Discussion on modern politics

[Deleted User]

Feel free, clearly you take any criticism of the Republican leadership as a personal insult, and it's absolutely impossible to have a reasoned discourse with a person like that. Same deal with anyone who refuses to properly source their claims on the basis that hyper-partisan opinion pieces are somehow just as good as fact. I suppose it was my mistake in assuming you were a little bit more logical than that at the start of this conversation, but obviously now we've hit an impasse.

I love how you can't actually argue against my logic so you just whine and moan about how it must be biased (as you ignore the rest of my posts and take everything I say and stuff it full of hay)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.

*(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)

 

[Xzi]

I would understand this argument if they were cherry picking statistical data or something similar, but the article simply used basic economics to show off how the CENTRAL government has so much power that it's far more worth it for corporations to push for corporate welfare* and etc rather then actually make their products good. The writer cited several examples of corporations spending absurd amounts on lobbying for stronger regulations.

*(the real kind, where the government only buys from a select few and makes it impossible for any other businesses to compete in the actual marketplace)

They push for corporate welfare because they want more money. Small government just means a smaller payout, which they would not enjoy, so that's a big part of why the last couple Republican presidents have been so spendy. Which keeps government large for almost the sole purpose of propping up certain corporations, on that we agree. The part you continually don't want to hear is: this is mostly a Republican problem. Democrats are more concerned with worker welfare than corporate welfare.

Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the broader market. So again: the whole opinion piece is only trying to steer policy in the direction the people funding the piece want it to go.

 

[Deleted User]

They push for corporate welfare because they want more money. Small government just means a smaller payout, which they would not enjoy, so that's a big part of why the last couple Republican presidents have been so spendy. Which keeps government large for almost the sole purpose of propping up certain corporations, on that we agree. The part you continually don't want to hear is: this is mostly a Republican problem. Democrats are more concerned with worker welfare than corporate welfare.

Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the market.

I disagree, when it comes to government, republicans AND democrats love big government. Which by definition inevitably leads to corporate welfare to some degree, less so for democrats, sure, I'll concede.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

the broader market. So again: the whole opinion piece is only trying to steer policy in the direction the people funding the piece want it to go.

And is that a bad thing? The writer was just making the point that corporate welfare is the result of big government.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Beside all that, the brands that the military/government buys aren't indicative of which brands succeed in the broader market

It wasn't just government buying. It was also extensive regulation and lobbying.

 

[Xzi]

I disagree, when it comes to government, republicans AND democrats love big government. Which by definition inevitably leads to corporate welfare to some degree, less so for democrats, sure, I'll concede.

Bit of a contradiction, obviously we agree given the emphasis on "mostly" a Republican problem. Yes, big corporations and government have become somewhat co-dependent, and you can thank supreme court rulings like 'citizens united' which corrupt the entire election process by injecting so much dark money into it. The idea that corporations are people is absurd. They don't have living costs.

And is that a bad thing? The writer was just making the point that corporate welfare is the result of big government.

Yes, still a bad thing. Stop for a moment to consider that maybe they're only taking this position because the government currently isn't buying (or regulating in favor of) enough Koch-owned brands.

 

[Deleted User]

Bit of a contradiction, obviously we agree given the emphasis on "mostly" a Republican problem. Yes, big corporations and government have become somewhat co-dependent, and you can thank rulings like Citizens United which corrupt the entire election process by injecting so much dark money into it. The idea that corporations are people is absurd. They don't have living costs.

Wait are you talking about CU vs ECF? I thought that was a free speech issue?

Yes, still a bad thing. Stop for a moment to consider that maybe they're only taking this position because the government currently isn't buying enough Koch-owned brands

That doesn't change the logic of it. She was saying that corporate welfare is the result of big government. I think we can all agree at this point that sentence is mostly true. Nonetheless, in future discussions I'll stick to less biased sources, if it really bothers everyone that much.

 

[Xzi]

Wait are you talking about CU vs ECF? I thought that was a free speech issue?

