Presidential Election: 2012

[Sach]

Interesting. That's awfully arbitrary don't you think? The government exists to perform the will of the mob regardless of human rights?

You added the "regardless of human rights" part, not me. And only paranoia would suggest that socialism in government automatically infringes upon human rights.

Government was invented to protect rights

That is one facet of it, yes.

Interesting that you'd choose USC, a private university.

I didn't realize that, I just named a big college football team. And regardless, you completely missed my point, and it still stands as I will demonstrate...

Do you think the NFL, NBA or MLB need public funding? Professional sports are absolutely rolling in cash. The top 10 highest rated television broadcasts are all Superbowls (if I remember correctly).

Interesting, so those professional sports affiliations draw all of their players from their own respective youth programs... oh, wait. Where do they draft new players from?

Well, now we're getting into another realm altogether. I was talking about direct funding of the arts, not funding through a university. But regardless, I'm a firm believer that wherever possible research and study should find private funding. This is definitely possible with art as there are copious commercial outlets for artwork.

And I am pointing out that in our times the two often go hand in hand, as the artists themselves are as a majority directly linked to academia.

There is a popular notion among many artists that art is not "pure" or real if it's commercially funded or commercial in nature. Art is not the only place where this occurs. At the graduation ceremony of my wife's law school class, the speaker announced that many of the graduates were going on to serve in various pro-bono capacities and then said, as an afterthought, "Those of you who have taken a position at a law firm shouldn't feel that you need to apologize"... but the implication was that... well... you do. And the law you will practice is worse and inherently impure (and you are a bad person). Absolutely retarded.

That's an interesting opinion, however the dichotomy you discuss between 'pure' and superficial art has always been one of the driving forces behind its creation. It is innate to it's cultural relevance. One could study the analytical writings of musicologists on the subject of something like progressive rock to readily find this to be true, as one of many examples.

The art world should embrace and celebrate its commercial applications. That is, by the way, where the majority of artists and their various artworks live. The art world should be embarrassed that any part of it is begging for funding from the government (who take it from taxpayers by force). They should want government funding cut off and to be recognized as a real profession performing important work. Artwork is not a luxury provided to us by our government, it's an important service that we consumers crave and pay for directly.

Tell that to a composer who needs 6-12 months of working 8 hours a day to create a multimovement symphonic work. They need to eat in the meantime. This has literally been the case for some of my colleagues who have used the opportunities provided by artist colonies in this respect, and who have gone on to write works that have been nominated for Grammy awards. People underestimate the fact that many artists are extremely competent intellectually, as well as diligent. They aren't sitting in the artist colonies smoking dope all day and composing for 30 minutes before bed.

As are all professions. But Hollywood (for example) is weathering the storm better than many industries. If you want to be concerned for someone's job, art is not the place to start. You might look at manufacturing.

I have looked directly at manufacturing, and I will not support any political candidate who endorses overseas employment for this very reason. I also brought it up in my previous posts.

I like how you think that artistic expression is more valuable than materialistic expression. They're the same thing in different forms.

You must be joking. Parallels, yes, but not to be seriously considered as 'the same thing'.

After reading this post do you expect that I will defend these programs? Do you think for an instant that I will say "oh farming, that's different"? I've dedicated massive rants on GTPlanet to farm subsidies alone.

Excellent. I sincerely applaud you, sir.

 

[FoolKiller]

Secondly, this assumption completely ignores the blatant fact that societal control, especially on the global level, has been on a skyrocket course toward corporate ownership in the past 50 years. It's moving so fast that you're still stuck in Regan-era thinking, when in fact the time of that thinking has long past. The decline of the middle class is a direct result of corporate dominance. Our current society is not filled with endless innocent small-scale private entities as you would like to believe. Things are deluded and wasted just as much by corporate interests, especially when they have dismantled the competition (the small-scale people you seem to think have a real shot). As soon as corporate interests assume control over things necessary to a society they no longer have to strive against anything else to win over our dollars, or whatever is of interest to them. Quality of life/products/culture declines rapidly at this point, arguably well beyond the paranoid fears of what a socialist society would likewise produce.

1) It has been longer than 50 years.
2) If you actually research how it came to be this way you will find government behind it. Small entities can't get into the fields because regulators set the barriers to entry too high for anyone but the established corporations to continue. It is why you see things like Obama trash corporations then appoint Jeff Immelt to chair a committee. If you think the corporate interests and power are a problem you only have to blame the government, who you think should be doing the same thing to your precious arts.

The private interests in America are vastly non-American! Corporate (and quite frankly, Republican) interests are not invested in the American workforce.

Drop the party line rhetoric. You claim to be independent, yet ignore that Obama is equally guilty (as I just pointed out) or how much stimulus money Obama dumped into companies with executive family members in the administration or into special interests that are failing, and the only excuse they can give us is that China out-subsidized the competition.

They are not interested in a country that provides for itself.

Neither is the current US government.

They are interested in growing corporate, global monoliths that they can have their shares in at the expense of the middle class.

So is the current US government.

And the basic ignorance that is often shared by people who wish to do away with funding for the arts is that in today's society the arts exist vastly in the academic setting. If you slash funding for the arts, you essentially remove it from the schools, which removes it from America's future, while at the same time putting people out of work. If you remove the arts from a society, it will surely decline. Slashing funding for the arts is directly supporting unemployment.

Yet the private schools can still maintain the arts. Odd.

You should also keep in mind that many of us in this thread think government should also be out of the education business, as they do a pretty poor job of it, as you just explained.

How many of you would then abolish artist colonies and residencies? For example, when people submit an example of their work, show promise as an emerging artist, and are awarded a stipend to spend a summer focusing exclusively on their art, with no distractions, at an artist colony or residency? These aren't important to a society?

Does no one in these colonies manage to eventually make a significant amount of money, or come from money, that they can then share within their commune? Either they never make anything the public wants, or they cave in to the very greed you blame for making art a struggle. So, either their art means little to modern society or they are self-centered a-holes who don't care about the society and community they want to fund their early endeavors.

