Wake the F*ck Up! (A Rebuttal)
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Blogger
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
GoogleSamuel L. Jackson's "Wake the Fuck Up" video urges Americans to re-elect Barack Obama even as it chides the president's supporters for a lack of enthusiasm.
Why might voters be less than pleased with Obama? Reason TV responds with its own rhyme.
Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie (who also narrates).
About 1.30 minutes. Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Oh God! Now the server squirrels are dupplicating entire posts!
-
It will be worth it to have Obama back in the White House just so headlines like this continue.
Biden promotes free colonoscopies to seniors in Florida
-
Every Obama ad talks about how he will give x interest group free shit, but greedy evil Romney will take it away. I mean, it's a standard tactic, but I've never seen it pushed to this extent.
-
Romney does the same thing, just for different interest groups.
-
No, not like this.
There is no Romneyphone.com, and there will be no quite equivalent Romneycigars.com or RomneyCadillacs.com or whatever.
Romney is like a standard politician. And standard politicians do indeed mostly just run around promising to dole out free shit in exchange for votes.
But not quite to this "how about free birth control? Free colonoscopies?" level. These guys are something else. Clinton wasn't a quarter that bad.
-
But not quite to this "how about free birth control? Free colonoscopies?" level. These guys are something else. Clinton wasn't a quarter that bad.
He created a system to give away both things for free as Governor.
-
I can't figure out why the T o n y s of this world are so frightened of Romney? At worst he's Obama light.... both plan to continue breastfeeding the banks tax dollars. Romney, despite his recent marketing plan....err...campaign strategy has no objections to a shitty overpriced "health care" program. Both will continue the wars drugs and terror. Romney has banned more guns than the "LightBringer" for fucks sake.....what the hell is TEAM BLUE so frightened of?!?
-
That TEAM RED will win.
-
I always miss the obvious answer!
Shit!
-
It's like asking why the Raiders are afraid the Broncos will win. I mean, the both throw the ball, run the ball, and play defense.
THEY'RE EXACTLY THE SAME! What's TEAM RAIDERS so frightened of?!?
-
Peyton Manning?
-
I personally don't think the Raiders could beat USC.
-
I recently had a chat with my lefty father about it and said to him something like "Neither are going to do anything about all these troops overseas pissing people off and creating terrorists, neither will reign in the DEA, neither will do shit about the debt or deficit, neither has the power to change laws on abortion or gay marriage (making both issues moot), and on health care Romney wants to 'Remove and replace' ... OK... with what? So I really don't see how I can vote for either of them. They both suck."
Him: "Well this power to vote is too important to just throw away and waste on a third party"
Me: "A lesser of two evils is still evil. I might as well choose the greater evil and write in Satan... Or Gary Johnson."
He gave a condescending chortles that would have made his peep Olberman proud.
It all started with my asking him about Amendment 64 (he's in CO). I've got to stop talking politics with the old man.
-
That's a bummer of a scene. Oh, well.
I quibble with you on only one item -- it's not the "lesser of two evils", and I think this is where libertarians might make some hay.
They are exactly the same. The sooner folks recognize the so-called evil equivalency, the better. There is no "lesser".
Anyway, at least post inauguration day, there's only one guy left who will bear the arrows of any economic or diplomatic hiccough. And let them fly. -
I'd say the real problem is the lesser evil--in this case, Willard--isn't sufficiently less evil. That"s really how this works, as you can always make a case that one is worse. But the realization that the difference isn't enough to make things better, well, that's the way to real wisdom.
-
I don't think it is less evil at all, he sounds like a Keynesian who wants military welfare instead of democratic welfare.
-
"Well this power to vote is too important to just throw away and waste on a third party"
I thought people only said shit like that in comment sections because you can't be slapped through the internet.
Really man, I am a General and with all of the responsibility and power that the position musters I give you full permission to smack the shit out of your dad.
-
You could remind him that if he cares so deeply about the future of the Dhimmicratic Party it doesn't make any sense for him to vote for an incompetent boob who refuses to learn from his mistakes and will only drag its fortunes down with him. Vote indie and wait for the next Clinton would be a more viable Blue hack strategy.
Which is why I think for a libertarian in the overall course of things it is better that Obama becomes reelected as it would give the LP an opportunity to squeeze the Dhimmicrats out of a dominant party roll. Four more years of communist moocher rhetoric that is a facade for crony capitalism and the message might finally sink in to even your father that that path only leads to ruin.
-
Meant for sarc, of course. I'm sure that the General has already been victorious over his own father. Otherwise not likely he would be a general.
-
Actually, I have gotten my dad to forsake Romney. It took some verbal wrestling (my Pa can vacillate from anarchism to a race based Hitlerian nationalism in a conversation so this was no easy task) but the Romney bumper-sticker has yet to make it on to his pickup. He said today that "Romney has no fucking balls" and I realized that the war was over.
If I could only smack the racism out of him I'd be golden. He's holding onto it like a talisman as of now though.
-
Watch Gran Torino with him.
-
Me?
Ya man, 'cause my Pa is that dude but more curmudgeonly
-
i say vote your principles. in the end, they are all that matters. The only thing no one can take from you.
As far as the troops overseas. They aren't creating terrorists. i've been there. Islamist Extremists were attacking Americans long before we had any military present in the middle east or north africa. Doesn't mean we need to be spending all that money on bases all over the world, but that wouldn't relieve the problem of terrorism.
-
It's his party I fear, not him so much. But it's not like he's gonna stand up to his party. It wouldn't be good for his reelection, and he has no principles.
-
They're both nearly the same, sorry. You idiots are running out of money.
-
Cuz bammy isn't at all like a wet noodle in the face of decisions.
-
I don't know if you're talking about Obama or Romney.
-
He even does some of them himself!
-
Bravo
-
What we need is for R. Lee Ermey to do a rebuttal (not neccessarily to vote Romney, just not for Obama). We all know who'd win in a berating contest between the Jackson and Ermey.
