Hi again guys, I know that political threads aren't everyone's favorite, but I think this is important enough to warrant another go. If you don't like it, I apologize, but if you want to take the time to watch this video, then thank you in advance.

Bill Whittle has released another video regarding the economic crisis in America. I think he has some important things to say.

Let me know what you think. Thanks!

_________________

Not this shit again.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

Is there a way to watch a YouTube videos without contributing to the number of views? I am always interested by different views, but if this video is anything like the last 2, I don't want to encourage this shit.

_________________
this sig is my fanboy badge of HONOR!!!1!

So do military spending and bridges to no where fall under entitlements or normal spending according to his world view? Cause I only heard him complaining about social safety nets.

Pretty much.

_________________

EPIC FAIL art thread | Updated 09/30/2009 | Rawbawtz
Vote for The Zombie Hunters now! Vote here.

He mentions Defense as part of what is required to run the Government. It's that first pie chart with the black portion reading "Government" and the red portion reading "Entitlements." Let's say that Defense spending is right around $700 billion (according to the CBO). That's about 19% of the budget for FY11. Comparatively, if you combine Social Security (~$725 B) and Medicare/Medicaid (~$835 B), that's about $1.56 trillion, or 43% of the budget.

And no, Defense cannot be considered an entitlement because the military is a part of the executive branch, and that is run jointly by congress and the president.

_________________

COME ON guys, of COURSE defense is a social safety net

Look at how many people the military industrial complex keeps employed w

EDIT: okay I ACTUALLY watched the video in these threads for the first time

WOW this guy is AWESOME. I love how he's gotten the timing for the soft speech to intense speech back to soft speech approach of pitching politics and he does it very well in a very friendly, "I'm helping you" way too.

It's amazing what 70 years can do to perfect these speech making techniques introduced by the Fascists lololol

I also like how he did that classic smear campaign strategy of pouncing off a short gaff then replaying it over and over while trying to present it as non-partisan fact while lionizing his opposite lolol

And the beautiful icing on the cake is when he replays a strawmanized version of that strawman just to hammer it home!

This guy's freaking brilliant Goebbels has nothing on him. This was a great watch 5/5

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

Only about 1.45 million, which is less than 1% of all American citizens. Unless you're talking about civilian contractors, which are private companies that make bids to take on jobs for the government but are not government workers themselves.

What are you implying about his demeanor? Do you think that he really doesn't want to help people and it's all an elaborate act?

Being good at speech is not in and of itself good or bad (nor really something invented by the Fascists). Pres. Obama got elected by being a great speaker. He was, after all, a community organizer under the teachings of Saul Alinski, perhaps one of the greatest radicals of all times and who even wrote a book telling people how to fundamentally change America.

Bad speaking on the other hand doesn't really get anyone to your side. Imagine if you saw a US presidential candidate start flipping out and screaming and getting really excited over the slight chance of becoming president. Would you reasonably think this person is upstanding and credible?

Gaff? The CBO specifically stated that he does not have a plan for permanently stabilizing the budget. How is that a mere gaff?

What strawman is this? The part where people made videos of Paul Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff and how that's not what Ryan's plan does? Or the part about how just under half of the Senate liked Paul Ryan's budget proposal, and Obama's proposed budgets were voted out of the Senate 97 to 0? Or am I just missing the strawman here?

Also, are you just attacking him for being a Conservative or a good speaker rather than the merits of his arguments? What good is an ad hominem here?

_________________

I'm just complimenting him for being a skilled editor of propaganda. I sort of have a light hobby in film so this sort of thing I actually enjoy on a technical level. And the use of negative and positive emotions in this is just so exact here, it's quite beautiful really.

As for the video itself, all sides use propaganda like this. This is like, totally one-sided conservative supporting garbage.

Look on youtube for like 5 seconds and you'd find the liberal/democrats version of this and it'll use the same techniques.

And both videos would be totally fucking useless. Because that's exactly what they're edited for: convincing people too lazy to actually come up with a political stance through emotional appeals and application of inapplicable common sense values on the business of national finance.