That said, I know a local glass blowing place, which has a storefront/gallery that sells the artists' work to the benefit of them all. It also offers classes, tours, and has rental resident properties in the upper floors. It is a business, not a colony.

When a university takes a funding cut, the first thing to go are the arts, and that means unemployment. Meanwhile the football coach gets a $200k increase...

Does a successful arts program bring in millions of dollars?

Really? Says who? Government exists to serve the purposes that its people decide it should.

So, tyranny of the majority? That never got anybody hurt.

But let's take that further. Why not remove mathematics? Why not remove social sciences, political sciences, etc.... and better yet the study of business from government funding? Because the arts are a part of academia, and funded by the state and federal governments the same as any other field you are hypocritically choosing to keep under the umbrella of governmental provision.

I suggest government gets out of the way of all of it. But a better question to you would be, if we preserve arts in a budget cut should we cut reading, math, writing, science? You want government to protect society to as large of a degree as possible. If something must be cut which will affect the least number of people? Will literacy have more of an effect on how easy people find it to eat or the arts?

It exists primarily in an academic context where it is pursued for intellectual reasons, not reasons of commercial value. If you cut funding for the arts you take people's jobs away, and you remove what remaining threads of academic and artistic culture this pathetic society has left.

Scientists of all forms would argue that their research is far more important, as culture is pointless if we all die due to something like disease. But hey, if we ever do have an actual pandemic at least we'll leave behind some great paintings of splatters on canvas and sculptures of dudes thinking.

If arts should not be funded by taxpayers, neither should business administration studies, cellular biology, sociology, etc., etc....

I agree.

I'm afraid you are again mistaken. Artists are struggling more than ever in today's society. Very few artists can survive on art alone, and that number dwindles exponentially when it is concerning artists who pursue art "for art's sake", rather than for a commercial endeavour (see the AA logo).

I am sure we can all agree that the economy is crap right now, unemployment rates are high, etc. EVERYONE is struggling more than ever right now. I was unexpectedly unemployed for about four months recently. Fortunately I never had to take a single dime from the government so I didn't steal a single bite from an artists' mouth in order to feed my two-year-old daughter. But then, I was prepared. In fact, I was able to keep my daughter in her in her weekly dance class and even pay the fees associated with her being in The Nutcracker. You know, the class paid for and operated by private funds.

But the question I have to wonder is, if all these other struggling people can survive off of general handouts funding, and eat, and cover rent, etc why do the artists need special funding to do the same thing they already have access to?

Again, art that is only allowed to survive based on commercial appeal.

Hey, I wish my brother-in-law's "acting" career would take off too, but that is primarily because I am tired of helping him email his demo reel, head shot, and resume twice a week because he was too focused on being a star to learn basic computer skills. But I have to give him credit because he managed to have a co-starring role in an independent film now available on DVD, just finished an independent zombie film, has completed a film that is being entered into Sundance, and is in the middle of filming another film, all while working a full-time job that pays rent, feeds him, pays for head shots, an agent, various film classes, and leaves him enough to save up to eventually move to LA.

Again, one example of poor artistic decision making does not speak for the national community of artists as a whole. It absolutely does not suffice as an accurate representation of the goings on of the diverse community of artists we have here.

So, who decides what is real art and what isn't? I find a piss jar as artistically appealing as splatters on a canvas or a piece of marble carved into an intricate shape. I would rather see stage performances and paintings that look like identifiable things. But then others like interpretive art. Some find poo on a canvas and piss in a jar to be art. Some find video games to be art. So, who gets the money and who gets the boot for poor artistic decision making?

Rubbish. I would like to see some data, please. Show me that corporations can't stay in business here due to taxes.

I can't say whether they can't stay in business or not, but I would guess they are more protected against fluctuations in the market by having thinsg set up in other countries.

And only paranoia would suggest that socialism in government automatically infringes upon human rights.

If property rights is a human right then it does by definition.

Tell that to a composer who needs 6-12 months of working 8 hours a day to create a multimovement symphonic work. They need to eat in the meantime. This has literally been the case for some of my colleagues who have used the opportunities provided by artist colonies in this respect, and who have gone on to write works that have been nominated for Grammy awards. People underestimate the fact that many artists are extremely competent intellectually, as well as diligent. They aren't sitting in the artist colonies smoking dope all day and composing for 30 minutes before bed.

I would like to point out again that there are entire families that use systems in place for everyone (a system I also don't approve of), so why do the artists need special funding?

And what the hell happened to those Grammy nominees' money? Or are they one of those nominees that make the audience say, "Who?" and for awards given off TV?

I have looked directly at manufacturing, and I will not support any political candidate who endorses overseas employment for this very reason.

Be sure to not just check their endorsements, but how they vote and who they support in the background. I am assuming that since Obama gave GE, the leader in outsourcing, so many deals and appointed their CEO to head a committee that you won't be voting for him either.

Hey, I hear Roseanne Barr is running. You can even vote for an artist.

 

[Sach]

1) It has been longer than 50 years.
2) If you actually research how it came to be this way you will find government behind it. Small entities can't get into the fields because regulators set the barriers to entry too high for anyone but the established corporations to continue. It is why you see things like Obama trash corporations then appoint Jeff Immelt to chair a committee. If you think the corporate interests and power are a problem you only have to blame the government, who you think should be doing the same thing to your precious arts.

Yes, I am aware. I find our government and history disgusting on many levels. I have only voted for a president once in my life. Admittedly, it was for Obama, after 8 years of everything Bush did. Otherwise, I don't trust any of them. The United States has become nothing more than a tit that corporate interests are sucking dry at the expense of its people.

Drop the party line rhetoric. You claim to be independent, yet ignore that Obama is equally guilty (as I just pointed out) or how much stimulus money Obama dumped into companies with executive family members in the administration or into special interests that are failing, and the only excuse they can give us is that China out-subsidized the competition.

I am independent.

Neither is the current US government.


So is the current US government.

Right, which is precisely why I find it absurd that all of these politically-active clowns are getting off on the fact that they are politically active.

Yet the private schools can still maintain the arts. Odd.

