Government is too invasive

[Revoltingest]

Putin nationalized the resources of his own country. And I like this expression: his own country.

My people loves the politicians who nationalize and are very allergic to the politicians who privatize.
Instead of nationalizing.

Back to the topic thread, I think that essential public services are a serious matter and should be under the control of the State.

You have a novel view of Russian politics.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes...that's what I won't understand. These carefree wealthy (Republican and Conservative) élites think the Government (as they call it) should not waste money on free universal healthcare or similar socialist stuff...but the war budget is limitless. They think that the Government has all the money in the world, if there is a war to fund. Pointless double standards.

That's how it's been for as long as I've been alive, although I've also seen active challenges, along with resistance and defiance, to that kind of thinking. It was more prevalent in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, but by the late 80s/early 90s, it had subsided. One thing that caught my attention was when Oliver Stone's JFK came out, there was somewhat of a backlash from the elite, who seemed to be quite upset and angry that Stone was bringing up questions and issues they were probably hoping would go away or be forgotten.

And war is like a bottomless pit, the more money you spend on wars, the more the economic losses will be.

Reminds me of a song lyric from The Cult:

War, she's a whore
Don't you know we love her more and more?

Whereas the money spend on public healthcare aims at increasing the overall GDP. Because a public hospital is an asset.

U.S. war policies since WW2 have focused not so much on acquiring new territories as much as defending territories and governments which are/were part of the so-called "free world," which essentially meant the part of the world which was within the Western fold. That's why the Communist Bloc was viewed as such a grave threat, especially as European colonial hegemony was collapsing and pro-communist insurgencies were popping up all over.

One common theme throughout history is the fact that most societies are hierarchical in that a few people tend to hold most of the wealth and power at the top, while continually working to find new and inventive ways to be able to keep that wealth and power - even though the peasants are far more numerous and could easily overthrow them if they acted collectively. But it wasn't really until the rise of industrialism that this became a far more complicated and difficult challenge, since cities became larger and more populated than the world had ever seen before.

This had grown quite apparent, especially after the Revolutions of 1848. One could say the elite probably got a serious wake-up call. Nationalistic leaders such as Bismarck and Napoleon III realized that, no matter what, they have to find ways to feed the masses and keep their people reasonably content. That's how many of the first social programs came into being. But they didn't want them to be merely content. They didn't want "tame cattle" but something more akin to fiercely loyal wolves who would fight for them and conquer other lands.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's how it's been for as long as I've been alive, although I've also seen active challenges, along with resistance and defiance, to that kind of thinking. It was more prevalent in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, but by the late 80s/early 90s, it had subsided. One thing that caught my attention was when Oliver Stone's JFK came out, there was somewhat of a backlash from the elite, who seemed to be quite upset and angry that Stone was bringing up questions and issues they were probably hoping would go away or be forgotten.



Reminds me of a song lyric from The Cult:

War, she's a whore
Don't you know we love her more and more?



U.S. war policies since WW2 have focused not so much on acquiring new territories as much as defending territories and governments which are/were part of the so-called "free world," which essentially meant the part of the world which was within the Western fold. That's why the Communist Bloc was viewed as such a grave threat, especially as European colonial hegemony was collapsing and pro-communist insurgencies were popping up all over.

One common theme throughout history is the fact that most societies are hierarchical in that a few people tend to hold most of the wealth and power at the top, while continually working to find new and inventive ways to be able to keep that wealth and power - even though the peasants are far more numerous and could easily overthrow them if they acted collectively. But it wasn't really until the rise of industrialism that this became a far more complicated and difficult challenge, since cities became larger and more populated than the world had ever seen before.

This had grown quite apparent, especially after the Revolutions of 1848. One could say the elite probably got a serious wake-up call. Nationalistic leaders such as Bismarck and Napoleon III realized that, no matter what, they have to find ways to feed the masses and keep their people reasonably content. That's how many of the first social programs came into being. But they didn't want them to be merely content. They didn't want "tame cattle" but something more akin to fiercely loyal wolves who would fight for them and conquer other lands.

I think of all the money that could be spent on Americans' welfare instead.
I can't believe this. It's paradoxical.
Wars that led to nothing.
And I am referring to all the wars started from the early 21st century on.

It is the elites who help one another, here and overseas.
I can speak of a great Prime Minister we used to have. Aldo Moro.
He was a politician that didn't believe in political antagonism : he believed that both the left (Socialists and Communists) and the right should cooperate and be allies for the people's sake.
To serve the people.
Some politician, a very powerful one, who is now 99 years old, told him: "be careful, or you will pay for it".

Aldo Moro was kidnapped and killed.

