Rant about Libya and other DC bullshit

Dejavu

Quis custodiet ipsos cust
Adventurer
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
2,555
Age
42
Location
somewhere...
Main Job
Bard-Male
Secondary Job
Monk-Male
Third Job
Thief-Male
Server
Quetzalcoatl
FFXI
Dejavu
FFXIV
Won't play this game
Are you fucking kidding me what right or responsibility do we have to be "helping". Today we decided to shoot more than 112 cruise missiles into Libya and take out strategic targets officially getting us involved in our third useless conflict at the same time. Those missiles shot today cost 569,000 each meaning that we just tossed a minimum of 63million dollars at a problem that has no benefit let alone reason for the citizens of our own country. For some perspective 63 million dollars is 1% of that 6 billion in "deep spending cuts" the democrats proposed for the new budget.

That 6 billion in cuts is less than we spend in a single day and only 1.5 times what we borrow in a single day. How fucking hard is it to understand that the government is no different than a normal household. You have an income, It can go up or down depending on how well you are doing, you can borrow and spend more than you make but in the long term that will probably screw you because the interest will kill you. Of course the government does have that other option of turning on the printing press but oh god no we never do that... What do you mean that one of the main reasons for all of the unrest in the middle east is the price of food. Is it really true that one of the main reasons that the price of food is going up around the world is because there are just way too many dollars/euros out there in the world and the unfortunate countries that use foreign currencies are being screwed by those that can print them.

Putting more dollars in the game doesn't help anyone except those who are originally handed the dollars. Let me see if i can explain this in a way that everyone can understand. The economy is 100 people with 1000 items to buy and 10000 dollars in circulation. With this in mind the if each person had the same amount of money and intended to spend it on the price would be 10 each and every person would get 10 items. Now if the money supply doubled and again everyone got the same amount of money the price would be 20 each and each person would still get 2 items. But that is not the way inflation or the economy works. There are people with money and there are people without. Say of the 100 people you have 1 very wealthy 19 "middle class" and 80 getting by. That 10000 in circulation now each of the 80 getting by get 50 dollars, The 19 people in the middle class get 200 leaving the wealthy person with 2200. With the same number of items they will still be 10 each meaning the poor will get 5 the middle class 20 and the rich 220. Now lets double the money supply. Oh but wait when the money comes out it doesn't go everyone equally. Those who are poor may get a 20% raise but i really doubt it. But lets give it to them. The middle class they may be minimally invested they might get a 50% raise. Unlikely but possible. But the person who is already rich and heavily invested they are the ones who get all the new money. With the above after doubling the money supply the poor man now has a $60 check the middle class person now has a $300 dollar check and the rich person now has 9500. Now for what that can buy you. More money doesn't affect production so there are still 1000 items to buy, except now they are $20 each. With that being said now the poor person can only afford 3 items and the middle class people can only afford 15 but the rich is now able to buy 475. The number of dollars in your pocket doesn't matter it is the value they represent and what they can buy.

Inflation is the worst possible thing that can happen for the poor and middle class. Inflating the currency and ruining the purchasing power of the dollar is driving people to beg for handouts. It is no brain buster to see that since we have started inflating the money supply in this country the number of people on food stamps or other related programs has set a record every month.

With that in mind the most important thing that we need to do in this country is stop printing money and to get our spending in check. Honestly the most aggressive spending cuts proposed this year are only 500 billion dollars which is only 1/3 of the new debt we will create this year. That doesn't take into account our new adventure either. We need to have a serious spending discussion. Historically no matter how much you raise or lower taxes the average revenue from taxes in this country are 19% of GDP.
6a00d8341c4eab53ef01348992e7dd970c-500wi


This means that at a minimum we need to get our spending plus the interest on our debt to this 19% but because i am feeling frisky i think that we should make that 18% so that that other 1% is going to pay off the debt so that we are not just floundering. According to the Google our GDP is 14.12T. 18% of that is 2.52T and using the current artificially low interest rates we would lose 200 billion due to interest on debt but if we use a more historical interest rate like the one in 2006 that interest charge would be closer to 600bil so for my purposes i choose to use that number. This means that our total budget for this year should be roughly 1.92T. With that being said next years budget is estimated to be 3.82T. Basically... half the government needs to disappear. And if we did have this magical 50% cut... we would still only pay a minuscule 200bil off of the national debt meaning it would probably still take about 25 years to pay the debt off.