And only the wealthiest of families can send their children there. Great opportunity, wouldn't you say? Let's increase the separation of wealth even further.

You should also keep in mind that many of us in this thread think government should also be out of the education business, as they do a pretty poor job of it, as you just explained.

That's nice to say and everything, but the simple fact is that it's not ever going to be a legitimate possibility concerning some 400 million people within the same borders. People's hypocrisy concerning how they choose candidates over matters like this disgusts me.

Public transportation, sewage, trash, public schools, department of transportation, forestry, on and on. We live in a socialist economy right now, and have done so for years. I'm so tired of people talking out of their asses about this subject as if they are on some high moral road. It cannot be done through private entities, and it certainly can't be balanced. You eschew governmental control in favor of corporate monopolies? Are you so daft? Which is better?

Does no one in these colonies manage to eventually make a significant amount of money, or come from money, that they can then share within their commune? Either they never make anything the public wants, or they cave in to the very greed you blame for making art a struggle. So, either their art means little to modern society or they are self-centered a-holes who don't care about the society and community they want to fund their early endeavors.

Yes, the person I spoke of ended up making six figures from commissions alone last year, but they needed that opportunity as a starting point in the first place.

Does a successful arts program bring in millions of dollars?

I despise the pursuit of money and materialism as the ultimate ideology, so this doesn't mean anything to me.

Scientists of all forms would argue that their research is far more important, as culture is pointless if we all die due to something like disease. But hey, if we ever do have an actual pandemic at least we'll leave behind some great paintings of splatters on canvas and sculptures of dudes thinking.

Here is something you all are misunderstanding. I don't discredit the place of art in a society during times of economic struggle. It won't fix an economic situation, but it is still vitally important to a culture's identity, among other things. Why I bring it up as a focal point is again because in my line of work people are dropping like flies every time there is a cut to arts funding. Again, I consider these people in office who would shut down the entire US government simply to maintain tax breaks for their billionaire friends to be traitors. In truth they should be tried in court for this. Yet they say that we need to cut funding for the arts, which directly increases unemployment, puts more players out of the economic game, while they refuse to make even the slightest commitment to 'their country'.

This isn't their country. These people are the farthest thing from anything resembling patriotism. America is their investment, not their land of liberty. During the Regan era the wealthiest of the population paid some 35% more in taxes. Whether you want to accept it or not, we do live in a socialist society right now, and have done so for years, and that money is vitally necessary to the American people. These traitors see the middle class that built this nation as a means to a financial exploit, and I cannot stand for that.

But the question I have to wonder is, if all these other struggling people can survive off of general handouts funding, and eat, and cover rent, etc why do the artists need special funding to do the same thing they already have access to?

Again, you misunderstand what I'm suggesting. Funding for the arts allows a person a chance to get started. I'm not suggesting they should pay for someone to just paint jars of piss all day by the window in their free time. But it takes an initial push to make a name for yourself, and in the case of the artist it also takes an initial amount of time to build a portfolio to set out with. Artists value time greatly, and the funding is paying for a window of opportunity, not long term handout-sustenance.

So, who decides what is real art and what isn't? So, who gets the money and who gets the boot for poor artistic decision making?

Art is subjective. I'm not going to apologize to you for this fact.

I can't say whether they can't stay in business or not, but I would guess they are more protected against fluctuations in the market by having thinsg set up in other countries.

Let's be real here... GE is not going anywhere anytime soon, for example.

If property rights is a human right then it does by definition.

"If" being the operative word.

Hey, I hear Roseanne Barr is running. You can even vote for an artist.

Nice.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The bank wants to give me a student loan, because with that loan I get an education, a high-paying job, and therefore am able to put more money in the bank and acquire a line of credit with which I can buy a house...both myself and the bank benefit. But the government has priced the bank out of that market. Now the government benefits from my success while I'm forced to become ever more dependent on them, and I can't afford to have it any other way.

I do not see the point here, the government has made a commercial act, just like the bank would have done. If they made the right decision they will profit, what is the issue?

I do agree that there are issues, but the example above does not show it. The issues with the government is that they do not manage their investments transparently, they ask us a tax on carbon and use that to deliver a friends polluting tractors to Africa as kindness act, they invest in student loans and do not assure the return on the loan is correct, but transfer some income taxes to show it is profitable, ...
A government should be very clear on their budget.

Edit:

And only the wealthiest of families can send their children there. Great opportunity, wouldn't you say? Let's increase the separation of wealth even further.

Give an alternative system.
People with means (talent or money) will invest it in projects that will bring them desired effects.
People with no-means (no talent an no money) will be in misery.

What we are discussing is, can the state steal from the people with means to do what they want or are the people smart enough to invest themselves?
If the state proposes good projects, the people with means will choose to invest in it!

Edit:
Obama wants to introduce a minimum tax on overseas earning

 

[Keef]

I do not see the point here, the government has made a commercial act, just like the bank would have done. If they made the right decision they will profit, what is the issue?

The issue is that our government is not allowed to conduct business in the private market and is not allowed to profit. Those powers are not given to it anywhere in the Constitution.

The idea of our government acting like a business is an extremely dangerous one that can result in the government driving private business out of the market completely. Why? Simple - the government has the power to print its own money. That is how our government currently has more debt than that entire country has GDP (that's like having a negative bank account balance) and yet it is still "not bankrupt". They tackle this problem in the short-term by simply printing the money to pay the debt, but the long term effects are complete destruction of the currency's value which is yet another strain on the market and public, pushing businesses further out of the market and making the people more dependent on government welfare.

What you end up with is Soviet Union-style communism. You like communism? Because you just paved the road to it.

 

[Danoff]

only paranoia would suggest that socialism in government automatically infringes upon human rights.

It is inherent in socialism.

Socialism /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

Social ownership of private labor and its products violates property rights.

Interesting, so those professional sports affiliations draw all of their players from their own respective youth programs... oh, wait. Where do they draft new players from?

Does it matter? They make bazillions of dollars. They don't need handouts.