-
I was hoping we could bribe Herzog. He has a charm and aplomb that would kill it.
-
He's actually done some "gun rights voter" ads.
-
The "Occupy my Double Wide" shirt is fucking classic.
-
I get the feeling he probably loves the military a lot, so not a very libertarian message.
-
Funny guy but politically he's an old vestige we don't need to aggrandize.
-
As a military officer, I take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The US Constitution is my fucking bible, torah, quran; I can't think of anything more libertarian than that.
-
You can love the military without aggrandizing the military-industrial complex, as this Bro points out.
-
^^
this -
Jackson need not worry. No matter how much Obama's policies dispoint or leave them unenthused, his supporters will still vote for him. In fact, it's probably better for Obama if these people don't "wake up."
-
Figured the last line would be "make like Pakistanis at night and....DUCK!
-
Actually brought a tear to my eye.
-
By the way, where does an actor that pulls in $20 million a performance get off reminding the middle-class about "fair pay"?
-
Jes keepin it reel....bitchez!
-
That just says it all.
And it does for most of the entertainment, economic illiterates. -
I can't bring myself to listen to someone wearing a Kangol hat. This is the great red line in the sand.
-
Very nice work
The JacketNick.Well done.
-
Obamanites Get Violent in Support of the Agenda!
http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/.....he-agenda/
“Food For Thought”
Semper Fi! -
After Obama is re-elected, he will end the madness. Term 1 was compromised so that he wouldn't appear weak with the army brass and terror-fearing rednecks.
Post 11/6, he won't have the war-mongering, conservative nutcases to appease anymore and he'll close shop in Afghanistan and fulfill his Nobel obligation. -
Just like his predecessor, who reformed 'entitlements' after his reelection.
-
FD| 9.28.12 @ 7:34PM |#
"After Obama is re-elected, he will end the madness...."
^?
Sarc? I hope so. -
Fuck yeah. It's about time we got some aggression out of Reason. I'm getting tired of thugs and thieves on the left and right being treated as though they deserved common courtesy.
-
Say "what" again, mothafucka, I dare ya. I double dare ya!
-
Yep, about time.
-
I can rebut that video with one word: Booooooooosssssshhhhhhh
-
Yes! That summarizes all the argument needed.
-
I wanted some drug raid commentary.
-
Awesome Nick.
-
Yar, I liked the vid.
Good shit, nick.
-
Don't really understand this video. True, Obama hasn't completely dismantled the military, but he did take us out of Iraq, correct? He did respond to multiple situations in the middle east with minimal military action, correct? And I realize this site isn't exactly "pro Romney", but Romney is going around saying he will increase Military spending, correct?
Too many things don't add up.
-
Too many things don't add up.
That's because you're a raging retard.
-
Good comeback, based on reason.
-
I am an angry pacifist and do not abide those that murder innocents with robots or their mongoloid apologists.
Soooo, take your 'reason' and shove it up your fucking ass you sorry excuse for a human being.
-
I understand you can be mad at Obama for failing to stop it, but you do understand that Drones were not Obama's idea and were going on long before he took office, right?
-
Your mind works so poorly that it's almost interesting.
Almost.
If you'd like to debate the morality of murdering innocent people, I'd be down for that, but endless iterations of excuse making are boring and will be met with further insults.
-
Well, obviously they don't want to murder innocent people.
Do you know why the drones are there or what they are trying to accomplish?
It is easy to say "let's end the murdering", and if it were that simple, I would be all for that. Unfortunately, the world is just not that simple.
This is not an excuse, just trying to bring up the point that the world is much more complex than viewpoint presented here.
-
So, say I'm some guy and I come home from work and find my family strewn about the neighborhood, their body parts hanging from the trees, and all that I'be ever worked for or loved is destroyed then all is okay because 'the world is complex'.
Really?
All you fucking have is complex? I'd wonder if after seeing your family burn in front of you if you'd still offer up such inanities.
I'm sorry I called you a retard earlier; I didn't mean to insult those with disabilities.
-
Ok, we can use your example. So suppose there is a gang living in a house down the street from your house. That gang has shown before they will kill members of your family and cause general crime in your area. The possibility of that happening again to your family or one of your neighbors is certainty. You don't want to cause a large neighborhood war, but you want to destabilize them so that they can't organize their forces to harm you and other innocent people.
What would you do? Would you ignore them and just accept it when they harm your family or do something preemptively to prevent it?
-
You are fucking scum.
I can only hope that one day we will be a people that would be much too ashamed to write things akin to what your comment implies. I want you to read what you wrote in reply to what I wrote and seriously consider the implications of your mode of thought.
-
Well, I spend everyday of my life helping people. Not sure what you do.
But in that situation, I would kill them. I would prevent innocent deaths by killing them.
If you're blaming Obama for the mistakes of innocents being killed, than I guess that's somewhat fair, even though that clearly is not their intention and he probably wasn't even fully aware of it.
-
A gas station attendant spends everyday of their life helping people, but it doesn't grant him any moral or rhetorical advantage. Not that I could actually think that you spend your all ye days helping your countrymen.
Killa was right you play to the amoral utilitarian stereotype too well; I call sockpuppet.
-
Accept my apologies if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure I directly help more people in a month than you will in your entire life.
But anyway, there is no doubt innocent people dying is wrong, as is most forms of killing, and wars.
And I'm not even saying Obama's policies are right.
My point is that the world is more complex than what is presented in this article and this message board. It's easy to say "don't kill anyone" and find another solution, but that doesn't really work when your opponent will not use reason and refuses any compromise except killing you.
The mantra of "no killing whatsoever" reeks of someone who has never had to face a real decision in their life, of people who live in their protected middle class world failing to ever take action, but rather frequently criticizing.
-
"My point is that the world is more complex than what is presented in this article and this message board. It's easy to say "don't kill anyone" and find another solution, but that doesn't really work when your opponent will not use reason and refuses any compromise except killing you."
