Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Lowering Debt
Topic Started: May 4 2018, 09:57 PM (212 Views)
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
How do we lower a country's debt? Or more specifically, yours. Both liberals and conservatives want to lower the debt. It just appears many different people have different ideas on HOW to decrease the debt. What is your take on how to lower debt?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Liberals want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Conservatives want to cut spending on the poor. A capitalist society may be more prosperous with the latter approach, but both are problematic, as any sacrifice sufficient to cut the deficit/national debt is bound to incur great resistance from voters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
Or we can raise taxes and cut spending on the military here in the US. That would not gain much support from the right wing, but it’s a start.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JMD
Member Avatar

Soopairik
May 4 2018, 09:57 PM
How do we lower a country's debt? Or more specifically, yours. Both liberals and conservatives want to lower the debt. It just appears many different people have different ideas on HOW to decrease the debt. What is your take on how to lower debt?
How I lower debt is I take a "spend-free" period- or at least spend-free enough to only pay for what I need to live. As to how to lower our country's debt...
The debt per taxpayer is $174,408 right now. The revenue per taxpayer is $27,437 right now. We would need at least 7 years to pay off the debt if every taxpayer pitched in, theoretically. 70 years would make 10% of the income for a tax. That's not so bad of a tax, but that's a heck of a long time to pay it off too, and not practical.
Well, Andrew Jackson wasn't a great president but he paid of the national debt by selling federal land to private owners. I don't think that will work in our time since cities are growing and parks are everywhere. But what if we sold national land? Maybe we could sell parts to one of the G7 countries, like Canada. Maybe we could sell pieces of Alaska each year until all of it is now Canada, and then if that doesn't cut it we could sell more areas of states along the southern border of Canada. The land would also give Canada a bigger economy each time we sell, and then we could sell each new piece of land for more (depending on if that's reasonable of course- people on our northern and western border be hatin' if I ever become president. :D) If that doesn't work... f*ck me, we'll have to sell our whole country out, maybe to the UK because there are so many UK fanboys here nowadays. ^o)
Everyone is a genius at one thing and an idiot at another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
starman
May 5 2018, 01:50 AM
Liberals want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Conservatives want to cut spending on the poor. A capitalist society may be more prosperous with the latter approach, but both are problematic, as any sacrifice sufficient to cut the deficit/national debt is bound to incur great resistance from voters.
BTW, reducing money spent on the poor will only make the poor become even more poor. And when people cannot get what they want, they resort to crime. Which means we’d only get more crime, so we’d have to spend more money on security.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

Yeah, I definitely think that military spending could be cut in the US. Raising taxes would also be nice, but probably harder to politically enforce.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Soopairik
May 5 2018, 09:09 AM

BTW, reducing money spent on the poor will only make the poor become even more poor. And when people cannot get what they want, they resort to crime. Which means we’d only get more crime, so we’d have to spend more money on security.


I'm not advocating cutting spending on the poor, necessarily. Some programs like education and job training may be good investments. But there should be drastic cuts on costly medical assistance, to those who are very aged and infirm.
Soopairik
May 5 2018, 08:47 AM
Or we can raise taxes and cut spending on the military here in the US. That would not gain much support from the right wing, but it’s a start.


The problem is, if you raise taxes you cut people's incentive to produce. Cutting spending would be best, but while stopping wasteful foreign intervention would've been a great idea 16 years ago, a strong military is essential for international stability.[/quote]
Edited by starman, May 6 2018, 02:06 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
A lot of European countries out there have higher taxes than the US and they seem to be doing just fine. Also, I’m not advocating for a total shutdown of the military. Just a cut of spending and a neutral foreign policy to avoid extra spending.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Soopairik
May 6 2018, 09:59 AM
A lot of European countries out there have higher taxes than the US and they seem to be doing just fine.


A key difference is that those countries tend to be more coherent than the US, so people don;t mind some extra sacrifice for the good of the country and their countrymen. So even if they're "doing fine" this may not be relevant to us.

Quote:
 
Also, I’m not advocating for a total shutdown of the military. Just a cut of spending and a neutral foreign policy to avoid extra spending.


A neutral foreign policy is hardly possible as long as there is democracy, because it enables lobbies like the pro-Israel lobby to make us back one side or another.[/quote]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
starman
May 7 2018, 02:17 AM
Soopairik
May 6 2018, 09:59 AM
A lot of European countries out there have higher taxes than the US and they seem to be doing just fine.