 

[Stevicus]

I think of all the money that could be spent on Americans' welfare instead.
I can't believe this. It's paradoxical.
Wars that led to nothing.
And I am referring to all the wars started from the early 21st century on.

It is the elites who help one another, here and overseas.
I can speak of a great Prime Minister we used to have. Aldo Moro.
He was a politician that didn't believe in political antagonism : he believed that both the left (Socialists and Communists) and the right should cooperate and be allies for the people's sake.
To serve the people.
Some politician, a very powerful one, who is now 99 years old, told him: "be careful, or you will pay for it".

Aldo Moro was kidnapped and killed.

I think that's probably where a great deal of disillusionment comes from, at least in terms of how people tend to perceive things. The politicians talk about all kinds of grandiose things, but when it filters down to street level, the people look around themselves and wonder "What are we getting out of all this?" Class distinctions have always been there, and some people will always do better than others. But it's more than just that. In recent decades, we've also seen just a general overall decline where the government has supposedly spent a lot of money but has next to nothing to show for it. People can see boarded up buildings where there was once a vibrant downtown. They can see the crumbling roads and bridges. They can see a nation where things are literally falling apart. There are shortages, supply chain problems - and some people calling this the "new normal."

We're no longer the "land of plenty" anymore, and this is the bleak truth which stares many countless of millions of Americans in the face.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think that's probably where a great deal of disillusionment comes from, at least in terms of how people tend to perceive things. The politicians talk about all kinds of grandiose things, but when it filters down to street level, the people look around themselves and wonder "What are we getting out of all this?" Class distinctions have always been there, and some people will always do better than others. But it's more than just that. In recent decades, we've also seen just a general overall decline where the government has supposedly spent a lot of money but has next to nothing to show for it. People can see boarded up buildings where there was once a vibrant downtown. They can see the crumbling roads and bridges. They can see a nation where things are literally falling apart. There are shortages, supply chain problems - and some people calling this the "new normal."

We're no longer the "land of plenty" anymore, and this is the bleak truth which stares many countless of millions of Americans in the face.

That is why I deeply understand Americans' plight as for the migration problem at the Mexican border. Since the Government will not even take care of its own citizens, Americans are just concerned with all those people who will have enormous difficulties.
The problem is not money.
I can give you a practical example. The European Union has a big GDP that can be spent on helping all those 3rd world countries develop, in order to stop the migration.
And there will be so much gain, because investments in those countries will be profitable.

What is the thing that brings no gain and only losses? War.
Because you spend millions, if not billions, on weaponry and armies, and what do you get in return?
Nothing but big economic losses: devastated countries to rebuild, wounded soldiers to cure, damages to compensate.
It is dreadful.

 

[Estro Felino]

You have a novel view of Russian politics.

If there is a Christian leader who believes in God, Fatherland, Family and is called Vladìmir Putin, Italians will fall in love with him. Because they value these things, all the rest is unimportant.
Money, wealth are all things which will rot. The afterlife and God's judgment is what matters.

 

[Stevicus]

That is why I deeply understand Americans' plight as for the migration problem at the Mexican border. Since the Government will not even take care of its own citizens, Americans are just concerned with all those people who will have enormous difficulties.
The problem is not money.
I can give you a practical example. The European Union has a big GDP that can be spent on helping all those 3rd world countries develop, in order to stop the migration.
And there will be so much gain, because investments in those countries will be profitable.

What is the thing that brings no gain and only losses? War.
Because you spend millions, if not billions, on weaponry and armies, and what do you get in return?
Nothing but big economic losses: devastated countries to rebuild, wounded soldiers to cure, damages to compensate.
It is dreadful.

Another thing that I would add is that, at least in terms of our historical experience (including the memories from my parents' and grandparents' generations), there always seemed to be some measure of progress and improvement during the 20th century. The difference in America pre-WW2 and post-WW2 is almost like night and day. People could see literal advancements and improvements in their standard of living, including many working-class people who moved out of crowded tenements and into nice suburban homes. Not only did we have enough to make our own lives better, but the Marshall Plan also helped our allies and even our former enemies to improve and make better lives for their people. America was a world leader in industry, science, technology, and there were high hopes for our future as it seemed there was literally nothing we could not do. That's state America was in when I was born.

I'm not sure what happened, though I'm pretty sure that the people never asked their government or political leadership to **** everything away and turn America into an unproductive, debtor nation which has grown dependent on other countries even for such trifles as toilet paper.

The idea for our government to act recklessly and irresponsibly must have come from somewhere closer to the top. The people did not ask for this. That much is certain.