Tell that to a composer who needs 6-12 months of working 8 hours a day to create a multimovement symphonic work. They need to eat in the meantime.

The same is true of almost all professions. I'm an engineer by trade, and the project that I'm on right now is operating a plan that took over 3 years to build. I needed to eat in the meantime. Writers often take a long time writing their books, they need to eat in the meantime. Chemists working on the next pharmaceutical innovation need to eat in the meantime. There is nothing special about art in this respect. We all get money from the previous job, or an up-front contract (which comes from someone else who got money from a previous job) to fund us until the new product can turn a profit.

We all deal with this. Art is not a special industry. It is an industry like all industries, and one that the United States is particularly good at (we're not so good at manufacturing or manual labor anymore, but art we still excel at). It does artists and the art industry a disservice to view them as fragile and incapable of earning. Better to recognize it for the powerful, influential, and high profit economic force that it is.

You must be joking. Parallels, yes, but not to be seriously considered as 'the same thing'.

I'm not joking. Expression is expression.

 

[marchi]

I love watching clips of the republican debates. It's like watching the Labor party in Australia at the moment. Biggest f wit wins!

 

[Sach]

It is inherent in socialism.

Says you. Isn't that nice.

Social ownership of private labor and its products violates property rights.

I wish I made state wages.

Does it matter? They make bazillions of dollars. They don't need handouts.

Yes, it matters. Without players, no one makes a cent in the NBA. I see you've thought this through.

I'm not joking. Expression is expression.

Not really.

 

[Omnis]

Queen to E5.

 

[Dennisch]

Queen to E5.

Royal Flush. I win.

 

[Omnis]

Let's try to keep it more relevant in here please.

 

[Dennisch]

Let's try to keep it more relevant in here please.

I still won.

But this race remains the same. Non of the candidates have the goods to beat Obama.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, I am aware. I find our government and history disgusting on many levels. I have only voted for a president once in my life. Admittedly, it was for Obama, after 8 years of everything Bush did. Otherwise, I don't trust any of them. The United States has become nothing more than a tit that corporate interests are sucking dry at the expense of its people.

I am just asking this for clarification because I don't want to assume anything. You said you voted for Obama, and then say, "Otherwise, I don't trust any of them." Are you saying you trust Obama?

I am independent.

Doesn't change the fact that you added emphasis on Republicans for corporatism.

Right, which is precisely why I find it absurd that all of these politically-active clowns are getting off on the fact that they are politically active.

Is that directed at any member specifically or more toward the candidates or groups like the Tea Party and Move On? If you mean stuff like the Tea Party and Move On I agree. They are blindly hypocritical. But you will find that some of the more active members in this thread are being active because we seek an overall change from the two-party corporatists.

And only the wealthiest of families can send their children there. Great opportunity, wouldn't you say? Let's increase the separation of wealth even further.

Currently, I pay $150 a week for my daughter's daycare. That is $7,800 a year. When we started it was $175 a week, or $9,100 a year. There are private schools in the area that cost $3,000-$6,000 a year. Are they the highest ranking schools? No. Do they have better performance than our public schools? Yep. Do they use less money per student than the public schools? Yep.

See, there are already moderately affordable options. Keep in mind I am far from rich, and even managed to pay for daycare while unemployed for four months and not taking any government money from any other taxpayers. Granted, I know how to save and understand what an emergency fund is. But the point is that what I find affordable already exists. To think a free market wouldn't produce a discount level private school in a world of Walmarts and Dollar Stores is ignoring reality.

Often I see the same reaction you have when the idea of privatization is mentioned. But I just have to believe that is a result of people not actually looking into all the private school options out there. They are not just college expensive boarding schools where your kids come back with bad British accents and half a college degree. Most of them are moderately priced and aim for a college preparedness level of education. The bonus is that they don't take your kids' lunch away and you have more control over the actual education process, like you can choose a school that focuses on what you find important, like art.

That's nice to say and everything, but the simple fact is that it's not ever going to be a legitimate possibility concerning some 400 million people within the same borders. People's hypocrisy concerning how they choose candidates over matters like this disgusts me.

So you think a few hundred old white guys (and a handful of exceptions) can make the best education decisions for people in New York, as well as Appalachia, as well as the Bayou, as well as LA? I find it funny that anyone can think there is a single answer for everyone.

But hey, you keep pushing that Bush=style policy. Don't forget that education was primarily a state function until very recently. No Child Left Behind was the biggest change since states first started creating public schools 100 years ago.

Public transportation, sewage, trash, public schools, department of transportation, forestry, on and on. We live in a socialist economy right now, and have done so for years. I'm so tired of people talking out of their asses about this subject as if they are on some high moral road. It cannot be done through private entities, and it certainly can't be balanced. You eschew governmental control in favor of corporate monopolies? Are you so daft? Which is better?

The only monopolies that would exist in these fields are the ones that are there now, put in place and supported by the government.

Yes, the person I spoke of ended up making six figures from commissions alone last year, but they needed that opportunity as a starting point in the first place.

Awesome, so his colony doesn't need money now, right?

I despise the pursuit of money and materialism as the ultimate ideology, so this doesn't mean anything to me.

Then don't have jealous rants about arts not getting the money coaches do. Coaches bring it in, thus they get a larger portion of it. If you don't care to bring in materialistic things, don't complain when you don't get them handed to you.

Here is something you all are misunderstanding. I don't discredit the place of art in a society during times of economic struggle. It won't fix an economic situation, but it is still vitally important to a culture's identity, among other things. Why I bring it up as a focal point is again because in my line of work people are dropping like flies every time there is a cut to arts funding. Again, I consider these people in office who would shut down the entire US government simply to maintain tax breaks for their billionaire friends to be traitors. In truth they should be tried in court for this. Yet they say that we need to cut funding for the arts, which directly increases unemployment, puts more players out of the economic game, while they refuse to make even the slightest commitment to 'their country'.

No one in office is trying to shut down the US government to protect tax incentives for their rich friends. They are wanting giant government to keep giving their rich friends reasons to give them money.