A key difference is that those countries tend to be more coherent than the US, so people don;t mind some extra sacrifice for the good of the country and their countrymen. So even if they're "doing fine" this may not be relevant to us.

Quote:
 
Also, I’m not advocating for a total shutdown of the military. Just a cut of spending and a neutral foreign policy to avoid extra spending.


starman
 
A neutral foreign policy is hardly possible as long as there is democracy, because it enables lobbies like the pro-Israel lobby to make us back one side or another.
Sweden, Ireland, Austria, and Switzerland are all currently neutral countries with democracy. While Sweden appears to take part in UN peacekeeping, they generally do not play an active role in the military aspect.
Edited by Soopairik, May 7 2018, 07:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Soopairik
May 7 2018, 07:01 AM
Sweden, Ireland, Austria, and Switzerland are all currently neutral countries with democracy. While Sweden appears to take part in UN peacekeeping, they generally do not play an active role in the military aspect.


I meant the US. Nobody expects small countries like those to play an important role internationally.
Edited by starman, May 10 2018, 03:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

What's with Japan? It's large, democratic and has a neutral foreign policy.
I'm no fan of a fully neutral foreign policy like that of Japan or Switzerland though.
While I support a mostly neutral foreign policy, I think exceptions should be possible when genocide, terrorism and the likes take place.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, May 10 2018, 03:14 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 10 2018, 03:07 AM
What's with Japan? It's large, democratic and has a neutral foreign policy.


But it's closely aligned with the US.

Quote:
 

I'm no fan of a fully neutral foreign policy like that of Japan or Switzerland though.
While I support a mostly neutral foreign policy, I think exceptions should be possible when genocide, terrorism and the likes take place.


It's best to intervene only when real interests are at stake. In view of the importance of gulf oil, I can see the US throwing Iraqis out of Kuwait in '91, but not invading Iraq to try to democratize it 12 years later.
As for genocide and "terrorism," the US doesn't HAVE to make that its problem. "Terrorism" is not a scientific or objective concept. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For many years Israel has slammed its foes as terrorists when that country itself was founded by terrorists who, among other things, killed Bernadotte and blew up the King David hotel. Killing Iranian scientists and Canadian John Bull (etc etc) were acts of state terrorism, yet there was no "war on terror" against Israel.
Edited by starman, May 10 2018, 04:31 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 10 2018, 04:30 AM
Jinfengopteryx
May 10 2018, 03:07 AM
What's with Japan? It's large, democratic and has a neutral foreign policy.


But it's closely aligned with the US.
It's military budget (which is why foreign policy was even brought up) is still a joke.
starman
May 10 2018, 04:30 AM
It's best to intervene only when real interests are at stake.
What do you think of cases like the genocide in Ruanda? Do you think it was right not to intervene there?
starman
May 10 2018, 04:30 AM
"Terrorism" is not a scientific or objective concept.
This is true. I did not put much time into formulating my criteria and I didn't expect this to be raised as a concern. I would instead replace them with "people who do something morally very wrong and are absolutely immune to diplomacy" (think of ISIS-level immunity to see what I mean).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 10 2018, 09:42 AM
It's military budget (which is why foreign policy was even brought up) is still a joke.


But it's still aligned with the US, not really neutral like Switzerland.

Quote:
 

What do you think of cases like the genocide in Ruanda? Do you think it was right not to intervene there?


Heck if people are killing one another off in Africa, maybe the elephant population can come back. :D But seriously, the US was right to stay out. Unless real interests are at stake, what happens in a country is the business of the people there not us. If they don't like a government or its policies let THEM do something about it--just like the people who overthrew Romanian and Czech leaders in 1989.
By the way, note the great contrast between the indifference to Rwandan genocide in
'94 and the endless holocaust preaching we're bombarded with. I've seen threads elsewhere on why the holocaust gets so much attention--far more than other mass killings.
Edited by starman, May 11 2018, 02:03 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 11 2018, 02:00 AM
Jinfengopteryx
May 10 2018, 09:42 AM
It's military budget (which is why foreign policy was even brought up) is still a joke.


But it's still aligned with the US, not really neutral like Switzerland.
Which is still irrelevant to the discussion. I'm no fan of national egotism anyway, so I have no problem with alliances, but that's fodder for another topic.

starman
May 11 2018, 02:00 AM
By the way, note the great contrast between the indifference to Rwandan genocide in
'94 and the endless holocaust preaching we're bombarded with. I've seen threads elsewhere on why the holocaust gets so much attention--far more than other mass killings.
I think that's because the Holocaust has a unique combination of being well-documented, large in scope and including particularly frightening methods of killing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 11 2018, 03:47 AM
I'm no fan of national egotism anyway, so I have no problem with alliances, but that's fodder for another topic.


