy during debt talks. “We need to keep the pressure up to compromise, not turn off the pressure.” He went on to promise that the deficit will be reduced by at least $2.2 trillion in the next decade “one way or another.” He included the roughly $1 trillion in cuts approved in August. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/21/clock-ticks-down-to-super-committee-failure/#ixzz1eP3ZkzWC"

Quote :

"Supercommittee’s failure pushes Bush tax cuts to forefront of 2012 campaign Text Size PrintE-mailReprints By Peter Wallsten, Published: November 20 The imminent failure of the congressional deficit “supercommittee,” which had a chance to settle the nation’s tax policy for the next decade, would thrust the much-contested Bush tax cuts into the forefront of next year’s presidential campaign. Those tax changes have repeatedly provoked fiery partisan debate since they were enacted during President George W. Bush’s first term. Now, with the cuts due to expire at the end of 2012 and their fate left unresolved by the supercommittee"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supercommittees-failure-pushes-bush-tax-cuts-to-forefront-of-2012-campaign/2011/11/20/gIQArIhFgN_story.html?wprss=

11/21/2011 11:00:12 PM

.

[Edited on November 22, 2011 at 12:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/22/2011 12:34:06 AM

11/24/2011 1:14:44 AM

Obama should declare martial law in light of the domestic OWS terrorists.

11/24/2011 1:33:53 AM

No need.

[Edited on November 24, 2011 at 1:35 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2011 1:34:42 AM

Quote :

""I can't see what makes ANYONE think that state governments are less corrupt, more stable, more efficient, or more intelligent than federal government."

It doesn't matter how corrupt or stupid they are, all that matters is that they are different. By dividing the power between them such that either level can check the other, they will block each others corruption. Federal laws that are not in the national interest will be repealed by the states and state laws that are not in the national interest will be overturned by the federal government.

11/24/2011 8:00:39 AM

dumb dumb dumb. There Has to be an ultimate authority. Can't have that vicious circle.

11/24/2011 8:05:55 AM

We need a king!

11/24/2011 8:57:10 AM

^^ the ultimate authority would be the American people.

11/24/2011 9:09:08 AM

The wise citizens of the great state of Alabama shall be my god.

11/24/2011 9:18:41 AM

oh look, smc hates

white people rednecks
hates conservatives
hates the military
hates heterosexuals
hates religion
hates capitalism
hates free markets
hates competition
hates corporations
hates caucasians
hates old people
hates police
hates republicans
hates marriage
hates consumers
hates producers

now there's a huge revelation

[Edited on November 24, 2011 at 9:58 AM. Reason : -]

11/24/2011 9:57:21 AM

Not yet, my pupil. You are not ready.

11/24/2011 10:01:56 AM

this sounds like crazy shit

Quote :

"Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing. But there is a way to stop this dangerous legislation. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly Congressional review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values. The solution is the Udall Amendment; a way for the Senate to say no to indefinite detention without charge or trial anywhere in the world where any president decides to use the military. Instead of simply going along with a bill that was drafted in secret and is being jammed through the Senate, the Udall Amendment deletes the provisions and sets up an orderly review of detention power. It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in."

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

can someone defend this potential measure as anything other than some crazy bullshit that will surely be used to target American citizens, maybe even used against the Occupy Movement?

11/25/2011 4:16:34 PM

Barack Obama on Medical Marijuana Raids, 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5FqsCpsoMY

No commentary needed.

11/25/2011 5:00:33 PM

Yes, commentary is most definitely needed

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-administration-medical-marijuana-crackdown-california_n_1033482.html

11/26/2011 9:26:04 AM

If the DoJ had any hand in it, Obama is responsible.

My guess is they are tacitly supporting this because it lets them say during the campaigning they were tough on drugs or something like that.

11/26/2011 12:22:59 PM

Quote :

"If the DoJ had any hand in it, Obama is responsible."

That line of reasoning does not agree with the current Administration's policies regarding anything.

The only thing for which the President feels he is responsible is improving his handicap.

11/27/2011 10:23:22 AM

Obama is generally good about taking responsibility for things.

11/27/2011 1:17:59 PM

Obama is generally good about taking dodging responsibility for things.

11/27/2011 1:29:26 PM

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/

laughable on so many levels-

11/28/2011 11:58:36 AM

Quote :

"All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."

The definition of the second defines the first. If the "second" are "lower-income voters," and the group being excluded are now "working class," then the first group mentioned must be...


...wait for it...

...The Rich?

Actually, they just sound like the OWS crowd.

I'd like to see him try to win with just those nut-jobs.

11/28/2011 6:13:25 PM

Let's put it in here, too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

11/28/2011 6:16:37 PM

11/29/2011 10:05:36 PM

Good! Fuck shale, offshore drilling and that pipeline. That's a major reason I voted for Obama.

11/29/2011 10:13:39 PM

haha. Do conservatives still seriously hate Obama? He's Mitt Romney's doppelganger.

11/29/2011 10:17:02 PM

^^^

you realize if Ron Paul had his way that pile would be much bigger?

if we hadn't bailed out the car companies and banks too, more ppl would be out of jobs.

if minimizing job losses are what you want, I'm not sure how you can be a Paul supporter, or any other political that would cut gov programs or research and defense spending.

11/30/2011 12:28:16 AM