Also, I admit it. I actually really dislike Obama because he's a good speaker and that played far too much of a role in getting him elected. This is the sort of stuff why democracy can be so BS sometimes.

And the ad hominem here is totally appropriate here because the video's just blatantly edited to indoctrinate and persuade emotionally: it's not about giving information to create an informed public. He certainly sells himself as that, and that's why he's so insidious! You might as well read the World Socialist Website or watch Fox News to get your information. It'd be safer! Cause at least those guys are too incompetent to actually convince you that you're being informed.

I mean, I can't believe it's not plainly obvious to you. Any sort of critical analysis of the way he's chosen to deliver the information should just ring tons of danger senses about how he's trying to sell you something whether it's good for you or not.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

Okay... well then let me ask you this: at what point does someone who genuinely wants to help his nation and argues against an ideology that he believes is wrong cross the line from simple commentary to propaganda?

_________________

SS and Medicare each have separate taxes which are intended to cover those specific program though. The only way they cost the rest of the government anything is if their tax isn't high enough or if the money intended for those programs is spent else where. There's also the matter of volume...



See what this is really telling us is that the military alone spends as much as money keeping <1% of the population employed as SS does for keeping every elderly and disabled person (>13% of the nation) in the entire nation from living on the streets. SS is a very efficient program by comparison just from that fact alone.

Picked this up on /pol/ http://boonce.org/up/5108_1320116397836.jpg

Except that not all the money for Medicare or Social Security always lands back into the hands of those who need it. I'm sure you're aware that Social Security is attached to a trust fun that is supposed to be able to pay out everyone who needs it for the next 20-someodd years, right? Apparently Not. The fund is empty, and congress has been looting it and using the trust fund like a piggy bank, breaking it open and using the funds as it sees fit. How, exactly? Who knows. All we know is that that money in the trust is gone, and we've been continuously borrowing money in order to guarantee those benefits.

And Medicare? Let's say for the sake of argument that all the money that's being set aside in the budget for Medicare is being used as intended. Even the most biased studies show that Medicare spending will be unsustainable between now and 2030 (here's a fairly good article from CNN.com). We have to do something, but the Democrats (at least the most out-spoken ones), seem to want to keep the upward trend exactly as it is. Why is that? Seriously, I have no idea. Could it be that they don't actually care about the people who elected them into office? That seems more likely than the idea that they're intentionally trying to crash the economy, but then that one still doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, considering that the Senate hasn't been able to pass a budget in almost three years.

Well I think I just proved that there's really no money left for Social Security, but let me ask you this: How high should taxes be in order to guarantee that everything currently being promised is paid for? Is there an upper limit in your eyes? Since SS taxes everyone the same, what rate should it be?

You're really adamant about this. You really see all defense spending as a waste of money?

What do you think would happen if the United States completely disarmed? I'm not even talking about how much money we would have "saved." Let's say we had no military. Do you honestly think we would suddenly have no enemies? That there would be no threats against us? You don't think that nations who consider us enemies have ever considered just bombing the hell out of us -- flying their planes over us in the night and letting loose their full salvo? Of course they have! The very fact that we have such a powerful military is an equally powerful deterrent against large-scale attacks like that. But perhaps I can meet you partway and say, yeah I would be okay with a pay cut, and maybe we can try to reduce a lot of wasteful spending throughout the military. But the idea that the military is completely irrelevant is complete and utter nonsense.

Now, back to the money trail. Let's say we spent zero money on defense over the last three years. If we hadn't spent that money (about $2 trillion), and assuming we were still a fully-functioning nation in spite of that, we still would have spent about $3 trillion more than we took in. That tells me that something other than the military is a huge drain on the economy. Could it be the out-of-control entitlement programs that, combined with Medicare and Social Security, take up more than 60% of the budget, and for which we borrow heavily in order to pay? Remind me which number is higher, 19% 60%? But you would cut the 19% to save the 60%?

If we had a completely balanced budget--maybe one year we take in slightly more than we did the last, and another year, spending slightly more than we took in but still not a terrible situation--would you have any complaints about the amount of money being spent on the military?

_________________

I'm aware; but all that says is the problems related to SS aren't being caused by the program itself but rather the misappropriation of it's funds. Eliminating SS would solve nothing that being the case.