I think nationalism will ultimately go.

Quote:
 

I think that's because the Holocaust has a unique combination of being well-documented, large in scope and including particularly frightening methods of killing.


I doubt it. The Russians lost far more people than the jews (Poland also lost millions) other massacres like the Cambodian are well enough documented and the manner of death in many cases--starvation and exposure--was equally ghastly. Gassing may have been unique but the manner in which the people died shouldn't really matter. The holocaust gets particular emphasis because the jews have much more clout in western societies notably the US than other groups.
What if there had been a holocaust in Africa in which some obscure tribe suffered the same losses as the jews in the same ways. Let's suppose, further, there was the same or adequate documentation. Does anyone seriously believe the African tragedy would've gotten as much--if anywhere near--the same media attention as the jewish one? Would there be a Holocaust museum for Africans in our nation's capital? Fat chance....
Edited by starman, May 11 2018, 05:05 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 11 2018, 05:04 AM
I doubt it. The Russians lost far more people than the jews (Poland also lost millions) other massacres like the Cambodian are well enough documented and the manner of death in many cases--starvation and exposure--was equally ghastly. Gassing may have been unique but the manner in which the people died shouldn't really matter. The holocaust gets particular emphasis because the jews have much more clout in western societies notably the US than other groups.
What if there had been a holocaust in Africa in which some obscure tribe suffered the same losses as the jews in the same ways. Let's suppose, further, there was the same or adequate documentation. Does anyone seriously believe the African tragedy would've gotten as much--if anywhere near--the same media attention as the jewish one? Would there be a Holocaust museum for Africans in our nation's capital? Fat chance....
I was talking about the combination of factors, so if some other genocides beat them in one factor, it doesn't matter much for my argument. Of course the means by which people died should not play a role, but I was not trying to justify the amount of attention the Holocaust gets. I was only saying that the reasons why the Holocaust gets so much attention lie in the human psyche (after all, your horror movie will also get more viewers if you make the deaths particularly creative and scary) and not so much because of some sinister Jewish plot to control us all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 11 2018, 07:51 AM

I was only saying that the reasons why the Holocaust gets so much attention lie in the human psyche (after all, your horror movie will also get more viewers if you make the deaths particularly creative and scary) and not so much because of some sinister Jewish plot to control us all.


I don't buy it. I didn't say there was "a sinister jewish plot to control us all" just a great deal of jewish clout. Plenty of other atrocities were "creative and scary"--Tamarlane is said to have built mountains of skulls of his victims--yet not 1% as publicized. The most shocking images of the holocaust are of emaciated corpses, yet great numbers of Russians also died of starvation--the death toll in Leningrad rivaled that of Auschwitz, yet there has been relatively little media focus on that.
Like I said before, imagine there had been a mass liquidation program affecting some obscure African tribe. Suppose the "scary" methods of killing and number of dead were the same as in the historical final solution and the documentation is as good or at least adequate. Does anyone seriously think the African victims would've gotten anywhere near as much media attention as the holocaust has gotten?? The jews have FAR more clout than Africans and nearly all others and THAT is the primary reason for the emphasis on the holocaust.
Edited by starman, May 11 2018, 12:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Soopairik
Member Avatar
Administrator
Jinfengopteryx
May 10 2018, 03:07 AM
What's with Japan? It's large, democratic and has a neutral foreign policy.
I'm no fan of a fully neutral foreign policy like that of Japan or Switzerland though.
While I support a mostly neutral foreign policy, I think exceptions should be possible when genocide, terrorism and the likes take place.
Japan does has beef with several neighboring countries though so not exactly neutral.

Also, yeah I would agree. Being neutral does not benefit both sides. It only benefits the oppressor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 11 2018, 12:01 PM
Jinfengopteryx
May 11 2018, 07:51 AM

I was only saying that the reasons why the Holocaust gets so much attention lie in the human psyche (after all, your horror movie will also get more viewers if you make the deaths particularly creative and scary) and not so much because of some sinister Jewish plot to control us all.


