http://digg.com/political_opinion/So...A_year_ago_who
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04B3Wl2qouw
Printable View
I agree with what he says about the military and the military budget. But I think that government does need to regulate business. There can be a point where profits from a business cross ethical boundaries and cause harm to the general public. That is why utility companies are regulated. But also in a general sense, domestic entitlement programs are often cost effective. An example would be education. I say the more education is available the better for the general public, as it helps create people who make technological advances, and more productive workers. I could take many programs, and argue that they are actually helping to prevent things which would cost the public more down the line. Or I could argue that the positive results benefit the whole society.
One thing that was not clear to me, until watching the video, is that the government is paying for the war offline, from the budget. So if the military budget is over half the official budget, (per chart linked by Peggy Gee), how much of our total resources are going into war/military related items? Are we really that afraid that another nation is going to get the jump on us? And looking at it that way, is programming that helps poor people that much of a problem? As Hippifried pointed out, the money that poor people get, goes straight back into the economy. That’s the nature of being poor. But what about aid to “The Republic of Georgia”?
So Ron Paul is right on many things, but I believe that his overall philosophy of the government backing out of many of it’s public protective functions, would leave us at the mercy of the whims of large corporations, and the wealthy.
Thank you yodajazz. That's my objection to Ron Paul also. He's just another CONservative, although a far more honest one than Bush.Quote:
Ron Paul is right on many things, but I believe that his overall philosophy of the government backing out of many of it’s public protective functions, would leave us at the mercy of the whims of large corporations, and the wealthy.
The thing is, DOW stuff is expensive even without the corruption, the more hi-tech, the more fringe tech you get- the more it costs. Since its politically a no-no for bodies to come back, a lot goes to mercs & drones (which cost fiscally speaking, even more).Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Is the tech R&D money well spent? I dunno, depends on how we see the battlefield of the future, if large direct engagement has fallen out of favor (being replaced by fighting insurgency, asymmetrical warfare etc) it prolly isn't as significant if another nation "gets the jump on us" technologically. But if large direct warfare returns (like fleet actions), then it is a major concern for real reasons. There are 14,000 Russians at the bottom of the sea of Japan because in a fleet engagement their ordnance were a few years (as in literally a few years) older than what their enemies had.
Actually.....
Roubini "predicted it" over 4 years ago.
http://www.rgemonitor.com/index.php
If anyone is seriously interested in the "why's" of this mess, it has little to do with Fannie / Freddie the Dumocrats and republicans. It's a much larger systemic problem...
You can call it "the perfect storm".
There's always somebody predicting everything. If they happen to call it, & anybody notices, their book gets on the best seller list & we give them a prize. Next week it'll be somebody else & if things turn around, everybody'll forget all about the philosopher with the magic 8 ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by beandip
Of course it has nothing to do with housing. The symptoms aren't the disease.