Political shitstorms are what Ubersite is all about (551 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.93 on 29 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by prophet (View user info) at 2006-11-02 14:06:54 EST
I wanted to put this in a comment, replying to Kaelic's post:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/95231
But it had too many words or something.
Whatever, I will be heard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 10:18:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
THANK YOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS
IT'S CALLED GOOD AND EVIL
YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD OF IT IN A BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE, FAGGOT
GO JET SKIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, okay, so some have posited that there can be no Good without Evil... Plotinus, for one, about 18 centuries ago... but I rather don't think that's what Kaelic's aiming at here.
The truth is, our society doesn't NEED crime... it has systems in place to ACCOMMODATE for it. Just like nobody NEEDS herpes, and the world would be a better place without them, but as long as we don't have a cure for the disease, there will be an industry that profits off of it. We need cops because people are flawed and selfish.
Humans make mistakes... mistakes like wasting all of our money on drugs or gambling or hookers. When we no longer have the resources to support our vices, if we are not in an environment that enables our destructive behaviors (read: living in Mom's basement and buying drugs with allowance money), we are often driven to burden others with our problems (read: smashing my car window on Christmas day and taking my $400 stereo, and I WILL find you one of these days, you jangly crackhead).
Some people don't play into that system- they legitimately work hard for their money and spend it on "appropriate" things- but they are still a PART of that system. They are still vulnerable to being stolen from, and there is still vice in the world... and I would dare venture that the vast majority of people who have legitimate jobs either make or spend some of their money in various illicit ways, be it garnering some extra cash by doing anything from corporate embezzlement to selling nickel bags on the corner, or spending extra cash on cigarettes, booze or "harder" drugs. If you don't fit into any extrapolation of that paradigm, congratulations, you're a saint or a robot. Or a robot saint. Or Saint Roboticus. Compute away.
Point being, your arguments- that Society NEEDS crime and that there is no foreseeable end to poverty as we understand it today- are both flawed. Society doesn't need crime to support all the policemen and bail bondsmen out there; you've got it backwards: Society needs all those policemen and bail bondsmen to address all the crime.
And as far as there being no foreseeable end to poverty, consider that if you are a young man (we'll say under 35 years old), you will probably experience in your lifetime a world where much of the simpler, blue-collar tasks, in fields like agriculture and sanitation, are taken care of by machines. If food is more cost-effective to produce, it will cost less money. If the streets can be cleaned at a fraction of the cost of paying a human being to do so, they will tend to be more clean. If better transportation systems are in place, and they cost less money as well, all goods and services will in turn cost less to render- thereby reducing the cost of living for the common man, and providing businesses with more profits, which they then in turn can redistribute back into the economy through wages and luxuries.
This is the "Trickle Down" effect which receives so much hype these days. As the cost of living decreases, the quality of life will increase, and the need for crime will diminish. Crime will, of course, still exist, but if everyone has more disposable income, including the government, we'll be looking at more funding for law enforcement (which means less corruption and better police), more funding for schools (which means more people in skilled jobs as opposed to menial labor), and more funding for public services like soup kitchens, section 8 housing, and government-sanctioned monthly hobo hunts for the townspeople. Then the city can hire OTHER hobos to clean up the corpses of the DEAD hobos, and the remaining, living hobos will no longer have to be homeless.
I don't entirely understand why there is so much disparity between "left-wing" and "right-wing" political sides on this subject, but I can only imagine is has to do with personal agendas. People who stand more to gain by denying that a Trickle Down effect exists (i.e. American Republicans, who will make more money if the government cuts taxes for the rich and for corporations in lieu of providing public services such as welfare, under a thin guise of self-righteous bullshit along the lines of "if we just give handouts they'll never learn") are more likely to ignore evidence in support of it, regardless of how weighty that evidence may be.
It's plainly obvious, though: Clinton may not have been perfect, but he put a lot of effort into social services and welfare reforms, and directed his administration on the basis of trickle-down economics. At the end of his eight years in office, we witnessed the largest financial surplus and economic boom in the history of the country.