I don't buy it. I didn't say there was "a sinister jewish plot to control us all" just a great deal of jewish clout. Plenty of other atrocities were "creative and scary"--Tamarlane is said to have built mountains of skulls of his victims--yet not 1% as publicized. The most shocking images of the holocaust are of emaciated corpses, yet great numbers of Russians also died of starvation--the death toll in Leningrad rivaled that of Auschwitz, yet there has been relatively little media focus on that.
Like I said before, imagine there had been a mass liquidation program affecting some obscure African tribe. Suppose the "scary" methods of killing and number of dead were the same as in the historical final solution and the documentation is as good or at least adequate. Does anyone seriously think the African victims would've gotten anywhere near as much media attention as the holocaust has gotten?? The jews have FAR more clout than Africans and nearly all others and THAT is the primary reason for the emphasis on the holocaust.
As far as I know, what the Germans did to the Russians is not considered to be genocide. They wanted to enslave and deport the Slavs, but they did not want to exterminate them. As for the Africans, I guess scope could play a role and the fact that Westerns generally don't care what happens in places like Africa.

And just because I cannot give you a satisfying explanation why the media is the way it is does not mean that Jewish control over the media is to blame. That sounds like a God of the gaps argument.

@Soopairik
True, I should have said "pacifist" instead of "neutral".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 12 2018, 01:06 AM
As far as I know, what the Germans did to the Russians is not considered to be genocide. They wanted to enslave and deport the Slavs, but they did not want to exterminate them.


They may have prioritized elimination of jews but slavs would go too. Greiser once said that in the future German colonists in Poland would produce great crops "and not a Pole will remain." The Germans also wanted lebensraum to the Urals. Deprived of food, the Russians were to be left to starve. Initially many would be enslaved but the territory would ultimately be for Germans, and the Russians were to disappear.



Quote:
 
As for the Africans, I guess scope could play a role and the fact that Westerns generally don't care what happens in places like Africa.


It's not just Africa. In 1943 millions of Bengalis starved to death because the British took their food for the war effort. It remains practically unknown because the media has essentially ignored it. As long as the victims aren't jewish, the media never seems to care much, if at all.

Quote:
 
And just because I cannot give you a satisfying explanation why the media is the way it is does not mean that Jewish control over the media is to blame. That sounds like a God of the gaps argument.


LOL here it has long been common knowledge that jews are very prominent in the media (as well as government and business....). There's no doubt about their great clout. See e.g. the work by two distinguished professors: THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY.
Edited by starman, May 12 2018, 01:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 12 2018, 01:42 AM
Quote:
 
As for the Africans, I guess scope could play a role and the fact that Westerns generally don't care what happens in places like Africa.


It's not just Africa. In 1943 millions of Bengalis starved to death because the British took their food for the war effort. It remains practically unknown because the media has essentially ignored it. As long as the victims aren't jewish, the media never seems to care much, if at all.
Yeah, not just Africa, but also most of the non-Western world. Are the Jews also to blame for the fact that the media cares a lot about terror attacks in France and Belgium, but not about far worse terror attacks in the third world? There is something called in-group bias. This could also be a factor in Russians: During the Cold War, they were seen as enemies (the out-group) and hence people didn't care for their suffering. They simply weren't relatable members of the Western world.
starman
May 12 2018, 01:42 AM
LOL here it has long been common knowledge that jews are very prominent in the media (as well as government and business....). There's no doubt about their great clout. See e.g. the work by two distinguished professors: THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY.
"Common knowledge"
I wonder in which circles…
I'll look into the book you've mentioned, but from a first glance, its theses hardly seem to represent some sort of universal consensus. Even people whom I would not exactly call zionist propagandists (like Noam Chomsky, who even praised them for their courage) wrote mixed receptions of it.

I don't even want to deny that a pro-Israel lobby exists and has some influence, but I am very suspicious of mono-causal argumentations.
Edited by Jinfengopteryx, May 12 2018, 02:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 12 2018, 02:19 AM
There is something called in-group bias. This could also be a factor in Russians: During the Cold War, they were seen as enemies (the out-group) and hence people didn't care for their suffering.


That may explain the indifference to Russian losses prior to 1991, but that was over a quarter century ago, and I perceive no change in relative emphasis since then i.e. the jewish losses are still hyped and focused on.


Quote:
 
They simply weren't relatable members of the Western world.


I don't think Poles, soviets and hungarians were either. But notice the jews among them were the bulk of holocaust casualties and they certainly get a lot of media attention....

Quote:
 

"Common knowledge"
I wonder in which circles…



Objective and informed ones. I've been an observer of the US political scene for many years. Almost invariably, politicians have to spout pro-Israel rhetoric, grovel before the lobby or pro-Israel financiers. As Walt and Mearsheimer show, this doesn't reflect public demands but the inordinate power of a small but very powerful group.