All of the problems of medicare are directly caused by the out of control medical/pharmaceutical industry. It's not uncommon for a trip to the hospital to create a decade's or more worth of debt for a person in this nation, assuming it doesn't bankrupt them. It should be no surprise then that over time the industry could bankrupt the nation itself. We need a complete revolution in what we allow that industry to get away with and we have plenty of examples. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... orld/view/



Don't have the data and I'm not going to number crunch over this when you yourself already know the problem is that the money that is supposed to be there got stolen.


Not all, but the majority. Pretty much all the foreign bases and this last 10 years of war/world policing for starters has been a complete waste.



Keep on burning the strawmen, I never said to completely disarm. Most of our 'enemies' are poor 3rd world nations who don't have the resources pull of your scenario if they put 100% of their population into trying. The rest are major world partners trading partners due globalization and would in effect be killing themselves if they attacked any other large trading nation. Those enemies don't want to attack us, they want us to continue exactly what we're doing. That is spending all of our money and resources on a shadow 'enemy' that only exists in our perception of the world while letting our national infrastructure collapse out from under us. We could spend half of what we do on the military and still dwarf all other nations, I wish I was exaggerating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures






If you have any problems with the charts let me know because it has SS and medicare listed as 43% of the spending which is no where near 60% (forget completely about more than 60%). On the flip side it has defense and discretionary spending listed at a mere 6% less than the combined SS/medicare which is less of a gap than your exaggeration so I find it noteworthy. Interestingly enough the social safety net income is more than the enough to cover at least social security so at the very least there's no reason to talk about cutting both it and medicare.

If we're looking at just cutting programs then any combination of SS+Medicare, SS+Defense, SS+Discretionary, Medicare+Defense, Medicare+Discretionary, or Defense+Discretionary would put us in the black for that year. Hell if you cut SS+Medicare+Defense by half each you'd only need a tiny part from discretionary to cover it or if you cut medicare(100%)+defense(50%) the same holds true. And that's assuming we don't increase revenues at all (either by getting out of the hole caused by the recession or by raising taxes).

One more thing if you cut both Medicare and SS then you would have to get rid of the tax associated with those programs so you would still be in a deficit. (~2000 out versus ~1500 in)


Money spent on the military is money thrown away, so long as it's the minimum neccessary that's acceptable but we're no where near that currently. Money spend on Military R&D projects is slightly less 'thrown away' but it also not certain to pay off.

Great. A bot.

_________________

Wow, this is beautiful. I would like to thank Ruff for making this place so lively.

Hmm...Sentios is pretty much on the money here, not much to say about that. I will say that military spending is not so much a waste as it is a sacrifice. It would be dumb to say we're fighting an actual war with somebody, or preventing a war from starting by show of force, but there's a lot of subtle nuances that make foreign bases and ports necessary...ok, maybe not necessary, but helpful. There's a political factor to consider when you talk about foreign bases is what I'm trying to say. This political factor is what would keep us, and keeps us already to some extent, in the top of the global economy. There's no reason for the Euro not to become the top market standard, but here's everyone still using the dollar. I know this is not very educated, but I'll say it anyways: The world has faith in the US because we can still afford to throw money around like we do. I'm currently serving in the Navy, the main "police the world" guys, and let me tell you, most people like us; whenever we hit a port, it's a good thing for the people we're visiting. Not just for the local economy either, foreign people and foreign governments like seeing us around, even if all we're doing is going back and forth poking at Iran or something.

_________________
"An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced"
Ayn Rand -Atlas Shrugged-

What people tell you to your face and what people think about you in private are very often different things and even if they're friendly to the sailors that doesn't mean they appreciate the policies that have you there.

I will say as a Canadian that I love not having to pay for my own military defense.

Well, granted, our current PM is ruining that by spending on it, but c'est la vie.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

Jay, you never answered my question above. You said that an ad hominem is appropriate because of how he's speaking, and I asked:Furthermore, I would like to ask you about the difference between good speaking and bad speaking in relaying a point. For example, if you are teaching someone how to do simple arithmetic, and you're screaming and cursing at them, then you're relaying good information in a bad way. Conversely, if you're teaching them that same math, but doing it all wrong, but you're speaking very well, you're relaying bad information in a way that effectively teaches that bad information. Now, a question: What happens if you're relaying good information in a good way, that is to say, teaching the correct math and speaking well?