Six years and over $300 Billion of wartime expenditures later, with a war hungry, corporate-oriented national administration in place, we face the largest national debt in over 50 years- following in the footsteps of Bush Sr., who increased the national debt by 66.3% in 8 short years, erasing 25 years of hard work in paying that debt off. With the decisions made by this administration, after blindly rejecting theories of trickle-down economics, we saw oil prices rise more than 200%, finally settling down to just over 60% higher than they were before Bush came into office... while at the same time, companies who supply the oil, such as BP, saw record profits.
As the oil prices (and consequently, costs of heating and transportation) increased, all goods and services began to cost more, the cost of living increased, the gap between rich and poor grew wider. And so, even though Clinton's administration was hugely successful in decreasing burglary-related crimes (down a whopping 18.5% - i.e. for every 100 people who got their car stolen in 1992, only 71.5 got theirs stolen in 2000) we now see those larceny statistics rising again, having gone up 7.5% from the year 2000 to the year 2005.
All of this is evidence for trickle-down economics, and all of it suggests that we DO in fact have the capacity to significantly reduce crime and increase the quality of life over the coming decades... so long as we have politicians in office who are willing to work for the PEOPLE, and not for the CORPORATIONS. Capitalism is great, but we pay politicians to meet the needs of the COMMON MAN. And unfortunately, the politicians we're electing right now have no concept of proper economics. They just deny factual evidence as if it doesn't exist... a concept that has become the mainstay of the Bush Administration in everything from global political climates and military strategy, to rescue efforts and proper dissemination of information for disasters like Katrina and September 11, and yes, with matters of the economy as well.
Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their ass. I don't hate Republicans (unless they're wealthy and evil)... and I don't hate my friends who vote right. But whether you want to see it or not, if you're supporting that agenda (and you don't have millions of dollars), you're only hurting yourself, and you DON'T have real facts... you've been lied to.
Ignorance is bliss, verdad?
User Reviews
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2007-01-22 20:08:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I read through the post one more time, and I have a sound suggestion- everywhere you see the phrase "Trickle Down Economics", just replace it in your head with the word "Snausages".
Trust me, the whole thing will make a lot more sense.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2007-01-22 20:04:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd just like to come back to this post and state, in retrospect, that I had absolutely NO idea what "Trickle Down Economics" were when I wrote it.
Furthermore, I still- to this day- have no idea what "Trickle Down Economics" means in a traditionalist sense.
All semantics aside, everything else I said in this post was and is 100% incontrovertible truth, not the least of which my comment regarding Saint Roboticus.
That is all.
Submitted by rennfahrer (user info) at 2006-11-03 13:24:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
A good response to a stupid post that veered sharply off course when you started to suggest that liberals are any better than conservatives...
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-03 07:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
https://icon.army.mil/
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-11-03 01:02:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
PROPHETIZE!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-11-03 01:02:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
GREAT! ANOTHER SOPHIST IN DA HOUSE!
I MISSED YOU, MY SWEET PEDAGOGUE!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2006-11-03 00:43:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-02 20:02:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
And Clinton balanced the budget by slashing the military by like 70%...cue 9/11.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The military doesn`t prevent terrorism; intelligence does.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-02 20:02:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And Clinton balanced the budget by slashing the military by like 70%...cue 9/11.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-11-02 20:01:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Actually, Reagan was the guy that coined the phrase trickle-down economics. Most republicans are die-hard believers in this.
Submitted by Von_Tristof (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:57:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Can't say I'm that into the trickle down effect. Galbraith said the economic trickle down effect is much like how food trickles down through a donkey. Guess what you end up with at the bottom.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:35:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"we pay politicians to meet the needs of the COMMON MAN"
_____________________
We pay politicians their tiny little $150k salary to represent the COMMON MAN. Corporations contribute MILLIONS to campaigns and probably a good bit more we never hear about. Why do Congressmen spend most of their time in their home districts instead of in Washington? They are looking for more money. You can bet that the COMMON MAN isn't paying the Congressman's bills.