Quote:
 

I'll look into the book you've mentioned, but from a first glance, its theses hardly seem to represent some sort of universal consensus.


Of course the book has many critics, indeed that should be expected of a book that offends the powerful.

Quote:
 
I don't even want to deny that a pro-Israel lobby exists and has some influence, but I am very suspicious of mono-causal argumentations.


"Some influence" lol. The US has been pro-Israel for decades, even at considerable expense to its own interests. That's symptomatic of jewish clout and so is holocaust hype.
Edited by starman, May 12 2018, 05:32 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 12 2018, 05:30 AM
Quote:
 
They simply weren't relatable members of the Western world.


I don't think Poles, soviets and hungarians were either. But notice the jews among them were the bulk of holocaust casualties and they certainly get a lot of media attention....
From a Western point of view, they are far closer to your home door than any African or Asian. Anyway, we can debate the uniqueness of the Holocaust all day, but is undeniable that many people think the Holocaust was for some reason unique (just google "uniqueness of the Holocaust" if you don't believe me). Maybe they are wrong (it's not as if this was impossible), maybe not. Doesn't matter, as the sheer fact that many people hold the Holocaust to be unique is enough of an explanation for why it gets so much attention.
And even if I was not able to explain it, I am still no fan of God of the gaps arguments.

BTW, how much attention to other atrocities committed against Jews (like those in the Medieval ages or even the Arab antisemitism prior to the founding of Israel) get? Doesn't sound like a smart move by the zionist to only focus on one singular atrocity to claim that Jews are nowhere safe.
starman
May 12 2018, 05:30 AM
"Some influence" lol. The US has been pro-Israel for decades, even at considerable expense to its own interests. That's symptomatic of jewish clout and so is holocaust hype.
At the expense of whose interests? I'm sure the interests of weapon manufacturers and energy producers (whose power I'd estimate to be greater than that of the pro-Israel lobby, I mean, they have plenty of money at their hands) were well-served.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 12 2018, 06:35 AM
From a Western point of view, they are far closer to your home door than any African or Asian.


It is noteworthy that the jews who died in camps in Poland get ample attention, and the 3 million Poles who died in WWII get virtually none. They were just as close or as far but apparently not as worthy of mention..... An fb group tries to call attention to this.

Quote:
 
Anyway, we can debate the uniqueness of the Holocaust all day, but is undeniable that many people think the Holocaust was for some reason unique


There was nothing unique about the thing that matters most--large numbers of fatalities--nor barbarity. The only really "unique" thing about the holocaust is the endless focus on it. The only good explanation for that is jewish power. Fearful of being called "anti-semites" people tend to be in denial about that.

Quote:
 
BTW, how much attention to other atrocities committed against Jews (like those in the Medieval ages or even the Arab antisemitism prior to the founding of Israel) get? Doesn't sound like a smart move by the zionist to only focus on one singular atrocity to claim that Jews are nowhere safe.


They don't need the earlier atrocities when the holocaust suffices for their purposes.


Quote:
 
At the expense of whose interests? I'm sure the interests of weapon manufacturers and energy producers


Weapon manufacturers employ people (and, unlike Israel, selling to rich arabs doesn't cost the taxpayers anything) and the US needs imported oil. Then there are geopolitical considerations; the arab/muslim world is far bigger and more important than Israel.


Quote:
 
(whose power I'd estimate to be greater than that of the pro-Israel lobby,


LOL!! This is utterly absurd. The pro-Israel lobby blocked a number of arms sales to arab states, and in 1973 forced the US to back Israel even though it meant a loss of arab oil imports. I'm sure both the arms industry and the oil corporations would've much preferred a different US policy but...they just can't compete with the lobby...
And again, the point is, given the great and obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby--one manifestation of jewish power--we should expect other signs of such power. Endless holocaust preaching confirms this.[/quote]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 13 2018, 02:13 AM
There was nothing unique about the thing that matters most--large numbers of fatalities--nor barbarity.
The point was that many people think it was unique. Just because you think they are wrong does not think they are deliberately lying. I mean, it really seems to be hard for you to even consider that people could be wrong. Either they agree with you or they must be evil.
starman
May 13 2018, 02:13 AM
LOL!! This is utterly absurd. The pro-Israel lobby blocked a number of arms sales to arab states, and in 1973 forced the US to back Israel even though it meant a loss of arab oil imports.
I'd prefer a more direct metric to measure power than policy decisions (like the money spent on lobbying where Big Oil defeats the pro-Israel lobby, as far as I know) because policy decisions are rarely monocausal.
starman
May 13 2018, 02:13 AM
And again, the point is, given the great and obvious power of the pro-Israel lobby--one manifestation of jewish power--we should expect other signs of such power. Endless holocaust preaching confirms this.
The endless Holocaust preaching occurs in most of Europe as well, including countries who recognise Palestine or have neutral foreign policies (which means that their pro-Israel lobbies must either be weak or pointless).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 13 2018, 04:21 AM
The point was that many people think it was unique. Just because you think they are wrong does not think they are deliberately lying.