----------------------Yep, cause those broke guys in the mud huts were just being way too aggressive to not waste our resources murdering them. I mean, here in America I feel threatened every single day. I hear a car backfire and for a second I'm like "Oh my God, are the Yemenis here?!?!?!"
-
Even if we were to go so far as to accept your analogy as perfectly accurate, I'd still say that those choices you offered aren't the only ones.
-
"Well, obviously they don't want to murder innocent people."
Ah, yes. Obviously, these out-of-touch libertarians are ignoring the fact that it's excusable to repeatedly slaughter more innocent civilians than 100 Colorado Theater Shooters could possibly kill, as long as you didn't mean to do it.
Your complete abandonment of ethics does not constitute "rational thought", so please - enough with the blustering about who is or isn't employing actual "reason" here.
-
"if it were that simple"
"the world is much more complex"Indeed, that's why libertarians want to minimize the situations in which only a few people have the power to enforce their view of what is right or useful or just, on everyone else in society. It is the very existence of complexity and dynamism in the face of human limitations that makes a regime of individual liberty necessary beyond the very smallest communities.
I hear this "it's all so complex" so we should embrace centralization, planning and statism argument all the frigging time, and in every single case, the person uttering it is frighteningly ignorant of any of the ideas that might even be remotely helpful in understanding that complexity, whether in economics, politics or history.
-
The world is complex. But morality isn't. Obama is a murderer.
-
"Obama is a murderer".
Tell that to the people who gave him the Noble Peace Prize.
"I mean, here in America I feel threatened every single day."
Funny you don't see the connection. I wonder why you feel safe, especially when these terrorist groups come out and directly say they are going to commit terrorism in the US. We've already seen it, more than once. Do we just ignore things like 9/11?
Libertarians have some good points. It's just a shame you easily become so radical, it then becomes so easy to dismiss you. Of course Obama has done has things poorly, and maybe he isn't the best guy for the job, but your continued radical lack of objectivity makes it easy to forget you.
-
"Tell that to the people who gave him the Noble Peace Prize."
Ok, now I get it. You are joking. Whew! for a few mins there I thought you were serious.
-
Obama is a dipshit and didn't take us out of Iraq genius. We've got 16 K people there.
His drone killery and explicit support of terrorists in Libya and Egypt hasn't helped shit, fuck you.
If you want to experiment with the military do it with your own money, and when you fuck up you should be held accountable. As it is the state is investigating itself and declaring that they are doing nothing wrong.
-
Hilarious. You really just make this up.
-
"Funny you don't see the connection. I wonder why you feel safe, especially when these terrorist groups come out and directly say they are going to commit terrorism in the US."
-------------I don't see the connection because I didn't feel any less safe before we started pre-emptively drone bombing the shit out of mud huts and tents halfway across the world. Did you?
-
I'm not saying everything they do is correct or defending everything decision they make. I believe the amount of money they spend on the military is outrageous and unneeded.
But if you were to personally ask me if I feel safer in my country in general and safer getting on a plane than immediately post 9/11. Yes, honestly, I do.
You can really say what you want, but you can't prove it though. At least for the time being, they have prevented another major terrorist attack in the US for the last 10+ years. If they took no action, I don't think the same result would have happened.
It's very easy to sit here and criticize everything they do. Or one day, you can wake up and realize the world just isn't that simple, that people in power have to make difficult decisions, and the job is much harder than you can ever imagine sitting on your comfortable middle class couch.
-
It's very easy to sit here and criticize everything they do. Or one day, you can wake up and realize the world just isn't that simple, that people in power have to make difficult decisions, and the job is much harder than you can ever imagine sitting on your comfortable middle class couch.
This is a crockshit answer that flies in the face of open governance, and an argument from ignorance. I don't sit on my couch worrying about what would happen if we didn't carpet bomb Muslims. I just read the news and find out what happens when we do.
-
Exactly my point. You don't really understand the issue, you're just reacting to sensationalism with little to no practical reason.
-
No, I understand blowback all too well.
-
Anyways, the argument from ignorance is feeble. Try harder.
-
Right, because the guys that really truly understand the issue are the ones giving youtube movie reviews and calling them press conferences.
-
Libertarians have some good points. It's just a shame you easily become so radical, it then becomes so easy to dismiss you.
By dismiss, do you mean plug your ears and yell?
-
"Tell that to the people who gave him the Nobel Peace Prize."
I would pay good money for the opportunity to do exactly that.
-
I don't think you could, because trust me, I make a lot more money than you.
-
I don't think you could, because trust me, I make a lot more money than you.
What are you, the mouthpiece of Sauron? The narcissism runs deep with this one.
-
YAY!! Fuxxing Drink!
-
YUP!
MOAR BOOZE!
We didn't have posters like this when Postrel was in charge!
BLARGHH
-
True, Obama hasn't completely dismantled the military, but he did take us out of Iraq, correct?
-
Also, don't tell him that the process was initiated and planned by Herr Boosh; his wittle head might explode.
-
What is it that the cult of Obama call him? The Light Bringer or is it The Light Giver? I forget which.
-
Not really sure what these replies mean, since you are bringing up problems created by Bush. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a liberal, not a Bush supporter. The article you posted cites problems that occurred almost entirely before 2007, and Obama took office after that.
-
The report was released in July and according to it, it is about on going problems, According to the report, auditors repeatedly found that the State Department and Defense Department failed to properly review invoices from government contractors, often approving billions of dollars in services without checking if costs were accurate or efficient. “I think the consistent theme throughout our eight years of oversight work has been the inconsistent availability of records and information on contracts and costs,” said Bowen, a former Texas lawyer.
The claim you make, The article you posted cites problems that occurred almost entirely before 2007 is not in the report. But, I guess, Obama has only been in office 3 and 2/3 years so he has nothing to do with that problem, does he?
Anyhoo, which is it, Light Bringer or Light Giver? And which signifies the higher rank, white robes or saffron? I'm trying to learn about you people, help me out a little.