My point is that just because someone can speak well and convey a point does not mean they are a propagandist, and to attack what they're saying for how well they're saying it implies that what they're saying isn't important, when it could very well be.

That said, if we could have a discussion on the merits of his argument, I would greatly appreciate it.

_________________

And yet millions of people from all over the world try to leave their shithole nations and flock to America. Don't try to tell me that isn't true.

_________________

If it seems like a strawman to you it's because you keep using generalizations and pseudo-intellectual platitudes that make it seem like that's what you're suggesting, especially when you say things like this:
And then follow up with things like this:

Either you think it's fine for government to spend money on defense or you don't. If you think there's a good reason we should have a defense budget, then justify what we can save money on, but don't call the entire budget a waste. If you think there is no reason for us to spend that much money, I can agree with you to a degree, but you're making blanket statements when you admit through your own words that entitlement spending and loopholes in the tax code account for more than double the 2011 defense budget.

_________________

Propaganda's relaying any information, correct or incorrect, without due weight given to the counter argument except in, at best, straw man or misrepresented form. It leaves the contrary or alternatives as negative space while emphasizing your point view through emotional rhetoric or logical fallacy ("What's good for my personal finances must be how a nation should manage theirs!").

The second criteria is simply serving it to others indiscriminately in a mass media form.

I never said the argument wasn't important. This guy's just totally useless since his only function is to further or make more severe lay misconceptions and already existing biases. Which is a vile thing to do, and he does it while fabricating a harmless demeanor.

That said, by that right all politicians are vile too, which they are more or less, since that's how they make a living in democratic society. But this guy does it without being a politician, so what better label is there than propagandist? A lobbyist?.

At least when it's a ranting lunatic you know they're ranting and a lunatic. Whereas this guy has silently inserted himself into an "everyman" role by giving platitudes about non-partisanship while forwarding nakedly partisan rhetoric. He frames himself as someone "tired of political parties" while unashamedly pushing forward a single ideological viewpoint and whitewashing both sides of the spectrum to insinuate one is a lesser evil, which is ultimately the same thing as supporting them, just more double talked.

To be a successful politician you certainly have to be an effective speaker and skilled at fooling the majority to make real politik decisions palateable for the masses, since that's the nature of mass politics in a world defined by limits and boundaries. But if you're claiming to be a source of lay information, the worst crime is to color and select information just for the sake of making an emotionally stronger argument.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

So are you suggesting that nothing he says is worth listening to because he only presents one particular side of the issue? That, in and of itself, is not bad. I don't understand how you make the correlation from a perceived bias to being a bad source of information. Having a bias does not always mean that their bias is unfounded or even wrong to have.

Let's say that you want to find out what it's like to pee on an electric fence. Some people tell you not to do it, even if they've never done it themselves. Others tell you that you should try it, if only to see what it's like. Does each side have equal weight? Would you be that guy who still pees on the electric fence?

And as for being a propagandist, you still haven't answered my question. At what point does someone go from discussing a topic he genuinely cares about--perhaps even seeing one side as inherently evil--to being a propagandist?

Let's say that you're against abortions. You're also against murder. What do you say when an abortion doctor is killed? Do you publicly decry it, stay silent, or take some middle ground?

_________________

It's safer to be in America than it is in one of the countries America routinely meddles with.



The US military budget is not a 'defense' budget, if the current budget was being spent on defense purposes borders would be as fortified as fucking NORAD. You'd swear the cold war hadn't ended the way we hemorrhage money. There's also no return on a bomb, the shrapnel doesn't really sell well. A tiny fraction of the population is effectively burning money that could be spent on improving the state of the nation.

Yeah... they're called politicians.

_________________

And how do they burn the money?

_________________

EPIC FAIL art thread | Updated 09/30/2009 | Rawbawtz
Vote for The Zombie Hunters now! Vote here.