"Speech" in that case being defined as money in the form of political donations, yes. There was another SC ruling around the same time which declared corporations to be people and have all the same rights as such. Name eludes me right now.

That doesn't change the logic of it. She was saying that corporate welfare is the result of big government. I think we can all agree at this point that sentence is mostly true. Nonetheless, in future discussions I'll stick to less biased sources, if it really bothers everyone that much.

Again I still disagree with the assertion of it, corporations getting a smaller payout from a small government isn't worth the visible cost to average citizens (when government is spending in the right places). Additionally, the smaller government gets, the easier it is for corporations to set regulations for themselves.

We're going to need healthcare coverage for all citizens and a UBI in the near future just to keep the economy running smoothly. By the time the need comes we might be way too deep in national debt to fund it all, largely because of corporate payouts. If that happens we'll hit another long economic recession or even a depression. You can see how shrinking government wouldn't truly solve these problems, it'd be more like running from them.

 

[Deleted User]

"Speech" in that case being defined as money in the form of political donations, yes. There was another SC ruling around the same time which declared corporations to be people and have all the same rights as such. Name eludes me right now.


Again I still disagree with the assertion of it, corporations getting a smaller payout from a small government isn't worth the visible cost to average citizens (when government is spending in the right places.)

Not really. If corporations can't buy off government officials, then they'll have to improve their product and start acting like an actual business. Which will cause a serious ripple effect, i.e people start buying their product more, competition pops up, creating more jobs etc etc.

Btw, thanks for deescalating the thread back there, sorry if I was being a bit of an ass, just got a little pissed.

 

[Xzi]

Not really. If corporations can't buy off government officials, then they'll have to improve their product and start acting like an actual business. Which will cause a serious ripple effect, i.e people start buying their product more, competition pops up, creating more jobs etc etc.

That's if they can't be bought, though. I'm not sure what it is about smaller government that you believe makes officials immune to the temptation of being bought. Without the proper anti-corruption policies in mind, government can be shrunk without sacrificing any of the large payoffs that corporations are receiving. They can just take money out of social security, medicare, welfare and etc to pay for it.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Well the idea is. If the government is smaller they will have less power. Less power means that corporations would have less incentives to buy them off. Which means the companies themselves would actually have to compete in the market instead of running off to the government and getting BS laws passed that crushes the little guy.

While corruption will never go away (unless you can create a body of government that will NEVER take a penny and will ONLY work for the people) it will be less in a smaller government due to the fact that if companies start acting like assholes another smaller company could pop up and give them a run for their money.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This is what I and I think TerribleTy27 mean when we say. "Let the free market do its thing." However I'd like to point out that when we say that we are NOT talking about the USA. The USA hasn't been free market in decades. The USA is corporatism meaning the control of a state or organization by large interest groups agro the companies BECAUSE the government keeps selling its power. Which is why I want the government to go back to its constitutional size.

 

[Xzi]

Well the idea is. If the government is smaller they will have less power. Less power means that corporations would have less incentives to buy them off.

I see where you guys are going with this, but as long as corporations get more value in return than they pay out for lobbying or buying politicians, they're going to keep doing it. Government being smaller in the past didn't stop leeches from being leeches. To stop corporate co-dependency with government we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether or pass some new broad, sweeping ethics laws.

 

[Deleted User]

To stop corporate co-dependency with government we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether or pass some new broad, sweeping ethics laws.

Ehh, very debatable. You're right, leeches will never go away. But you don't have to take it to the extreme. If you jump into a swamp lake and you're a well muscled, strong, nutritious guy, then of course leeches are gonna attack you. But if you're relatively weak, then their time is much better spent attacking a horse, or a bunny or fish or something.

 

[Attacker3]

[QUOTE="Xzi, post: 8292788, member: 342429"we'd either have to eliminate the federal government altogether.[/QUOTE]
Correct! That's the spirit my duder.

 

[CallmeBerto]

@Attacker3

You an ancap?

 

[Attacker3]

@Attacker3

You an ancap?

Yes