-
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a liberal, not a Bush supporter.
Also, you plan to vote Obama? Well, then, you are not a liberal. Liberalism is an ideology born of the enlightenment, an offspring of empiricism and skepticism about supernatural forces guiding human events.
Obama had this to say the other day: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. That language reflects a belief system that takes the concepts of the profane and blasphemy seriously. That takes you all the way back to the eighth century. Therefore, you are not a liberal.
-
Nice little history listen there... about what, I'm not sure. You can give that lesson to the other tens of millions of people in the US who call themselves their liberal too.
You can spend your life needlessly criticizing people about meaningless things and accomplishing nothing.
I'll take a pass on that myself.
-
You can spend your life needlessly criticizing people about meaningless things and accomplishing nothing.
I'll take a pass on that myself.
You don't even have an ounce of self awareness in you do you? Your statement so aptly describes what you are doing here, if I made you up as a character in a novel I would be accused of stereotyping.
-
You did actually read the article, right? I don't doubt that there still may be ongoing problems, but absolutely nothing in the article says anything about problems happening now and everything it cites is in the past tense. Any years it gives are before 2007.
Irregardless of that, if you expect a politician to take office and immediately correct every problem in every aspect of the government in 3 years, well then I have some swamp land to sell you in Florida, because you are pretty gullible and easily fall prey to media bias.
No doubt Iraq was and is a mess, but Obama didn't start any of it, and in fact took us out of Iraq. There are plenty of things to blame Obama about, but Iraq isn't one of them.
It's a shame so many of you are completely unobjective, because Libertarians do make some good points sometimes. Practicality, though, is usually not a good attribute of you.
Don't mean to assume, but I'm sure you're a Libertarian who wants to reduce spending and cut taxes, and also believes somehow that will take us out of the recession. Too bad those three things are not compatible with each in any way.
-
Clearly, we haven't spent nearly enough to get us out of this economic wreck /sarc. It would be a good idea for you to avoid any mention of economics; you are laughably ignorant if those last two sentences are any indication.
Also, are you trying to make me look good by mischaracterizing that report, yet again? I already demonstrated that you are a liar. Do I need to do so again?
Friday’s report, titled “Final Forensic Audit Report of Iraq Reconstruction Funds”, was wider in scope than most of SIGIR’s work, covering not just a specific project, but a broader picture of Iraq’s reconstruction. SIGIR spokesman Chris Griffith said, however, that Bowen' has one more major report to publish in January.
Many of the challenges described in the Iraq report mirror those depicted in similar reports by its cousin, the office of the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. In a May report to Congress, for example, that office concluded that “corruption remains a major threat to the reconstruction effort” and said contractors were taking advantage of lax oversight in Afghanistan.
Enough distractions, Light Bringer or Light Giver and whose the bigger dog, white robe wearer or saffron? Why are you avoiding answering these questions? You have something to hide?
-
Again, nothing about current dates. Not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with this article you keep citing. I see that the reports come out this year but the article also clearly states the majority of what it examines began in 2004, but Obama took office in 2009.
I guess this sentence means nothing to you: "releasing a new summary of his office’s many grim discoveries since it began work in in 2004".
In any event, please educate me on economics, please educate me on society or economy that came out of a recession by cutting spending. I think some noble prize winning economists would like to hear that as well.
Also please tell me about the society that went into a recession and their public debt decreased. That's another one I would like to hear.
-
No, I don't do econ 101. Ask Old Mexican, he has the patience for the ignorant of which I can't stomach.
You really will say anything to distract from my questions about your cult. Are there severe penalties involved if you talk about it?
-
I guess this sentence means nothing to you: "releasing a new summary of his office’s many grim discoveries since it began work in in 2004".
You're funny. Just full of the reading comprehension fail. Do you need to learn what the word 'began' means or how that sentence you quote relates to the one I quoted above I think the consistent theme throughout our eight years of oversight work has been the inconsistent availability of records and information on contracts and costs? I'll slow it down a bit so you'll get it. As. in. it. starts. in. 2004. and. then. if. you. add. eight. years. that. will. bring. you. to. 2008.. In other words, the present.
Have you stopped to consider that you may really be brain dead that I'm running circles around you without any effort? Shit, the Zombie Apocalypse really has started hasn't it?
-
you. to. 2008.
You've infected me, you bastard!
-
You do know how to read, correct? I mean, I read that article and it clearly states they are summarizing work that began in 2004, 5 years before Obama took office. I stated multiple times here that I bet not everything is cleaned up, but to blame Obama for something that began and the majority of which occurred 5 years before he took office is a little ridiculous, no? But you guys don't really care about anything objective or practical, you're just pawns of websites like this.
-
Obama didn't take us out of Iraq.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article.....3320111218
And you can write what you want about a presence we still have there, or a policy that Bush supported that ended it, or blah blah blah.
The fact is Iraq was a disaster, and the majority of troops left under his watch. I really don't care about giving Obama credit for it, but you can't blame him for the Iraq mess either.
-
Most libertarians understand that targeted interference in the economy tends to distort markets in order to benefit specific parties and tend to prolong recessions. Now run along and go pick up a highschooler's econ book. Then go take your pack of crayons and work all of those nifty little supply and demand curves over and over again until you've figured out how absolutely absurd your defense of obama's fiscal policy sounds.
-
Let me give you guys some economic realities of the world. You'll arrogantly ignore them, but hey, at least I tried.
What happens in a recession: people lose their jobs. When they lose their jobs, the government loses their tax revenue and has to pay them unemployment. Hence, the debt grows larger. Why has basically every president in the last 100 years spent more money in a large recession? Because the more the government spends, the more fiscal pressure it relieves from it's citizens to spur the economy. I mean why do you think a republican congress approved Obama's spending bill? Because they thought increasing the debt was a good idea? I don't think so. So the debt increasing was inevitable, decided before Obama even took office, because of the size of the recession he took office during. You do remember when the deregulated financial and housing industry almost collapsed our economy, correct?