 

[Estro Felino]

Another thing that I would add is that, at least in terms of our historical experience (including the memories from my parents' and grandparents' generations), there always seemed to be some measure of progress and improvement during the 20th century. The difference in America pre-WW2 and post-WW2 is almost like night and day. People could see literal advancements and improvements in their standard of living, including many working-class people who moved out of crowded tenements and into nice suburban homes. Not only did we have enough to make our own lives better, but the Marshall Plan also helped our allies and even our former enemies to improve and make better lives for their people. America was a world leader in industry, science, technology, and there were high hopes for our future as it seemed there was literally nothing we could not do. That's state America was in when I was born.
I'm not sure what happened, though I'm pretty sure that the people never asked their government or political leadership to **** everything away and turn America into an unproductive, debtor nation which has grown dependent on other countries even for such trifles as toilet paper.
The idea for our government to act recklessly and irresponsibly must have come from somewhere closer to the top. The people did not ask for this. That much is certain.

Because it is the elites that make wars. In order to conquer resources and territories rich in resources.
It is not the governments, the single states. They are unaware pawns of games of power.
They have always gamed with the democratically elected leaders making them believe wars are the right thing to do.
Who benefits from war?
1) Banking dynasties who lend money to the states in order to make wars
2) Weapon industry, entirely owned by those same banking dynasties, either directly or indirectly.

And I just want you to know something. IG Farben built the largest industrial complex in the world (at that time), in the thirties-fourties. Where? Auschwitz.
Who owned the IG Farben? Warburg and others.

 

[Revoltingest]

If there is a Christian leader who believes in God, Fatherland, Family and is called Vladìmir Putin, Italians will fall in love with him. Because they value these things, all the rest is unimportant.
Money, wealth are all things which will rot. The afterlife and God's judgment is what matters.

Woe unto non-Christians if these violent
theocrats seize even more control

 

[Estro Felino]

Woe unto non-Christians if these violent
theocrats seize even more control

Unfortunately religion still has lots of influence all over the world. Especially when it deals with choosing a leader.
But...I had no idea who to vote for when I was much younger.
Then I studied Macroeconomics, besides Law and I understood nothing is black and white.
What liberals say is true. What socialists say is also true.
The problem is when you radicalize economic liberalism (neo-liberism), or when you radicalize socialism (resulting in Communism). But both are necessary.
It is like saying that plants need light only, or that plants need water only. They need both.

 

[Stevicus]

Because it is the elites that make wars. In order to conquer resources and territories rich in resources.
It is not the governments, the single states. They are unaware pawns of games of power.
They have always gamed with the democratically elected leaders making them believe wars are the right thing to do.
Who benefits from war?
1) Banking dynasties who lend money to the states in order to make wars
2) Weapon industry, entirely owned by those same banking dynasties, either directly and indirectly.

And I just want you to know something. The IG Farben built the largest industrial complex in the world (at that time), in the thirties-fourties. Where? Auschwitz.
Who owned the IG Farben? Warburg and others.

Yes, it seems like a giant game of chance. The trouble with gambling is that some people tend to bet far more than they can afford to lose. It's one thing if they just lose their own money, but if it comes to lives being lost or even the viability of entire societies, then it's too much. War is the ultimate gambit, and that has also escalated into a kind of all-or-nothing affair, at least when thinking in terms of the potential for nuclear devastation.

 

[metis]

If there is a Christian leader who believes in God, Fatherland, Family and is called Vladìmir Putin, Italians will fall in love with him. Because they value these things, all the rest is unimportant.

Only if they ignore basic Judeo-Christian/humanistic teachings. Putin does not live "love one another as I have loved you"-- not even close.

 

[Estro Felino]

Only if they ignore basic Judeo-Christian/humanistic teachings. Putin does not live "love one another as I have loved you"-- not even close.

His last presidential visit in the United States was in 2015.
2015. What do Americans think of him?

 

[metis]

His last presidential visit in the United States was in 2015.
2015. What do Americans think of him?

Since he was the former head of the KGB, and since he invaded an ally of the west, I do think the answer is quite obvious.

 

[Estro Felino]

Since he was the former head of the KGB, and since he invaded an ally of the west, I do think the answer is quite obvious.

Russia is supposed to be an European ally.
Russia is Europe.
Being a former head of the KGB is nothing compared to the ties between Soros and the EU.

 

[metis]

Russia is supposed to be an European ally.
Russia is Europe.
Being a former head of the KGB is nothing compared to the ties between Soros and the EU.

So?

 

[Revoltingest]

U
What liberals say is true. What socialists say is also true.

I see many opinions claiming truth.
The latter is in very short supply.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see many opinions claiming truth.
The latter is in very short supply.

Well, I see no truth in the category of value statements for all ideologies including mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I see no truth in the category of value statements for all ideologies including mine.

"Truth" can mean things of varying certainty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Truth" can mean things of varying certainty.

Yeah.