I don't think people think it was unique, it's just that it's the only one they generally hear about due to the power of those behind the preaching.

Quote:
 

I'd prefer a more direct metric to measure power than policy decisions (like the money spent on lobbying where Big Oil defeats the pro-Israel lobby, as far as I know) because policy decisions are rarely monocausal.


What ultimately matters most to politicians are votes and the pro-Israel bunch can muster a lot more than "big oil." People are in denial about its power, which should be obvious as the record shows. In 1973 intense pressure by the lobby forced the US to back Israel, despite the loss of arab oil--hardly what "big oil" wanted--and general economic harm to the WHOLE COUNTRY. In other words, the zionist lobby's agenda (or power) trumped the interests of the oil companies and the nation. Only an extremely powerful group can do that and get away with it.

Quote:
 

The endless Holocaust preaching occurs in most of Europe as well, including countries who recognise Palestine or have neutral foreign policies (which means that their pro-Israel lobbies must either be weak or pointless).


The jews are powerful internationally but not as strong elsewhere as here.[/quote]
Edited by starman, May 13 2018, 04:45 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jinfengopteryx
Member Avatar

starman
May 13 2018, 04:44 AM
Jinfengopteryx
May 13 2018, 04:21 AM
The point was that many people think it was unique. Just because you think they are wrong does not think they are deliberately lying.


I don't think people think it was unique, it's just that it's the only one they generally hear about due to the power of those behind the preaching.
They do, you can google "Uniqueness of the Holocaust" to find dozens of websites where people explain what they think sets it apart from all other genocides.

starman
May 13 2018, 04:44 AM
What ultimately matters most to politicians are votes and the pro-Israel bunch can muster a lot more than "big oil." People are in denial about its power, which should be obvious as the record shows. In 1973 intense pressure by the lobby forced the US to back Israel, despite the loss of arab oil--hardly what "big oil" wanted--and general economic harm to the WHOLE COUNTRY. In other words, the zionist lobby's agenda (or power) trumped the interests of the oil companies and the nation. Only an extremely powerful group can do that and get away with it.
I don't think you understood why I don't think policy decisions are a poor proxy for a lobby's power. Not because they are unimportant, but because politicians rarely act solely because of lobbyism. There could have been multiple causes for their strong support of Israel. One of them being a dedication of preserving the only democracy in the Middle East (since politicians do not only have economic, but also ideological interests).
starman
May 13 2018, 04:44 AM
The endless Holocaust preaching occurs in most of Europe as well, including countries who recognise Palestine or have neutral foreign policies (which means that their pro-Israel lobbies must either be weak or pointless).


The jews are powerful internationally but not as strong elsewhere as here.[/quote]And what's the point of preaching the Holocaust even harder in countries like Austria than in America (to the point that you can get in prison for Holocaust denial there, unlike in America), even though this country does not support Israel?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
starman
Member Avatar

Jinfengopteryx
May 13 2018, 05:07 AM
They do, you can google "Uniqueness of the Holocaust" to find dozens of websites where people explain what they think sets it apart from all other genocides.


Sure to rationalize the emphasis on it.

Quote:
 

I don't think you understood why I don't think policy decisions are a poor proxy for a lobby's power. Not because they are unimportant, but because politicians rarely act solely because of lobbyism. There could have been multiple causes for their strong support of Israel. One of them being a dedication of preserving the only democracy in the Middle East (since politicians do not only have economic, but also ideological interests).


I don't doubt there are other factors but the pro-Israel lobby is so much stronger than nearly all others it is bound to have more of an effect. The most important consideration for a politician is remaining in office and the lobby has shown repeatedly that it can cause a politician to lose his job.


Quote:
 

And what's the point of preaching the Holocaust even harder in countries like Austria than in America (to the point that you can get in prison for Holocaust denial there, unlike in America), even though this country does not support Israel?


Holocaust preaching doesn't require as much power as sacrificing a nation's real interests.[/quote]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Replied