During the Regan era the wealthiest of the population paid some 35% more in taxes. Whether you want to accept it or not, we do live in a socialist society right now, and have done so for years, and that money is vitally necessary to the American people. These traitors see the middle class that built this nation as a means to a financial exploit, and I cannot stand for that.

But how much did the rest pay? Right now 49.5% of them are paying nothing. Now, do they use services less than the rich?

But go ahead and hike it up just on one group. It's working in the UK really well.

Again, you misunderstand what I'm suggesting. Funding for the arts allows a person a chance to get started.

I fail to see how that is different from any other career.

Art is subjective. I'm not going to apologize to you for this fact.

So ultimately, if arts had ore funding someone would ultimately get screwed from within their own community.

Let's be real here... GE is not going anywhere anytime soon, for example.

Try shooting smaller. I don't know, maybe like companies that had to be bailed out.

"If" being the operative word.

If you don't believe it is then you won't mind if I make copies of your art and sell it as mine. You don't care about the pursuit of materialistic things anyway, right?

 

[Dapper]

To think a free market wouldn't produce a discount level private school in a world of Walmarts and Dollar Stores is ignoring reality.
...
But how much did the rest pay? Right now 49.5% of them are paying nothing.

So there are about 148,000,000 Americans receiving government assistance to shop at crap stores like Wal-Mart and you think they'll be able to afford schools without government assistance. Those people keep getting poorer, and they continue to receive more from the government each year. Notably, this is a trend that starts with supply-side-economics.

The thing is Sach makes more sense than you do. Not to be mean be you haven't been the paragon of fact checking and you're just as extreme as some of those you oppose.

First,
Second, I am extreme? I advocate policies that both political parties enforced and are proven to work. I don't see that as extreme. In my opinion, though, the people I oppose are extreme because they support ideas that have no foundation in reality. So, you are right in that regard.

And for fun-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zux-lGFRbqE

 

[Keef]

Says you. Isn't that nice.

Not understanding that socialism cannot exist without the violation of human rights is evidence of misunderstanding human rights and the definition of socialism. I'd suggest a trip to the Human Rights thread for a brush-up, and a dose of Wiki to straighten out your understanding of socialism.

 

[Villain]

But this race remains the same. Non of the candidates have the goods to beat Obama.

<------ Ding!

 

[Sach]

I am just asking this for clarification because I don't want to assume anything. You said you voted for Obama, and then say, "Otherwise, I don't trust any of them." Are you saying you trust Obama?

A helluva lot more than I ever trusted Bush, but not entirely. On certain issues I do believe he has genuinely tried to help. On the whole, all of politics are rubbish.

Doesn't change the fact that you added emphasis on Republicans for corporatism.

Why wouldn't I?

Are they the highest ranking schools? No. Do they have better performance than our public schools? Yep. Do they use less money per student than the public schools? Yep.

Only works though in fields where getting a job doesn't require school reputation. Arizona State might have a better jazz program than the University of North Texas, for example, but the UNT guy gets to the shortlist based on reputation, despite what the AS guy has done with his education.

To think a free market wouldn't produce a discount level private school in a world of Walmarts and Dollar Stores is ignoring reality.

There are plenty of discount level schools already, ones that don't get you anywhere in many fields.

So you think a few hundred old white guys (and a handful of exceptions) can make the best education decisions for people in New York, as well as Appalachia, as well as the Bayou, as well as LA? I find it funny that anyone can think there is a single answer for everyone.

I don't think there is a single answer, but I also don't think that things get done without social programs. Let's say 10 of us start a commune, none of us can single-handedly perform all of the tasks required for sustenance, so what is one of the first things you do, you delegate responsibilities. Socialism in this respect is innate to societal living, and is not infringing on human rights.

The only monopolies that would exist in these fields are the ones that are there now, put in place and supported by the government.

It doesn't have to be a literal-definition monopoly to be destructive, as corporations have proven. If you privatize, corporations will emerge, and the result will be no less destructive than if government provision had assumed the same level of administration. Why will that happen? Because of the separation of wealth that already exists. I have absolutely no chance of staring a corporation, but for others it can be done in no time and they can completely dominate the so-called 'free' market.

Then don't have jealous rants about arts not getting the money coaches do. Coaches bring it in, thus they get a larger portion of it. If you don't care to bring in materialistic things, don't complain when you don't get them handed to you.

This isn't jealousy. I care about being able to take care of myself. I care about what American society chooses to care about, and I care about the parties that are manipulating people into following what they want us to follow. It's that simple.

No one in office is trying to shut down the US government to protect tax incentives for their rich friends. They are wanting giant government to keep giving their rich friends reasons to give them money.

I guess you missed the whole 'averting government shutdown' in recent months, or the stalemates where Republicans refused to join in on beneficial legislation until they got their tax breaks extended. These men are traitors, and some here would vote for them when in fact they don't give a damn about any one of us outside of how they can use us.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Not understanding that socialism cannot exist without the violation of human rights is evidence of misunderstanding human rights and the definition of socialism. I'd suggest a trip to the Human Rights thread for a brush-up, and a dose of Wiki to straighten out your understanding of socialism.

So I did look up:

Socialism: is an economic system characterized by social ownership or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

I fail to see a human rights issue, but if you do, please bring it to the Human Rights thread. Basically "critics of capitalism" view capitalist systems as inherently exploitative, so they should bring it to Human Rights thread as well?

A socialist political philosophy in mixed systems like the US and Europe, generally means that they do believe that the government should impose some contributions to take some actions for the General Interest.

So does the state have to make harbors, airports and roads so I can ship my products for export, or do I have to do all of this? In Laissez-faire capitalism the state should stay out of it. So the whole world is quite socialistic IMHO. Why? Since it makes economical sense.

Now the tax Obama wants to raise on my work, I do not understand.