You may argue that Obama could have done a better job financially, and maybe you're right. But in a recession that large, no politician could have taken office and reduced the debt, or even prevented it from increasing. It's just not how the world works. Sure, they could have tried, but the recession would have been about 5 times larger than it was if they succeeded to control the debt.
So please, arrogantly reply with no actual facts and dismiss this as dimwitted and ignorant. Do whatever you want.
I'll chose to live in the real world while you're doing that.
-
Oh and one more thing. I am going to assume as Libertarians, you want to end all entitlement programs, like unemployment. Accept my apologies if that is incorrect.
But the next time a major recession happens, and it will happen because they have been going on since the beginning of time, with or without government, please refuse to save your family and house by rejecting unemployment. I would love to see you stand by your principles and do that.
-
Ignorance is bliss -- both from the macro perspective as well as the personal charge toward most libertarians who lost jobs.
Start with Hazlitt's _Economics in One Lesson_. Still great after all these years. -
Hilarious. Always, the same, no facts and still advocating extreme free market ideas.
Tell me friend, there is no doubt that the economic collapse of several years was at least in part due to reduced regulations on multiple levels. Do we just ignore that these same principles almost destroyed our entire economy?
I completely believe these ideas will spur the economy in the short term, the problem is when the next recession comes, and it will come, because it always comes, no matter what government is in place, how do these principles perform? Not well.
I will chose rather to forgo the peak of growth for some growth with a safety net in the future.
-
Oh, and I leave you with one more thought to chew on. If these ideas work so so well, and so elegantly solve everything, why has no major 1st world country in the world really employed them to their fullest? I mean, it is an easier solution to administer and use, so you would think that if it worked so well that many other 1st world countries would use them. Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the case.
-
These ideas of an extreme free market are not new by any means. I learned about them in my 10th grade history class. The problem is that they don't fully work. The US is mostly a free market and it's true these ideas do accomplish some great things in the short term. However, the radical free market solutions put forth by Libertarians/Conservatives/Tea Party are just a farce. An old world idea that has proven to not fully work time and time again. Yet you chose to ignore history. The fact is, that if these free market ideas solved everything so wonderfully, why did our government and so so many other governments around the world slowly move further away from an extreme free market? Shouldn't these ideas have marketed themselves, making it so easy to see it is the perfect solution? Unfortunately for your argument again, that is not the case.
-
"Hilarious. Always, the same, no facts and still advocating extreme free market ideas."
If you'd like facts,
U.S. unemployment -- 8.1%.
Real U.S. unemployment -- 11%.
Regulations? Private sector, public sector and banking institutions across the board -- regulations dramatically INCREASED under... Bush.
Obama continued trend.
It's always dangerous for a statist to ask for facts.
Again, ignorance is bliss. -
And facts of any kind? Do you have any that actually prove your point?
Because I can offer that a large part of the financial part of the financial crisis occurred because of credit default swaps that were a direct result the deregulation of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, signed by Bill Clinton. If that bill was not signed, some of those Investment Banks would not have collapsed. That is fact.
But I guess we can ignore that simple fact and just keep flaunting a theory that basically has no evidence of actually working, only failure when examined over an extended period.
I will agree we are still in a recession, but can you offer any evidence what so ever that any theory you propose would actually do anything? In the last 3 years, they have cut taxes, reduced interest rates, and spent. Explain to me exactly how any theory you propose could do anything else to spur the economy?
And it is true unemployment is 8.1%, but when look at European Nation with unemployment over 20%, you realize the magnitude of this worldwide recession and consider it would have been an almost impossible job to exit it in only 1 or 2 years.
-
Somehow, when almost every 1st world European nation other than Germany has HIGHER unemployment that the US, we ignore that and focus on the fact the our government has done a horrible job.
-
"If that bill was not signed, some of those Investment Banks would not have collapsed. That is fact."
That is not fact, it is speculation. And the pun was intended.
This is how governments and their agents capture minds like yours -- insisting that if you don't fork over your money, disaster will occur. That disaster might be commies or terrorists or global warming, or poverty, or death to your sons and daughters (ouch, the irony). That is their modus operandi, and the slaves follow blindly.
Von Mises was extraordinary in this regard, highlighting how every action, every law, every regulation is effected by politicans and bureacrats as if ommiscience is held in the hands of these controllers. Yet the opposite is true.
In fact, take your cited supposition (again, not a fact). Investment banks will behave much differently, much more ethically, if you allow them to hold the bag and suffer consequences, rather than force the citizenry to save their asses. Wall Street one-percenters are indebted to your White House occupier.
Safety net, indeed. -
I see that doyle640 is trying to take the intellectual level of this site up a notch. I will reiterate his very excellent question:
"If life without government were so grand, then why hasn't any government actually eliminated itself?"
See, that's the kind of sound thinking that's going to get you places.
-
Wow that's scary.
The government uses force and populism to grow exponentially, in unhealthy manners.
Poor people and Middle Class people are greedy as fuck, and they ask for government handouts. Liberals are disgusting because they refuse to admit that their system is bullshit. I can't wait for Libertarians to start seasteading.
-
hk, I have no idea what you do for a living or the amount of money you have. But I honestly find it hard to believe that someone in your family or someone close to your family has never benefited from welfare, unemployment, social security, medicare, or medicaid. Unless you are obscenely wealthy, every person over the age of 65 uses Medicare as their primary insurance because there is no way they could afford another solution. I highly doubt no one in your family has ever used Medicare.
My point though, is that if you truly believe in libertarian values, you should advocate them not to use any entitlement program. In fact, if you ever lose your job, or become very sick... and you reject any form of entitlement, I would applaud you because that shows true integrity. Unfortunately, I think the odds of that happening are likely zero.