Forget tax increases or tax cuts for a minute. Where are we going to cut 50% from spending. Everyone's pets must be hit with the axe because we need survival mode. Defense must again become defense... We stay within our own borders unless we are attacked, when we are attacked we declare war we go there and we finish things (sheet of glass if necessary), close all foreign bases, stop all foreign aid. Privatize social security and allow anyone who chooses to to opt out of it, raise the ages and requirements of it along with medicare/medicaid. Eliminate part d. Eliminate entire departments. DHS, CIA, ATF, NSA, FBI, education, labor, energy etc. Stop drug war and legalize prostitution and other victimless crimes. End all giveaway programs, food stamps, health care, housing. Privatize unemployment insurance, fannie and freddie. Legalize competing currencies within the united states and end the federal reserve in its current form.

With all of these cuts i bet we could make 50% but sadly it probably would take most of this stuff to even get close. If i am bored later i may actually do the figures and see if i can get spending to that level. Interesting enough to note... in 2001 the federal budget was only 1.9 trillion which at our current GDP we can afford. Can you name what else the government does now that warrants doubling the budget since then? And just don't say the war because the worst numbers i can find for that is that they cost us 500billion a year which still leaves 1.4 trillion that show no noticeable change.
 
http://bigmeeze.com/2011/02/24/big-meeze-fixes-the-world-pt-1/

http://bigmeeze.com/2011/02/20/how-to-fix-the-education-system/

Couple posts I did up on my blog, the first one is tongue in cheek, the 2nd one on a serious note. But basically in order to stop spending, we need to cut government from running any businesses, except for military and a few food subsidies. Government owned businesses always suck, that is why we preach democracy and free market to the world. It's probably going to take someone figuring out how to make money off of a business like education for privatization to kick in, but they figured it out with jails...although large govt subsidies are used. You've got that part covered in the 2nd to last portion of your post. Privatizing isn't something that can be done overnight, can just look at Latin America in the late 90s early 2000s as proof, but we should definitely start getting some of our industries off the teet.

I don't agree with you on the no military thing, our strength comes from a strong navy and armed forces all around. Personally I think we should be more cavalier about our profiteering around the world, but we have to keep a lid on it because of all the liberal pansies we have in our country. Fucking liberals don't understand that if it wasn't for the people in Washington making hard decisions they wouldn't be able to order a triple mocha latte all organic gluten free without peanuts and walk down to the community compost heap to garden and spew academic bullshit. It's one thing if we're not the economic power, but if we lose military power then the trade that we protect can be taken by the new power which will lead to a shrinking economy. Bad enough we don't export for shit, imagine if we couldn't export what little we do, we'd be fucked.
 
Okay, I'll weigh in rather briefly:

Libya: Let the EU handle it. We're fucking busy, and they've been suckling at the US military teat for the past 60+ years; time to start the weaning process.

Budgets: Eliminate bill bundling, enact a line-item veto with teeth, draw down the US ground forces (excluding the Marines) until they're at about half what they are currently. Immediately terminate all social engineering projects; this includes things like Fannie and Freddie. Raise the retirement age for Social Security by at least two years. Enact a means analysis for Social Security: Warren Buffet doesn't need his.

If the government wishes to engineer society, let it do so through enacting laws, not establishing agencies. Create the requirement, and let the market handle the subsequent need.

Legalize marijuana. Tax marijuana. Profit.


Schools (just for Meeze): Private corporations get better results in some things; this may not necessarily be one of them. Look at the US auto industry: Private business, strangled by the twin pythons of unions and mismanagement. Opt-out schools get better results as a general rule, whether they're private or public.

Why do you think that is? What possible factor could be the variable in an equation where parents pull their kids out to go to a "better" school.

Oh shit.

Parents are the variable.

It's one of those correlation/causation links that's difficult to prove without extensive studies, but I'll stand by my opinion on the matter. The main variable between the success rates of private/charter/magnet schools is not the quality of instruction, or the amount of resources per child, but rather the involvement of the parents.

If the parents don't take the necessary steps, it really doesn't matter what the teacher does. At least, short of reinstating corporal punishment; pain can be an excellent motivator at an early age.

On a secondary note, of course, you have to get rid of tenure, which has to be the dumbest idea I've ever seen in my life, and I'm in my last year or so of schooling to become a teacher.

Unions in general: Unions are fine. I have no problems with unions.

Unions being protected by law, that I have a problem with. You want to bargain collectively? That's your right.

But it ought to be the employer's right to fire people who refuse to work, whether they're in a union or not.
 
My main prob with school unions is the firing thing, and that goes for every union I guess (except pro sports). I agree with parental participation, and that is the main reason poor ignorant people remain poor and ignorant for generations.

Also, ban hip hop, that shit has done more harm than good by this time in its life span.
 
