Um, I'm pretty sure it hasn't. Sure, the shuttle program is over but that doesn't mean the space program is over. There's still a lot of activity going on at both NASA and private companies. The shuttle program has been slated to come to an end since circa 2004. They're currently working on a new space vehicle that has potential to replace the shuttle, it's called the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Module. Furthermore, NASA plans to send two space probes to the moon to measure the gravity there. Don't forget SpaceX (kind of an interesting read here) and Virgin Galactic So, our interests in space aren't dead at all really, kind of a misconception I think. I may be wrong, sure, but looking at the evidence, it looks like it's really just begun.
Anyone who agrees with the current system can hardly be called reasonable or moderate. The current system is destroying our nation. If people are fine with that and would rather go down in fire than try a different, proven method, I don't know what else to say to them.
Thank you. I keep providing specific, real-world examples that show a direct correlation between increasing deregulation (meaning less government interference, which is precisely what you are calling for) and general asshole-ry from big business, and all you keep responding with are the same platitudes about how capitalism is some kind of panacea. Plus you keep pointing out all of the problems with government like I don't recognize them. I'm not saying the private sector is the problem and government is the solution. Rather, I'm saying both are problematic because they're both run by human beings who have an equal propensity for being greedy fucks. And to top it all off, you're calling anyone who disagrees with you brainwashed (I guess "sheeple" was a little too condescending). C'mon, man.
[video=youtube;UxPoURzProE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxPoURzProE[/video] File Paul into the "Republicans screaming Reagan" bin.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's how it works. I can't think of any real world examples of what you're talking about working. In a complete laissez-faire environment, monopolies started to form, like the big railroad companies and the oil companies that went completely unchallenged and extorted the populace because their power grew unchecked. How is a start-up company going to challenge a long established monopoly/oligarchy? It's like an ant verses a bear. If it becomes to be a threat to the large companies, they'll just buy the little company. Or if not, then they can pull an Apple and bully and sue the little company out of existence. Or if not that, they can pull a Microsoft and destroy them competitively using their established near-monopoly power that the little company would never have access to. And they could pull an 80's Nintendo and make it so that the third parties can only work with them and not the new competitor. It took government intervention, not capitalism, to get rid of the big monopolies of the late 1800's. The fact is that people just can't boycott everything because they need stuff to live. You can't boycott a monopoly in charge of all of the corn and rice, for example: you'd be cutting too many foods out of your diet. You'd just have to be content with giving up your freedoms instead and go along with it. I think then that a balance of powers between the public and the private sector is more appropriate, no? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and giving the private sector is just as bad, if not worse (due to the lack of checks and balances), than giving too much power to the public sector. Capitalism is like a track race. Done right, you create an environment where people strive to be the best, and in turn, they all become better and make innovations. Done wrong, and your racers will cheat in pursuit of their bottom line, and you'll lose the innovation and good it brings to everyone: they'll bring a gun and shoot at the other racers, take shortcuts, take steroids, and bribe the judges. What we have is businesses bribing politicians to make laws the favor them over other people, suing competitors out of existence by abusing the copyright, patent, and other laws (see: the reason Google acquired Motorola) that they themselves modified through lobbying, chasing their bottom line at the expense of everyone else, and then ask for bailouts when it all goes wrong. Why not punish the racers when they step out of line so we can get back to the point of the race? Of course the racers are going to complain when they are called out on a penalty, but that doesn't make getting rid of all penalties fair. I'm so tired of people treating some ideology like it was a magic silver bullet that magically makes every problem go away. Capitalism in its purest form obviously has problems, otherwise Karl Marx wouldn't have had much to complain about and bring about Communism. Communism in its purest form obviously has problems, otherwise Ayn Rand wouldn't have had much to complain about and bring about the idea of Objectivism. I'm starting to see a pattern here. I bet if somebody made a Libertarian government, i bet we would create a new internationally influential author making an alternative to that. How about, instead of subscribing to ideology and buzzwords like they were some kind of dogma, address real life problems without wearing lenses instead? How about iterating over our established ideologies, address their problems, and fixing them instead of defending it like an infallible magic bullet?
This. 100% capitalism is a disaster, as is the case in so many 3rd-World countries. I feel there should be a balance between both.
I'm not sure I fully endorse the new jobs plan, but the fact that we could get 800 billion dollars just by eliminating the Bush Tax cuts is astounding to me.
Wanna know how much we could save by cutting all the unnecessary wars, regulations, and bureaucracies? I don't want to give a number since it will probably be underestimated. It doesn't matter how much more we could gain from stealing income tax from people. It won't be enough money to sustain our government. Their scope is far too big to pay for. And Warren Buffett for president?
The way I see it, tax hikes are necessary to help pay for things that actually will help the economy/jobs. Where else is the money supposed to come from? And I agree that the military/wars should be cut too. There's another trillion or whatever dollars.
Except nothing that's been happening has been helping the economy or the job market. Income tax in general is just theft, though. Raise sales tax so it won't penalize people for investing what they rightfully earn.
On Obama, I'm really starting to think that the Democratic party and this country would be better off if somebody else ran instead in 2012. I don't dislike him but he's not getting much done and his methods of persuasion are laughable at times. Just saying "you all should pass this bill" 15 billion times isn't going to get Republicans to support the American Jobs Act. And when he says we should tax millionaires, he should explain it better rather than just saying "it's simple math."
The problem is that he doesn't have any explanations. He doesn't know what he's talking about. Neither do his economic advisers. And if the Democratic party wants to keep the white house, they really do need to pick another candidate. Obama is polling behind pretty much everyone in head to head matchups. He's in the 30%'s against Ron Paul, which is the worst numbers for him against Republican candidates. These polls don't mean everything, but they are an indication that people are waking up. I'm all for people believing whatever they want politically, but in this current state of our nation, we can't have a president like this. If he insists on spending more and more of our money, we need evidence that it's going to help. We can't keep taking the president's word for it. Show us the studies you did (if any) that says your stimulus plans are going to work. Have economists write out papers for us to see. If you can't do this, we can't keep letting you dig us into a deeper hole, because nothing you do will ever help long-term. We need a president who understands Austrian Economics and not the fallacy-driven Keynesian theories.
no idea what that means^ and no i dont because i cant, i dont even follow the news properly so yeah but that image cracks me up, felt like it excuse me then for being a total retard
CM, please don't use "retarded" as an synonym for stupid. We don't allow use of the word retarded to mean stupid like you did above out of respect for mentally handicapped people. Please refrain from doing that in the future.