-
Did you ever consider that those that do exactly that might not come here and brag about it because 1) being unemployed isn't a badge of honour and 2) your brief applause for integrity doesn't really mean shit to them either?
-
That's fantastic if live by the values they use to criticize others with. Not really sure what is has to do with my statement though. If they don't come on here, great. If they do, that's fine too. I'm sure there are Libertarians out there that live by those values, not many, but some. Applause to them if they do. It's pretty meaningful to live by the values you choose to use to criticize other with, because most don't.
-
If you just light the straw on fire it's faster than just pounding the shit out of him.
-
The US is mostly a free market
Is not. It's mostly a highly regulated market, particularly note the currency/credit monopoly, financial industry, health care industry, thousands or licensed professions, education largely government provided, oh, I could go on and on, suffice it to say that you have no clue what a free market would look like. -
I am afraid I do and you obviously don't. It is absolutely true that there are regulations in almost all of the industries you mentioned, but that still doesn't mean the US isn't one of most unregulated countries in the world, which it is.
For instance the government provides education, but you're free to go to whatever private school you want. It's true they have to meet standards, but those standards aren't that stringent, to be honest. I mean Quaker Friends schools exist that virtually have no rules, and the government allows it.
The government actually has very little regulations on healthcare, and again you're free to go see whatever doctor, wherever you want if you can pay for it.
And monopolies, whether you mean those controlled by the government or those which developed independently are the price of business and history has absolutely shown us that in a true free market monopolies would dominate.
Finally, and honestly, a society without licensed professionals would be a nightmare scenario, one that if you really understood you wouldn't wish upon your worst enemy. When you're sick, you're free to go to whatever charlatan down the street to perform blood letting on you if you want. They still exist, they're just not licensed. But most people chose those that are licensed, because they know they will receive a certain amount of quality.
-
Tell me friend, there is no doubt that the economic collapse of several years was at least in part due to reduced regulations on multiple levels.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. He actually drank that Kool-ade.
-
Amazing that you've refused to acknowledge that the debt accumulates after all that "stimulus" spending done to prevent the recession from deepening. Every market has to undergo correction when there's distortion, even labor markets. The result of that has been continuous downgrading of our nations debt, which is leading to debt-holders refusing to finance future debt and redeeming their bonds. Regardless of that, unemployment benfits incentivize labor from not re-entering the market quickly and reduces tax revenues even more. And as a result of that, consumer spending drops, affecting other markets. And then more unemployment occurs, which leads to more government spending, which leads to more unemployment payouts and less tax revenues, which leads to more "stimulus".
These facts you speak of. They do not support your argument.
-
Sy,
Not really sure where this comes from: "Amazing that you've refused to acknowledge that the debt accumulates after all that "stimulus" spending done to prevent the recession from deepening."
Of course, debt accumulates, I don't think anyone would argue that. I certainly am not refuting that and didn't bring it up directly because it is assumed.
Of course our debt will accumulate during a recession, and then starts to fall when the recession ends. The cycle of life.
Anyway, your theories are nice, but it's kind of difficult to jump right back into the labor market in a recession. That's really the definition of recession, the jobs don't exist anymore. And true, some might be able to jump back in, but the odds of them being underemployed at their new job are high, which can have later have other devastating affects on the economy.
Your theory works if unemployment benefits were indefinite and had no regulations, which is not true. I would say the extension unemployment benefits have now is a little long, but it at least takes months to find a new job if you lost yours, and before the recent extension unemployment was on the order of twenty something weeks.
-
Your theory, like most of the Libertarian economic theories, lacks of practicality. Your theory is true in a world where a person can immediately find another job, which of course is not true in a recession, if unemployment benefits last indefinitely and without regulations, which of course is also not true, and in a world where a recession lasts forever, which also is not true. The economics Libertarians profess has never been used to exit a recession in the US in it's purest form in the last 100 years, yet we have exited those recessions, haven't we?
The problem with Libertarian economic policies are its radicalism. If something is going wrong, anything, the solution is to become more and more radical in your demands of a free market as the solution. There is never any acknowledgement of the need for any kind of entitlement program or any kind of regulation.
And because of that, you miss history's greatest lesson. The radical view is almost never the correct one. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, with a little bit of a contribution from multiple viewpoints.
-
Libertarians continue to be brainwashed by a three hundred year old theory of economics, that is just a theory, with little actual proof, if any, to it's success. It's as if there have been no advancements in the filed of economics in the last two centuries. But instead of acknowledging it and trying to modify it to improve it, you stick to your guns and continue to arrogantly criticize any other contrarian viewpoint. I must admit, I admire the refusal to back down. I think it's an incorrect viewpoint, but the stubbornness is strong.
But seriously, kudos to you if you never use unemployment in your life. I have never used it myself, but it's nice to know in a bad situation, I would have some help.
-
"The economics Libertarians profess has never been used to exit a recession in the US in it's purest form in the last 100 years, yet we have exited those recessions, haven't we?"
That's because MARKETS have recovered in spite of government policies, not because of it. Arguing that absense of adherence is proof of its illegitimacy is fallacious, given that in your little "economic reality" scenario, people expect their politicians to bail them out.
-
Nice try, but you can say that about absolutely anything in life. I can say you can't disprove creatianism, which you can't, and can use that as proof of its existence in your world.
I know you want to absolutely refuse to admit this, but in many situations in the last 100 years when the government spent and took on more of the economy's fiscal responsibility, thus giving its people more resources to spur its growth, there really isn't an argument to say that hurts the economy. I know that you'll come up with one, but it will be bullsh**. It will likely revolve around debt, which may be true in the long term, but not in the short term, and the affect of spending will lessoned by the increase in tax revenues obtained from recovery.
Anyway, after so many instances of recessions ending after spending, it takes a lot to keep insisting the economy is recovering in spit of it.
-
You're the one asking others to prove a negative, not me, dipshit.