 

[Famine]

I fail to see a human rights issue

The only individual who controls an individual's efforts is the individual or whomever he's chosen to donate (for recompense or not) those efforts to - though he retains the control of withdrawing those efforts at any time. Forced social control of an individual's efforts is a violation of the right to self and the right to property - the individual is also preventing from withdrawing his efforts, which is a secondary violation of the same rights.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The only individual who controls an individual's efforts is the individual or whomever he's chosen to donate (for recompense or not) those efforts to - though he retains the control of withdrawing those efforts at any time. Forced social control of an individual's efforts is a violation of the right to self and the right to property - the individual is also preventing from withdrawing his efforts, which is a secondary violation of the same rights.

Agree, if socialist systems include Human Bodies in the means of production (and they did in the past), they are against Human Rights.

 

[Sach]

Forced social control of an individual's efforts is a violation of the right to self and the right to property

So what if it's not forced? If my 'property' is tax dollars, and someone uses them to build roads (control), which I am more than willing to offer them to, how has it infringed on my rights?

 

[Famine]

So what if it's not forced? If my 'property' is tax dollars, and someone uses them to build roads (control), which I am more than willing to offer them to, how has it infringed on my rights?

If you decide you want to withhold them - or if you're someone else who is not willing - what happens?

That'll be force then.

Socialism requires that force to function - it requires decisions on the value of and recompense for an individual's efforts to be made by someone other than the individual, or one individual can destroy the system.

 

[Sach]

If you decide you want to withhold them - or if you're someone else who is not willing - what happens?

That'll be force then.

Socialism requires that force to function - it requires decisions on the value of and recompense for an individual's efforts to be made by someone other than the individual, or one individual can destroy the system.

And what if a person is supportive of this stipulation under certain parameters? A system like socialism is built on the philosophy that it's everyone's responsibility to provide these things for the society (sounds vaguely familiar to our current system). Someone could be unwilling to do so for selfish reasons, and if they are denied what they want in that case it wouldn't be infringing on their rights, because no one gets to just break the law as it is. I don't get to stop paying taxes just because I want to ("it's my money", etc.).


Are current laws infringing on my "human right to go and kill someone"? People's rights are subjective. Some would believe they should be allowed to kill people. The point being that "what if I decide not to play the game...?" is a question that applies to any system.


And it's not like socialism is a system that can't be adjusted to compensate for people's situations. If the wealthiest can get tax breaks in our current system, why could we not choose to create a socialist society where breaks are given to those who justifiably need it as well?

 

[Famine]

And what if a person is supportive of this stipulation under certain parameters?

It's irrelevant whether they are are not - socialism robbing them of their right to decide this.

Someone could be unwilling to do so for selfish reasons, and if they are denied what they want in that case it wouldn't be infringing on their rights because no one gets to just break the law as it is.

Yes it would. Law != Rights. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

I don't get to stop paying taxes just because I want to ("it's my money", etc.).

Why? Because of force.

Are current laws infringing on my "human right to go and kill someone"?

You don't have that right. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

People's rights are subjective.

No they aren't. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

Some would believe they should be allowed to kill people.

Belief is irrelevant. They don't have that right. Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

The point being that "what if I decide not to play the game...?" is a question that applies to any system.

In a system that doesn't breach human rights, this is not an issue. In a system that does, forced breach of human rights is required to preserve the system.

And it's not like socialism is a system that can't be adjusted to compensate for people's situations. If the wealthiest can get tax breaks in our current system, why could we not choose to create a socialist society where breaks are given to those who justifiably need it as well?

None of which is relevant to the fact that socialism requires human rights breaches, by force, to exist as it is defined.

 

[Dennisch]

Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.


Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.



Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.



Please see the Human Rights thread as you have been directed.

What are you trying to say?

 

[FoolKiller]

A helluva lot more than I ever trusted Bush, but not entirely. On certain issues I do believe he has genuinely tried to help. On the whole, all of politics are rubbish.

Just checking, because I see two liars who just want to grow government and hand money to their corporate cronies.

Why wouldn't I?

Because if there is anything Obama has proven it is that corporatism is not a party-line issue.

Only works though in fields where getting a job doesn't require school reputation. Arizona State might have a better jazz program than the University of North Texas, for example, but the UNT guy gets to the shortlist based on reputation, despite what the AS guy has done with his education.

Because jazz is so important outside of a musical career? Are you complaining that the more affordable school is the one with a better music program? I thought you wanted things easier for the arts students.

There are plenty of discount level schools already, ones that don't get you anywhere in many fields.

So, it does seem like your worst case scenario would work like things do now. You have essentially just admitted that a privatized school system would, at worst, work like the public system does, only more efficiently.

I don't think there is a single answer, but I also don't think that things get done without social programs. Let's say 10 of us start a commune, none of us can single-handedly perform all of the tasks required for sustenance, so what is one of the first things you do, you delegate responsibilities. Socialism in this respect is innate to societal living, and is not infringing on human rights.

First of all, many farmers will disagree with your thoughts on how one cannot do everything necessary for sustenance. I actually know a few fully self-sustaining family farms. I have gotten chicken, rabbit, and eggs from them.

But to socialism respecting rights. You are saying that delegating jobs is equally as free as choosing what job you want to do? Do you know what forcing someone to do a job without their consent is known as? Assigning jobs is not freedom.

And what does any of this have to do with government education? Are you saying that you think we should make everyone learn the exact same and then assign careers? What does that do to all the people that want to go into the arts but get stuck in a factory? Capitalism allows talentless dancers to continue to pursue dancing, and musicians to pursue music. It is how Nickleback exists. Your idea of human rights would not allow anyone to pursue arts as they wish.

It doesn't have to be a literal-definition monopoly to be destructive, as corporations have proven. If you privatize, corporations will emerge, and the result will be no less destructive than if government provision had assumed the same level of administration. Why will that happen? Because of the separation of wealth that already exists. I have absolutely no chance of staring a corporation, but for others it can be done in no time and they can completely dominate the so-called 'free' market.

Do you know why you can't start a corporation? It can cost you millions just to get the government to approve your business plan. Want to build a new wing on your building? That will require 10 new permits that cost hundreds each, and you have to pay for each of the inspectors to come out and approve it. And if you don't pass the initial approvals you have to pay again and again. The expensive barriers to entry are put in place by the government to protect their corporate cronies. Without all the red tape you could actually get a business loan before you have to pay thousands or more to get the business plan legally approved.

