Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important,

you never said anything like this, or thought anything like this before bush was President.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you never said anything like this, or thought anything like this before bush was President.

Actually, I thought civilian control of the military was important when Clinton was President, too. Like when the Army dragged its heels over deploying Apache helicopters in Albania during the fighting in Kosovo.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, I thought civilian control of the military was important when Clinton was President, too. Like when the Army dragged its heels over deploying Apache helicopters in Albania during the fighting in Kosovo.

okay. so you confuse when politicians set goals with when officers decide how to achieve the goals. I understand why you, basically learning what you know from blogs, can't see the difference.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay. so you confuse....

I'm sorry my posts confuse you.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes, we should implement tariffs so we can totally fuck up the economy and make the cost of goods rise, to help Joe Manufacturer. Indeed. Lets do something that really screws up the retailers but good, so Wall Street can tank and drag a bunch of retirees portfolios and pensions funds down.

It's all tied together, Bob. You can't surgically redistribute wealth without adverse ripples everywhere. And you can't soak the rich. They're immune because of the way they have their money structured. You wind up soaking me and you.

We could play this bullshit game back and forth for weeks, and every solution you offer would have a counterbalancing painful effect on the pocketbooks of people you intend to help.

As to my insane wealth, I am thrilled to be so rich. If only somebody would just remind me where I put all those piles of money I'd sure appreciate it... I just seem to keep misplacing them. Terrible. Perhaps I'll have Jeeves tend to them in the future.

You win. I say we simply turn control of the country over to the rich, since what's good for the country is what's good for Blackstone Capital, and vice versa.

And I'm also now in agreement with that right wing historian who points out that FDR really fucked things up with the New Deal, and that a little bit of laissez faire would have fixed the economy in 1933 rather than, as she proves, making the Depression worse and longer by foolish government interventions.

Point is, economic policy is inherently political. Naturally, like most people, you just prefer the policy that benefits you.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
okay. so you confuse when politicians set goals with when officers decide how to achieve the goals. I understand why you, basically learning what you know from blogs, can't see the difference.

You might want to refresh your recollection of the Kosovo thing, and do so in conjunction with what happened in Somalia, before you push this argument. I'd hate to see the Proud Crimson Banner of Ve Ri Tas imperiled in a spat with some dinosaur.

Oh, and Truman/MacArthur, too, now that I think about it. Unleashing Chiang and nuking the ChiComs were, I suppose, examples of the Procounsol's decisions on how to achieve the President's goals in Korea.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, I do. Because the principle of civilian control of the military is important, and if the military gets sucked into fighting George Bush's fights because he is too weak to fight them himself, we'll all lose.

The ridiculousness of your position is illustrated by the fact that the Senator in question is John Warner, a Republican who is about the most respected Senator on military issues. People generally assume that he speaks for the services.

And we all know that Bush selects which generals speak for him. When the joint chiefs disagreed with his plans for Iraq, he went and found Petraeus. The generals who advocate for his policies are those who agree with him. The others don't give press conferences.

There is a nice, easy to understand article on Civilian Control on the DOD web site, right here.

I note the last little brush up over the issue was when the Bushies were criticizing a number of retired Generals who spoke out against either the war, Rumsfeld's running of the war, or both.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You might want to refresh your recollection of the Kosovo thing, and do so in conjunction with what happened in Somalia, before you push this argument. I'd hate to see the Proud Crimson Banner of Ve Ri Tas imperiled in a spat with some dinosaur.

Oh, and Truman/MacArthur, too, now that I think about it. Unleashing Chiang and nuking the ChiComs were, I suppose, examples of the Procounsol's decisions on how to achieve the President's goals in Korea.

ummm, a general's public statements disagreeing with the President is different from a general's public statements disagreeing with a Senator.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And you can't soak the rich. They're immune because of the way they have their money structured.

Then why all of the agita over the estate tax?

[Gattigap]

In related news, it appears that FNC has secured an exclusive hour-long sitdown with General Petraeus. Presumably, C-SPAN 2 was unavailable.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You win. I say we simply turn control of the country over to the rich, since what's good for the country is what's good for Blackstone Capital, and vice versa.

And I'm also now in agreement with that right wing historian who points out that FDR really fucked things up with the New Deal, and that a little bit of laissez faire would have fixed the economy in 1933 rather than, as she proves, making the Depression worse and longer by foolish government interventions.

Point is, economic policy is inherently political. Naturally, like most people, you just prefer the policy that benefits you.