"I know you want to absolutely refuse to admit this, but in many situations in the last 100 years when the government spent and took on more of the economy's fiscal responsibility, thus giving its people more resources to spur its growth,"By that logic, government-backed bailouts that you touted earlier should have prevented and remedied the recession, instead of making it worse. Unfortunately for you, the facts are completely against you.
-
"You're the one asking others to prove a negative, not me, dipshit."
You should think a little deeper about about that one brother. You're trying to purport that something is true, even though it didn't happen.
I'm giving a direct example of an action and result. Several times over.
Your argument will assert something is true, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
-
I'm asserting fundamental economic principles that you pretend don't exist. No matter how much you wish they weren't true, they are. And you're only making yourself look more foolish.
-
Exactly my point, I am showing you cause and result time and time again, but you're asserting principles that have no cause and result exist. At what point do you take your head out of the sand and realize you can't ignore reality for a cultish religion that has no proof it works over an extended period of time. History only proves failure.
-
"there really isn't an argument to say that hurts the economy. "
You might try this one for starters
-
Nice one, even though that article has absolutely nothing to do with a recession whatsoever.
I certainly never argued that long term debt is a good thing, and I likely never will, although that's not absolute.
My argument is that it does make sense for governments to take on more debt in certain situations for the future health of an economy.
And let's take a look at your assertion that the economy is worse after the spending. (Let's not use the term bailout because that has nothing to do with what we're talking about). 3 years ago at this point, unemployment was over 10%, now it's 8.1%. Our GDP has grown the last several years, which also implies stabilization of inflation. Overall the housing market is now improving. So maybe you should actually take a closer look at the facts before you write a statement. It's true the economy could likely be doing better, but it's also undeniable that it has significantly improved since the initiation of the recession and was likely stabilized.
-
Ok, let's just use the most classic argument of them all against a completely "free market economy". I don't think you would dare argue that monopolies don't result from a true free market. History has given us a number of examples of this over and over again. How are they good for our society? Especially when examples from history have shown they occasionally become more powerful than entire governments, a good example of this is evident from the British's takeover of India.
For instance, ATT, which controlled the communications industry for almost 50 years, had the beginnings of technology for cell phones in the 1940s. However, their business platform for use of them failed, and they chose not to develop them. Then comes along the US government and recognizes ATT was a monopoly controlling and holding back the nation's communication industry and broke them up. An what do you know, tada! An explosion of satellite and cellular technology resulted. But in a totally "free market" that would have never happened, because there would be no government intervention.
-
"I don't think you would dare argue that monopolies don't result from a true free market."
You claim to have some understanding of libertarian economic thought (that you even used to be a libertarian) but someone even slightly informed about the libertarian view of "natural" monopolies would know that most libertarians (and even many non-libertarians) do in fact reject such an assertion.
Demonstrate your knowledge of the libertarian position you claim to have progressed beyond before setting up silly straw men.
-
Ha, so funny. What website did you just look that up on? Because if you had any real understanding of monopolies you would know that the whole conception of natural and coercive monopolies is extremely flawed and that most economists don't take it seriously. An invention created those connected to laissez faire ideology to defend it's use.
Tell John Rockefeller, ATT, or even Microsoft that they didn't have monopolies. Tell them that their monopolies were created coercively with the help of the government, and since the government helped strike down all of the above, I think they would punch you in the face.
Here's the thing that always comes up with Libertarian economics... you have no proof whatsoever that is actually works in a sustainable fashion. History have given us examples time and time again of how it fails us in it's purest form, but you choose to ignore it and invent a work around as to why it didn't work.
Someday, you should graduate to adulthood. The world doesn't exist in a work around, an "only if" scenario, or just based on excuses. It just is. People are irrational, life is unpredictable on many levels, and you need some safety net.
-
Okay, I know this is late in the thread, but that is THE STUPIDEST statement I've ever read on this site and I've read some stupid ones, up to and including White Indian.
ATT was a government BACKED monopoly. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. They could NOT have had a monopoly WITHOUT the government.
God, these high school kids today!
-
It's quite apparent that you didn't even try to read it. It wasn't an article, it was a research paper. And only someone who's never heard of the word "economics" could come to the conclusion that based on the abstract alone, it had nothing to do with recessions. Enjoy your ignorance; hope it pays in whatever 100% insulated industry you pretend to be employed in.
-
Well, yes, I didn't read the entire article because you have to pay for it. So I am not going to do that. I did read the abstract, and it certainly is about debt and the consequences of debt, but specifically in times of recession.
Anyway, I suspect you're in your twenties, possibly in college, with limited experience of the world yet. You come form a somewhat upper middle class to well to do family. Am I right?
And you could quickly figure out the field I am in if you were the economic expert you think you are, because there are not many recession proof jobs. Do a search in any random engine, a five year old could figure it out in 2 minutes.
-
My apologies, I mean to write
"I did read the abstract, and it certainly is about debt and the consequences of debt, but not specifically in times of recession."
-
Yeah, high school junior is a pretty recession proof job, come to think of it.
-
Admit it, Doyle, you're really in high school aren't you. Whassa matter, no date for the homecoming?
-
Nice intellectual comeback there hotsy totsy.
-
You do remember when the deregulated financial and housing industry almost collapsed our economy, correct?
No, please tell me about this imaginary situation.
-
I did explain it explicitly above. You can choose to ignore the explanation if you want. Rather yet, why don't you explain why it happened? I am quite confident I know the exact details of the canned Libertarian response to this question, but I'm not sure you do. Try to do it without googling the answer first.
-
Irregardless is not a word.
-
-
The US owes 222 trillion dollars, you lose.
You're fucked, many cities are already bankrupt.
-
I actually will never be f***** because I happen to be in a profession that is immune to the economy, or any other economy I chose to live in. I will always have a job, and always be in demand.
-
I actually will never be f***** because I happen to be in a profession that is immune to the economy, or any other economy I chose to live in. I will always have a job, and always be in demand.
Tax collector?
-
Gay callboy (bottom)
-
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a liberal, not a Bush supporter.