Don't worry, when I become supreme leader, I'll disband congress. They are just a bunch of greedy paedos anyway. We'll get big savings and an end to pork-barrel spending. I think I'll keep the judicial branch though. Those robes are cool.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:34:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
UHOH
PLOT HOLE
Submitted by rillins (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:24:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What Loki said
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-11-02 16:14:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:57:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
you are WRONG my little friend, this
http://www.ubersite.com/m/66941
is what Ubersite's all about.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:57:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
you are WRONG my little friend, this
http://www.ubersite.com/m/94621
is what Ubersite's all about.
Submitted by freebie (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:34:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Have a +2 for all them words I didnt read
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:20:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're a bit off with your economic theory.
The thing about trickle down economics is that it looks good on paper. You make sure that those at the top, the ones running the corporations have the most capital possible in the belief that they will expand their operations thus providing more jobs and bringing along the lower sector. It doesn't really work though. In practice those at the top always want more so they don't really end up sharing the wealth.
The real answer for poverty is education. Not just education, but career counseling along with education.
I agree with the first part of this though. I imagine that even in a perfect world where everyone had everything they needed, there would still be crime because some people are just criminals.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:19:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-02 15:16:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:54:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
---
No I didn't finish reading it, when I did there were some serious errors.
I know you like to clap anyone on the back who says anything remotely against bush. I am sorry that I like a little more effort. Like understanding the economic policy you talk about for three paragraphs, or at least knowing which administrations supported it.
I may not be entertaining, but at least I am not an unentertaining dumbass like you.
---
Did you just go with the "I know I'm not but neither are you." burn?
haha.
Ok... THAT was entertaining. See? I knew you could do it.
As for the rest of yer stupid commentary - you only look like a fool when you categorize me like that. I think bush in an idiot - so do you. I actually applaud that you want more - and believe it or not I look forward to reading your inevitable devil's advocacy once I am able to mentally wipe the bile on whatever negative bullshit you barf out.
Seems to me that this 'prophet' character has a pretty sensational grip on the 'big picture' - a comprehension of which you so frustrating lack with your tunnel vision ignorance. To be fair, I did happen to notice a couple errant points myself - but over all I thought this was wonderfully written.
See, you can MAKE your points - I honestly enjoy them. I would just prefer to see a little less negativity coming from you.
Of course you can go on maintaining this whole 'I'm a negative asshole online but a nice person in >cough< real life' routine all you want... I'm just sayin' it's boring.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:58:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:48:26 (#)
Ranking: 1
GO JET SKIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:57:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i was going to make a post with almost these exact same points.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:54:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:44:21 (#)
Ranking: 2
Had a little breakdown there crankypants?
+2? WHAT? +2? I... can't.... be... agreeable.... must.....start......fight..... MAAAAHHHHH. derp.
You would be far more entertaining if you weren't consistently such an annoying little bitch.
--------------------------
No I didn't finish reading it, when I did there were some serious errors.
I know you like to clap anyone on the back who says anything remotely against bush. I am sorry that I like a little more effort. Like understanding the economic policy you talk about for three paragraphs, or at least knowing which administrations supported it.
I may not be entertaining, but at least I am not an unentertaining dumbass like you.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:48:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
GO JET SKIS WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:44:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:26:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
I think you need to review the economic policy from Reagan to Clinton. Clinton had nothing to do with trickle down.
Also there is a big difference between trickle down effect and trickle down economics.
---
Had a little breakdown there crankypants?
+2? WHAT? +2? I... can't.... be... agreeable.... must.....start......fight..... MAAAAHHHHH. derp.
You would be far more entertaining if you weren't consistently such an annoying little bitch.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:39:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
YES!
fuck yeah. You?
I like. A lot. Damn. Well said.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:26:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I think you need to review the economic policy from Reagan to Clinton. Clinton had nothing to do with trickle down.
Also there is a big difference between trickle down effect and trickle down economics.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:20:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you will find that republicans are more for "Trickle Down economics" or as democrats liked to accuse Reagan of, "reaganomics".
Submitted by foster (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:16:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
What's a herpe?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-02 14:16:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree in part with what you said.
I don't think improvements in social service is the only answer, and throwing money at the problem or taking too much care of the poor comes with its own set of problems, but at least this made sense.