No its not. And the current administration is not helping me. It saves me a few grand a year, but as you well know, a few thousand bucks isn't anything.

And I'd have no problem giving up every deduction I abuse right now in favor of a flat tax because that, I think, is the right thing to do, and would help our economy.

This is a matter of simple economic reality being unchangeable. You're thinking like a 70s liberal. There is no political cure. The global marketplace is unforgiving, and no daddy state can fight it for those of us savaged by it. Until the cost of labor abroad meets its domestic cost domestic laborers are fucked. We can do what we can for them with social safety nets, but tariffs are regressive and do much more damage than help.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, a general's public statements disagreeing with the President is different from a general's public statements disagreeing with a Senator.

Back up, Hank, and look at which of your points I was actually responding to. Hint -- it didn't have anything to do with John Warner.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Then why all of the agita over the estate tax?

It's easy to be dumb and wind up with over $2 mil these days. Or find yourself with it by accident (unfortunately, that accident hasn't befallen me).

ETA: I'm not saying $2 mil is rich. It's nice, but it isn't rich.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No its not. And the current administration is not helping me. It saves me a few grand a year, but as you well know, a few thousand bucks isn't anything.

Um, "a few thousand bucks [a year] isn't anything"? QED, Richie Rich. Sure, you ain't in Gatesian territory, but who is?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is a matter of simple economic reality being unchangeable. You're thinking like a 70s liberal.

And you sound like my Marxist Uncle Bill, talking about the unchanging laws of historical determinism. The laws of economics, like those of history, only work in theory. Reality has a funny way of intruding. Just ask the quants, if you can find any of them still willing to call themselves that.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The global marketplace is unforgiving, and no daddy state can fight it for those of us savaged by it. Until the cost of labor abroad meets its domestic cost domestic laborers are fucked. We can do what we can for them with social safety nets, but tariffs are regressive and do much more damage than help.

You are both missing my point and making it for me. We currently don't "do what we can" for the working class harmed by globalization. And Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and the AFL-CIO may well convince enough voters that the daddy state *can* do something about it, and they will be right -- the US can opt out of the global market. Will it make things worse overall? Almost certainly. But the currently unemployed textile worker in South Carolina probably won't think so. A job in a struggling economy is better than no job in a booming one. It doesn't matter that cheap goods are readily available at WalMart if you don't have any income.

You can have the last word.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Um, "a few thousand bucks [a year] isn't anything"? QED, Richie Rich. Sure, you ain't in Gatesian territory, but who is?



And you sound like my Marxist Uncle Bill, talking about the unchanging laws of historical determinism. The laws of economics, like those of history, only work in theory. Reality has a funny way of intruding. Just ask the quants, if you can find any of them still willing to call themselves that.



You are both missing my point and making it for me. We currently don't "do what we can" for the working class harmed by globalization. And Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and the AFL-CIO may well convince enough voters that the daddy state *can* do something about it, and they will be right -- the US can opt out of the global market. Will it make things worse overall? Almost certainly. But the currently unemployed textile worker in South Carolina probably won't think so. A job in a struggling economy is better than no job in a booming one. It doesn't matter that cheap goods are readily available at WalMart if you don't have any income.

You can have the last word.

We're in agreement, Bob, and you don't even see it. You think we should give the workers money. So do I. And it appears you've come around finally and given up the idiot idea of tariffs and instead opaquely support some sort of govt intervention to give these people cash.

OK, now whwre do we get the cash? I say cut into defense and pork and strip away all but non-essential programs. You - I think - favor soaking the investor class (meaning almost everyone). But that's unnecessary pain for no good reason. We don't have to soak the investor class. We have the tax revenues to provide a stipend to workers displaced by globalization NOW if we'd allocate them properly.

But we don't. We waste money on excessive defense and huge pork projects. Maybe if liberals like you would stop praying to the govt and realize the solution is reallocating the money it receives instead of taking more from the middle and upper middle class we'd actually get somewhere.

It isn't me against you, Bob. It's you and me against the government.

For the 50th time, I have no problem giving to people who need. I just want the govt to cough it up before I do. Is that unreasonable? To ask DC to behave like a fiscally sound business? Do you really think I should give up more money while people like Ted Stevens spend like drunk sailors on bridges to nowhere? Make them accountable, then soak me for the shortfall. What you'd find is you'd wind up giving most of us tax refunds because if run like a business, our govt would have 5X the money it needs.