Hell, the government red tape has become so bad that just dealing with the paperwork has become its own business with discount companies doing it online, through things like Legal Zoom. If you don't actually have any buildings to build or products to store you can start a corporation for about $100. Half the guys I worked with when my old employer went under are sitting on LinkedIn right now listed as the presidents and owners of their own LLC consulting firms so their work history doesn't have a blank. So, technically you can start a corporation right now, you just can't make anything, have a physical storefront, or make large amounts of money without first giving the government tons of money.

But actually make the market free and you can start selling anything you can make out of your home.

But for right now, you can't sell something as simple as milk without being raided by the federal government.

EDIT: I saw this after making my post. You also can't sell lemonade in your front yard without the government shutting you down.

But yeah, I can see how you might think you can't start a corporation when the government will kick your ass for trying. I just don't get why you think the government is trying to help you as they kick your door in with guns held up.

This isn't jealousy. I care about being able to take care of myself. I care about what American society chooses to care about, and I care about the parties that are manipulating people into following what they want us to follow. It's that simple.

You care about what American society chooses to care about? So then what is wrong with a coach getting seven figures? You put any kind of artistic performance on at the same time as a sports event and I guarantee that the sports event will have a bigger audience. And no one is manipulating me into cheering on my wildcats. I enjoy watching basketball. I enjoy playing basketball. I enjoy cheering for the team that represents my alma mater.

And hey, you should support sports. Without them half the band members wouldn't have an opportunity to study music because the marching band wouldn't exist. And I am including my marching band wife in this. She loved sports events because she got to perform. And because of her ability to play the clarinet in marching band she had the opportunity to learn the classical guitar, which she likes more but is not as talented at, on the side. And I could argue the same for some forms of dance and gymnastics.

I guess you missed the whole 'averting government shutdown' in recent months, or the stalemates where Republicans refused to join in on beneficial legislation until they got their tax breaks extended. These men are traitors, and some here would vote for them when in fact they don't give a damn about any one of us outside of how they can use us.

Well, some of us feel that extending further debt is a traitorous act, and increasing entitlement programs is more about keeping people reliant on the government and basically buying votes than it is about actually wanting to help anyone.




In other election news:

Did CNN's John King admit that Ron Paul is in second with delegates?





And for those who missed it (which is understandable considering no media reported on it) military veterans supporting Ron Paul held a rally in DC on Monday, February 20th, also known as President's Day.

 

[Villain]

Whoa.

 

[Sach]

Because jazz is so important outside of a musical career? Are you complaining that the more affordable school is the one with a better music program? I thought you wanted things easier for the arts students.

No, I'm complaining that even with a better education in something like jazz, one cannot get a job. Yes you can play gigs, (in fact, school is often not even the best education for a performing jazz musician, to be honest) but most musicians who go to school do it because they don't want to play in smoke-filled bars their whole life, working as private contractors, getting raped by taxes, and never having benefits of any kind. So these people go into education. My point is that even if a small private institution offers you a more concentrated, effective means of educating yourself than some big-name school, you are still more likely to get an education job from the other school offering a weaker education.

So, it does seem like your worst case scenario would work like things do now. You have essentially just admitted that a privatized school system would, at worst, work like the public system does, only more efficiently.

No, I didn't say that. It goes either way in both cases.

First of all, many farmers will disagree with your thoughts on how one cannot do everything necessary for sustenance. I actually know a few fully self-sustaining family farms. I have gotten chicken, rabbit, and eggs from them.

I never discussed self-sustenance in terms of farming. I come from a very poor family, in fact. My mother has always gotten by on a huge garden, chickens, and the lot.

But to socialism respecting rights. You are saying that delegating jobs is equally as free as choosing what job you want to do? Do you know what forcing someone to do a job without their consent is known as? Assigning jobs is not freedom.

You just reiterated the paranoia/generalization/stereotyping I'm talking about. Read what I've said about socialism as a working system. I never once proposed a system where anyone did anything against their will. I spoke of agreeing on jobs. Delegation can involve democratic agreement, believe it or not. You are speaking through a stereotype, not my own words.

Your idea of human rights would not allow anyone to pursue arts as they wish.

Please explain how.

Do you know why you can't start a corporation? It can cost you millions just to get the government to approve your business plan. Want to build a new wing on your building? That will require 10 new permits that cost hundreds each, and you have to pay for each of the inspectors to come out and approve it. And if you don't pass the initial approvals you have to pay again and again. The expensive barriers to entry are put in place by the government to protect their corporate cronies. Without all the red tape you could actually get a business loan before you have to pay thousands or more to get the business plan legally approved.

Um, that's exactly what I was saying. Yet if you go for the 'private entity' approach, corporations WILL emerge and dominate the market, because the red tape is not a problem for some.

I just don't get why you think the government is trying to help you as they kick your door in with guns held up.

Since when? I've never experienced anything remotely close to this.

You care about what American society chooses to care about? So then what is wrong with a coach getting seven figures?

Because it's an example of the dollar bill as the bottom line, although people are paying for it out of choice, yes I know. Forget the arts - science, mathematics, any of the social studies - they could all use a bigger piece of the pie to do something that benefits society a hell of a lot more that college football, for example. I disagree with our priorities and the way that we are manipulated into choosing them in many cases.

You put any kind of artistic performance on at the same time as a sports event and I guarantee that the sports event will have a bigger audience. And no one is manipulating me into cheering on my wildcats. I enjoy watching basketball. I enjoy playing basketball. I enjoy cheering for the team that represents my alma mater. And hey, you should support sports.

I am one of the biggest European football fans in this forum, even moreso than I am about motorsports. I played baseball from little league through varsity in high school as a freshman, junior legion and legion ball after that. I love sports, but I still think our priorities are wrong.

Without them half the band members wouldn't have an opportunity to study music because the marching band wouldn't exist.

Somewhat true. But they could still study music. People don't major in band performance, rather they are forced to do it in most cases. Music majors get one credit hour a semester for about 12 hours a week of band practice and performing at games, etc. It's not a good deal for those guys.