Adam Carolla - "In 50 Years We'll All Be Chicks" Just good common sense there, and hilarious as hell. I mostly read The Economist and sometimes the WSJ, but WSJ has a lot of fluff pieces in it. On schools, there was a doc called "Waiting for Superman" which was fairly well done.

On the legalizing drugs thing, I forget which post I did on my blog, but I decided that in the desert we should have a giant complex where crackheads and methheads and the other dopefiends can do drugs, but they have to sacrifice their right to reproduce in order to be junkies. I'm sure that place could be sustainable with all of the extra energy junkies use up.
 
I just finished reading 23 Things they don't tell you about Capitalism the other day. I'd definately recommend it to anyone who is interested in/spends too much time ranting about politics/economics.
 
Okay, I'll weigh in rather briefly:

Libya: Let the EU handle it. We're fucking busy, and they've been suckling at the US military teat for the past 60+ years; time to start the weaning process.

And by EU I hope you mean everyone else but Britain. Seeing as we get dragged into everything that goes on in America anyway. We want a break too!
 
Good books...

The Road to Serfdom
A nation of sheep
Atlas Shrugged
Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use
End the Fed
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
Common Sense
Declaration of Independence and Constitution
Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire
Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them.
The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Tramping the Constitution in the Name of Justice
Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse
Superfreakonomics and Freakonomics

That is probably more than you wanted and i don't actually feel like looking for names of books on my shelf.
 
Last edited:
In terms of Libya, it's so obvious that it doesn't even require a discussion. Why are we not in Yemem? What about Bahrain? By we, of course, I mean the United States of Great Britain, as they rarely do anything without each other.

George Galloway has some interesting points on it, I'm sure you guys haven't forgotten him after his "issues" with the senate :crazy:
 
Libya: Let the EU handle it. We're fucking busy, and they've been suckling at the US military teat for the past 60+ years; time to start the weaning process.

Leave Holland out of it too, we're only a small country and busy enough as it is with other projects.
Sure our PM Mark Rutte is jumping to get on the Lybia wagon, but in the last few years we had Afganistan, Iraq, now Afganistan again (after numerous begs from big old uncle Sam to add, and I'm still of the opinion that we shouldn't have left in the first place but that's a whole different discussion) and we still have a good part of the Dutch navy stationed at Gulf of Aden trying to fend off the Somali pirate infestation.

I am absolutely for intervention there as there's a madman on the throne who is killing his own civilians to keep power.
But this is France's and Germany's party, let them handle this.
 
Last edited:
Leave Holland out of it too, we're only a small country and busy enough as it is with other projects.
And by EU I hope you mean everyone else but Britain.

And that is why the EU is not generally considered a superpower, to be brutally honest. But I digress.



In terms of Libya, it's so obvious that it doesn't even require a discussion. Why are we not in Yemem? What about Bahrain? By we, of course, I mean the United States of Great Britain, as they rarely do anything without each other.

George Galloway has some interesting points on it, I'm sure you guys haven't forgotten him after his "issues" with the senate :crazy:

First off, I don't want to offend, or in some ways cast aspersions on the "special relationship", but you do realize that, for the most part, you're America's beard, right? The Brits get dragged along on these little adventures to lend them an air of international legitimacy, so the US doesn't get accused of acting unilaterally.

Secondly, the reason we're not in Yemen or Bahrain is because they're not conducting major military operations against civilians (yet), and because when you get right down to it, selling another war to the US public would be nearly impossible. Sure, we could send a few planes and drop a few bombs, and that might fly, but even that is gathering backlash these days. The fiscal hawks have the ear of the populace now, and when we start lobbing million-dollar weapons around, people get a trifle upset if there's not a damned good reason.
 
Regarding the EU not being a superpower, you are right.
Sure we have no more passport checks at each other's borders, we wield the same currency in most countries and work together on a couple of projects including some military.
But fact is that the EU is still made from different nations with different laws, different governments and different ideas.
We are not one nation running under one flag (even though the EU does have their own flag it is not a symbol like the stars and stripes are for the US), hence our (the EU) armies are also segmented and that's not gonna change any time soon.
Many have tried, none succeeded. The last person to try comitted suicide in a bunker and his associate got executed and hung from his feet by meathooks (SP?) on an Esso gas station to have his dead body stoned and ridiculed by an angry mob of civilians.

Not being a superpower is not something that makes me feel any less secure though, we aren't exactly looking to pick a fight and the superpowers that be keep each other in check.
 
Last edited:
France actually 9th in the world in terms of military expenditures per capita. Slightly ahead of the UK.
 
Back
Top