Obviously you're too clueless to realize we already got that.
-
The real joke, honestly, is on all of you..... A true libertarian candidate will never be elected in this country on a national level. Ever. First, because as a political philosophy it just doesn't work, but two, because people will never accept your values.
You will degrade everything I write and never objectively accept any point I present, and you will do arrogantly.
But unfortunately for you, I am the one with the party that has power. So you live by my rules.
If you really cared so much, you would stop criticizing things, and actually do something, like go live in another country with values more similar to your own.
But you will never do it. You'll live under our rules, and just complain and complain, and never accomplish a thing.
-
Retarded story, bro.
-
But unfortunately for you, a true one.
-
Actually, several people have given you titles to publications, so you can better understand that position you think is so radical. Instead, you parrot the "lack of facts" glib. We give you resources, then you inversely expect us to take your writing on face value.
-
One person mentioned one book, which was not exactly something I wasn't already aware of. I'm pretty sure I understand every part of your philosophy as well as you or anyone else on this message board. I'm just not brainwashed by it and pay attention to history which has repeatedly shown us that in it's purest form, it will not work.
-
But unfortunately for you, I am the one with the party that has power. So you live by my rules.
Spoken like a true fascist.
-
Agreed. That should make you actually want to do something about it.
-
What, pack up and leave like the Jews left Germany? You made that same claim in your above post.
-
Ignore him. This troll has no grasp of economics, let alone libertarian arguments against government intervention in foreign politics.
-
"Ignore him" is usually the phrase used when someone is beaten.
The reality is that I likely understand the viewpoint better than any of you. I used to be a Libertarian. It seamed elegant, was a different solution, and I attracted to a lot of it's ideals.
I still agree with a lot it's view points on freedoms, health, and the environment. You guys likely believe gun rights, which I don't, but I have a lot of other similar beliefs.
-
The Libertarian economics are something I don't agree with, however. It seemed elegant to me in the past, then I got older, got a little more exposure to things in life, and realized many of its falacies.
You become a student of history and get a better understanding of monopolies and recessions and other consequences of a free market that happen simply because life is unpredictable on many levels. And the few economists who fully endorse it have excuses detailing "only if" or "if people responded they way they should have" or "if the government only would have not responded that way" and you realize, real life is just too complicated for this to work on a concrete level, people have emotions and are not rational.
Anyway, you guys should go live in Austria. Austrian economics is close to the philosophy you want to live by. They don't fully follow Austrian economics in Austria, but it's kinda close.
-
Ah, the epitome of elitist team BLUE nativism.
-
Someday, you should give up your ego and realize your party's radical inability to compromise on anything related to economics is their downfall. You guys aren't more educated, intelligent, or have a better understanding of the world than the other parties, you're just more ignorant. Liberals are the most highly educated party, maybe you should come over to our side.
-
"Liberals are the most highly educated party"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
-
Unfortunately for you, it's true. Look it up.
I know you probably think that is meaningless because every other party is foolish simply secondary to their political/economic views compared to Libertarians, but someday you'll grow up, and the economic ideology Libertarians profess is dated, full of holes, impractical, and put simply, impossible.
-
I await your table of data to demonstrate the superior education of team blue versus libertarians. I say team blue, because there is no twisted definition of the word "liberal" that fits with your statist rantings.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....ted_States
Take a look at liberals verses conservatives, or liberals verses enterprisers, or liberals verses bystanders. Include yourself in whatever group you want to. The answer is the same.
-
ITS, not it's.
-
sorry there brother, I certainly make grammar and spelling mistakes when I type these responses, you're right there. But that is not one of them. It is "it's".
Think about it this way, when you want to say "it is", use it's, otherwise use its.
-
Sorry Staup, I don't see "libertarian" any where on that table of data.
-
Nice.
-
DIG A HOLE FILL IT UP AGAIN!
DIG A HOLE FILL IT UP AGAIN!
DIG A HOLE FILL IT UP AGAIN!
I'M HELPIN' THE ECONOMY!
-
As for anybody thinking I wasn't being facetious predicting Obama will turn over a new leaf after 11/6, "Come on, man!"
By the way, and this is yet another reason why the leftists are spineless slaves. (And Bill Maher, especially you.)
The day after Obama was inaugurated, the empty suit could have called the Joint Chiefs into his office and said, "You have till tomorrow to give me a roadmap of withdrawal from this hornet's nest. Oh, and the target date? There is no freaking target, or best effort, or goal, or any of your mealy-mouthed quibbling. There is my demand, because I'm your boss. We are out of there in 90 days. And you do whatever the hell you have to do to keep this country, our country, safe from foreign assho-, err, invaders."
A good liberal or neo-con will now bore everyone to death with a slew of "yuh-buts."
That's why there is no accountability. And the children of all ages excuse him. Pick your issue -- food stamps, dead civilians, dead soldiers, economic malaise. And go ahead, Bill, "Yuh, but..."
How about his stance on openly gay soliders? Look at how the braindead left applauded him when it took him only.... three... freaking... YEARS! How many of you would last three years in your businesses or jobs with that kind of aimless equivocation?
But the shameless children of all ages are still waving signs for him.
Still.
After all this.
And their answer to Nick's and Meredith's piece?
"Yuh, but.. " -
WTFU (A Rebuttal) is one of the best productions of ReasonTV ever.
-
Awesome rebuttal
-
Agreed, great video. Did not see the Jackson one doubt I really need to.
-
Great rebuttal Nick, too bad it won't change any of those zombies' minds.
-
As Doyle mentioned earlier, I want you all to remember this is what "Liberals" like him believe.
"But unfortunately for you, I am the one with the party that has power. So you live by my rules."
I wonder too, if Joseph Stalin thought and believed the same thing as he systematically murdered tens of millions of his own people that resisted the "Change"?
-
So stupid. So so stupid. Not even worthy of a response. Go back to paranoia land.
-
History is repeating. War never changes.