And I am including my marching band wife in this. She loved sports events because she got to perform. And because of her ability to play the clarinet in marching band she had the opportunity to learn the classical guitar, which she likes more but is not as talented at, on the side. And I could argue the same for some forms of dance and gymnastics.

Seriously, that's great. We need those people to fill in where they are inspired. Again, I'm not saying that nothing good comes of sports, but in terms of dollar amounts, just compare it to the usefulness of what sports bring to a society versus the many other sciences and academic pursuits.

Well, some of us feel that extending further debt is a traitorous act, and increasing entitlement programs is more about keeping people reliant on the government and basically buying votes than it is about actually wanting to help anyone.

I don't support these things either, and I understand those feelings completely.





I appreciate your willingness to actually have a discussion. Cheers.

 

[FoolKiller]

No, I'm complaining that even with a better education in something like jazz, one cannot get a job.

So you would have the money taken from a group that provides something society wants in large amounts to pay for them? Why is it anyone else's responsibility to pay for a jazz musician's quality of life?

Yes you can play gigs, (in fact, school is often not even the best education for a performing jazz musician, to be honest) but most musicians who go to school do it because they don't want to play in smoke-filled bars their whole life, working as private contractors, getting raped by taxes, and never having benefits of any kind.

Raped by taxes? I didn't know they were in the 50.5% that pays taxes even though they can't get a job.

So these people go into education. My point is that even if a small private institution offers you a more concentrated, effective means of educating yourself than some big-name school, you are still more likely to get an education job from the other school offering a weaker education.

It is simple; follow your passion or follow a path to more materialistic means.
Why ask society to pay if you choose your passion?

No, I didn't say that. It goes either way in both cases.

And private schools (at least at the pre-college levels) can do better than public while spending less money per student. You could see it in the test DC school voucher program. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10189 That is Obama trying to help, right there.

I never discussed self-sustenance in terms of farming.

No, but you mentioned it in regards to a commune. If they are self-sustained they have to have a farm. You said no one of them could do that on their own. I was pointing out that plenty do that.

I come from a very poor family, in fact. My mother has always gotten by on a huge garden, chickens, and the lot.

Cool story. I grew up in nowheresville Taylorsville, Kentucky where the local public school did not do college preperation because it was a farming community. I got into college on my own merit, got a job on my own merit, and was promoted every two years on my own merit. If you don't know what I am getting at: The "I grew up without opportunities" speech falls on deaf ears with me. I made my opportunities. I even made mistakes along the way, but I corrected my errors and kept going. And there are other things I had to overcome that more veteran members are well aware of.

You just reiterated the paranoia/generalization/stereotyping I'm talking about. Read what I've said about socialism as a working system. I never once proposed a system where anyone did anything against their will. I spoke of agreeing on jobs. Delegation can involve democratic agreement, believe it or not. You are speaking through a stereotype, not my own words.

So, say no one wants to do certain jobs, like shovel hog crap. How does that get dealt with?

Democratic agreement? Do you mean a vote? A vote, by definition has a loser. Someone will lose the vote.

Please explain how.

In an overall society where the goal is the benefit of society, not the satisfaction of the individual pursuit of happiness, the jobs that are not necessary to the functioning of society (stuff that keeps people alive) comes first and things that don't save lives come last. Are you going to tell me that ensuring everyone has equal access to everything leaves room for arts for all who wish to pursue it?

Um, that's exactly what I was saying. Yet if you go for the 'private entity' approach, corporations WILL emerge and dominate the market, because the red tape is not a problem for some.

A free market eliminates government interference. The problem is caused by the people you think are keeping things controlled. Government is the problem, not free market.

Since when? I've never experienced anything remotely close to this.

I gave an example of this happening within the year in the US. Or did you just skip over my link to the farmer getting raided by federal agents for the high crime of selling milk?

Did you also ignore the police shutting down the little girls' lemonade stand?

This is how the government, which you want to redistribute money, keeps people like you from starting a corporation and seeking success.

Because it's an example of the dollar bill as the bottom line, although people are paying for it out of choice, yes I know. Forget the arts - science, mathematics, any of the social studies - they could all use a bigger piece of the pie to do something that benefits society a hell of a lot more that college football, for example. I disagree with our priorities and the way that we are manipulated into choosing them in many cases.

So you care about what society cares about...right up until you disagree with their priorities?

I am one of the biggest European football fans in this forum, even moreso than I am about motorsports. I played baseball from little league through varsity in high school as a freshman, junior legion and legion ball after that. I love sports, but I still think our priorities are wrong.

Wait, you have moderate athletic ability? That is so unfair. You had an ufair advantage. Society should correct this.

Somewhat true. But they could still study music. People don't major in band performance, rather they are forced to do it in most cases. Music majors get one credit hour a semester for about 12 hours a week of band practice and performing at games, etc. It's not a good deal for those guys.

Try Kentucky. Music majors only had to be in a band performance group for one semester, got 3 hours per class, and their final projects were an individual performance. But my video and audio production courses required many hours in the studios producing and editing and the lab component was only one hour.

Seriously, that's great. We need those people to fill in where they are inspired. Again, I'm not saying that nothing good comes of sports, but in terms of dollar amounts, just compare it to the usefulness of what sports bring to a society versus the many other sciences and academic pursuits.

Let's compare it to how much they bring in. The earners receive the benefits (ignoring the unpaid players debate), what is wrong with that?

I don't support these things either, and I understand those feelings completely.

I'm confused. Either I misunderstood you or you said arguing against averting government shutdown was traitorous, but the debate was over increasing the debt ceiling. And the tax issues were about raising taxes on one group and not another in order to maintain entitlements instead of cutting spending.

I appreciate your willingness to actually have a discussion. Cheers.

The feeling is mutual. Far better than the one-liner trolling some others have done.





And here is another article about how Obama's crony capitalism (or crapitalism as Stossel calls it) led to just throwing US money away on bad companies due to favoritism. http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/23/serious-crapitalism

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Whoa.

Are you really surprised or is that sarcasm?