Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Too many friggin people in a finite space breaks the bank

Quote
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a revised $85 billion budget Tuesday that he said contained "the good, the bad and the ugly," including additional cuts to child welfare programs, health care for the poor and AIDS prevention efforts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/schwarzenegger-expected-t_n_246100.html

The weakest components of humanity get the axe. This has been a modern moral taboo all along up until now. Arnold for Emperor '12.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

It's a good thing we can still spend half of the United States tax revenue on the defense budget.

After all, our closest "peer competitor" spends almost 1/10 as much on their military as we do!  It's very important that we slash more social programs in order to fatten the wallets of Erinys and Blackwater.
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!

Defense is a euphemism for securing petroleum interests. The U.S. uses more than any other country. In exchange, its economic clout is 23.4% of world GDP.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Quote
Defense is a euphemism for securing petroleum interests.

That's a huge part of it but there's more to it than that-- continuation of the Containment Doctrine, for one thing.  Continuing support of our good friends in Tel Aviv for another.  The fact remains, one way or another, that the United States "defense" budget is the elephant in the living room.  Even liberals won't talk about it.  Maybe there's a sort of tacit acknowledgment that it's necessary to maintain our lifestyle. 

I expect that local sustainability is going to be a growth industry.  Also, PLEs and other intentional communities.

Can you imagine the repercussions when the safety net is yanked out from under East LA?
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!

Ahh-nold never liked girly men, after all.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

I actually think the Governator has done an amazingly good job-- considering that he started out as a weightlifter and C movie actor.

Immigration made the California economic collapse inevitable.
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!

We need immigration to help our economy and pay for our elderly care.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Stockholders need stock dilution to help maintain the value of their stocks.

Er, wait.  No, the other thing.
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!

We need immigration to help our economy and pay for our elderly care.

It's a good thing that you're joking, because the last thing that any nation that wants to last needs is unchecked immigration.

We need immigration to help our economy and pay for our elderly care.

It's a good thing that you're joking, because the last thing that any nation that wants to last needs is unchecked immigration.

Why? Presumably in the absence of a gargantuan welfare state immigration would be "checked" by economic reality without the need for butting into people's lives and restricting their freedom of movement, so I don't see much of a problem with unchecked immigration in principle. But we here in the US do have a gargantuan welfare state, so it does seem to be something of a problem.

Cheap labor and high demand for cheap housing benefit only the top 1%. 

Immigration is something I'm vehemently against.  I wouldn't be at all sorry if all illegals were given two years in forced labor camps before deportation.  Seems like an elegant solution to the problem to me.
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!

In western societies the size of the white family has been decreasing, you need at lease two children to maintain the current population. If you want to keep the modern high powered lifestyle you need more people unless you want to be paying 75% tax rates or more. We need people to live the consumerist way and frankly the white world lives a lifestyle where the prospect of having three children is considered a big family. Unless someone wants to force an increase in white reproduction or decrease our current living conditions (both things being unacceptable to any part of the current political spectrum) you will have little choice but to accept immigration. Note that what I said does not actually give any positions I hold on the matter of immigration but what I simply consider to be a truth.

In western societies the size of the white family has been decreasing, you need at lease two children to maintain the current population. If you want to keep the modern high powered lifestyle you need more people unless you want to be paying 75% tax rates or more. We need people to live the consumerist way

You've brought up several interesting points in this sentence. First of all we have the debate about whether we should even want to maintain the current population, for whatever reason. Single-child families could be the way of the future. Consider - what sort of mess would the world already be in if it were not for Chairman Mao? A bizarre sentiment, but without the Chinese population being in constant check from the mid C20th onwards, we would all be positively fucked right now.

Next to the question of what you call the high powered lifestyle, and this is linked to the final point of consumer culture. I have been looking for a while at these trends and can see them as an utter illusion (delusion?) which has been made possible by nothing more complex than smart accounting procedures. The economic "boom" (1940s-1960s; 1980s-2000s) was not a boom so much as a distortion of time - all the vast sums of money derive from future trading predictions. We basically compacted the near-future market into the present, so that we could get our hands on the profit today. We started reaching further and further into that future as money came in short supply, to a point where we were trading so far off the present that the entire system failed because no-one could have any level of confidence in any trade. We had hit an economic vanishing point. This is not something that needs to be "put right" and continued with (as they are clearly attempting); it is something that needs to be progressed beyond and abandoned. But nobody has found the next step yet...

Lastly - consumer culture. Consumers see wealth as possessions - DVDs, iPhone etc. But - using some rudimentary calculations - it becomes apparent that there has been no increase in wealth in real terms, merely a 1:1 trade off between cost and standards. I saw a show with Thai peasants cooking their daily meals recently. The food they cooked could only be afforded by upper/middle class people if it was eaten in the west, due to its many spices and raw fresh ingredients. They eat well, and healthily, and have little money to spare. A bit like western peasantry in the 1800s. Similarly, one hundred years ago you could afford one pair of shoes and these would last you several years. Today, if you ignore mass production and go to a cobbler, a brand new pair of crafted shoes will cost about £600-£1000. In other words - you could afford one pair, and they would last you several years.

See the pattern? We have not become wealthier, we have devalued our standards and expectations. A clear mind is needed to differentiate actual progress (healthcare, scientific knowledge, IMPLEMENTABLE technology - ie not 'gadgets' - etc.) from consumer fluff. Consumers do not support a progressive system as they produce nothing. Consumer culture is social constipation - a blockage of mouths, who feed off productivity and produce nothing from this intake.

Tying my previous post to the first post, I would say the Governator is wrong. Sadly. Health care and welfare are bare essentials in a community. Anywhere bereft of these things is not a community and can hope to produce nothing in the future. America's welfare system is like the industrial infrastructure in the UK at the moment - it appears very much like the people running it are asset strippers rather than administrators. They are going in and looking to see how they can pull the system down in a way that it collapses with them still standing on top of the debris at the end. I don't think cutting back welfare systems can really be spun into a "courageous dynamic, and bold" political gesture. It is always the cowardly solution to running away from very large debts.

Quote
Health care and welfare are bare essentials in a community.

Even if this were not true, surely the priority should be health care and education (welfare for children is part of education) before spending trillions to bounce rubble in countries that didn't attack us.
You got faith in the end... but you can't fucking see!