Pages

8/14/11

Story from the economist American idiocracy - The civil war in Washington, DC, is damaging American business

American companies are sitting on a gigantic pile of cash; Apple alone has $76 billion in the bank. Why won't corporate America invest in America? It does not help that domestic demand is feeble, and that the global economy is in turmoil. But American politicians deserve some of the blame. Their unpredictability erodes confidence. The gulf between American business and the Obama White House is growing ever wider, as business-friendly insiders (such as Larry Summers, an economic adviser) leave the administration. Even more dangerously, the gulf between business and the rest of the country is widening: opinion polls show that American businesspeople are losing faith in their country even as ordinary Americans are losing faith in business. Calvin Coolidge's statement was once denounced as the height of bourgeois complacency. Today it sounds like a reminder of an America that is in danger of disappearing.

thoughts monkeys?

Comments (296)

8/14/11

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed Here

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

8/16/11
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

+1. America's headed towards idiocracy.

8/19/11
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

That usually tends to happen when you cut education funding significantly over multiple decades.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

8/19/11
jmayhem:
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

That usually tends to happen when you cut education funding significantly over multiple decades.

....or when a previously apolitical segment of the population that had been, say, working in the mines, starts participating. We live in a democratic republic with a capitalistic private sector and a tax funded public sector and a portion of gray areas where there are no clear labels. Do what works: why is everyone so intent on reinventing the wheel along silly ideological guidelines???

Get busy living

8/19/11
jmayhem:
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

That usually tends to happen when you cut education funding significantly over multiple decades.

This is so stupid it amazes me. There is next to no correlation between education spending and success. Washington D.C. has one of the highest education spending per student and has one of the lowest graduation rates. The system is broken, we should stop just throwing money at it.

Also, this elitist thing is so annoying. Why would you know what is best for someone in KY...better than someone living in KY? The tea Party and Republicans are not trying to change America, they are trying to stop it from changing into something monstrous, authoritarian, and inefficient. It's honestly ridiculous if you think that any President/mainstream politician from Founding Fathers to Hoover believed in the monstrosity that is the present U.S. government. Sans FDR and LBJ, no President would do this crap. They have destroyed America's growth prospects by implementing these social programs. It was like cutting off a weakened arm and replacing it with a claw. The arm could have regained muscle mass (charity) but instead we replaced it with an inefficient mechanism (SS/UHC/Medicare). I'll be honest, I love America. But almost every social program is against what I think America should be and what the government should do.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/19/11
MMBinNC:
jmayhem:
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

That usually tends to happen when you cut education funding significantly over multiple decades.

This is so stupid it amazes me. There is next to no correlation between education spending and success. Washington D.C. has one of the highest education spending per student and has one of the lowest graduation rates. The system is broken, we should stop just throwing money at it.

Also, this elitist thing is so annoying. Why would you know what is best for someone in KY...better than someone living in KY? The tea Party and Republicans are not trying to change America, they are trying to stop it from changing into something monstrous, authoritarian, and inefficient. It's honestly ridiculous if you think that any President/mainstream politician from Founding Fathers to Hoover believed in the monstrosity that is the present U.S. government. Sans FDR and LBJ, no President would do this crap. They have destroyed America's growth prospects by implementing these social programs. It was like cutting off a weakened arm and replacing it with a claw. The arm could have regained muscle mass (charity) but instead we replaced it with an inefficient mechanism (SS/UHC/Medicare). I'll be honest, I love America. But almost every social program is against what I think America should be and what the government should do.

There is also no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth.

8/19/11
awm55:
MMBinNC:
jmayhem:
blastoise:

Democracy requires a sizable body of educated, informed, and responsible voters. My impression is that the average US voter is regressing towards a level of ignorance that makes him unfit to support a functioning democratic government.

The same is true for the partisan politicians in Washington that are not in a position to make the compromises that are necessary to further the common interest. What to do without the US guarding the safety of the world's trade system? Will it become chaos till the next empire takes over? Poor world...

That usually tends to happen when you cut education funding significantly over multiple decades.

This is so stupid it amazes me. There is next to no correlation between education spending and success. Washington D.C. has one of the highest education spending per student and has one of the lowest graduation rates. The system is broken, we should stop just throwing money at it.

Also, this elitist thing is so annoying. Why would you know what is best for someone in KY...better than someone living in KY? The tea Party and Republicans are not trying to change America, they are trying to stop it from changing into something monstrous, authoritarian, and inefficient. It's honestly ridiculous if you think that any President/mainstream politician from Founding Fathers to Hoover believed in the monstrosity that is the present U.S. government. Sans FDR and LBJ, no President would do this crap. They have destroyed America's growth prospects by implementing these social programs. It was like cutting off a weakened arm and replacing it with a claw. The arm could have regained muscle mass (charity) but instead we replaced it with an inefficient mechanism (SS/UHC/Medicare). I'll be honest, I love America. But almost every social program is against what I think America should be and what the government should do.

There is also no correlation between tax rates and GDP growth.

I'm not sure if there is enough evidence to prove that this is true in a recession. Even if it is true, that doesn't mean the government should tax the hell out of people just to do it.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/14/11

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

8/14/11
blastoise:

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

Congratulations on making the dumbest comment I've ever read in my 26 years of life.

8/15/11
blastoise:

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

Wow, just wow, I cant agree more with you. I was going to say its nothing new, just the acknowledgement of things as they have been for a while, but your tone is far more direct. Kudos.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus

Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!

8/15/11
blastoise:

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

+1

8/15/11
awm55:
blastoise:

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

+1

So, let me get this straight: the problem with America lately is too much Democracy? Or is it that the quality of the people participating in it, on average, is lower. Because if the problem is democratic voting, I think there's worse issues than the debt.....which, by the way, who the fuck is going to "collect" on us? Realistically.

Get busy living

8/15/11
UFOinsider:
awm55:
blastoise:

The problem with America today is that internet has made a truer form of democracy possible.
Internet now allows for the opinions of the vast, uneducated masses to be heard. This is indeed the voice of real America, the America that Washington has tried to avoid for centuries. This America is racist, ultra religious, completely uneducated, very easy to manipulate and it stubbornly feels it is always right by the grace of God.

So... the problem in Washington is that rural America, or the anti-America if you want to call it like that (the one not known outside our borders) has unfortunately awaken and the Republican Party is catering to its madness for political support.

^^ comments XD

+1

So, let me get this straight: the problem with America lately is too much Democracy? Or is it that the quality of the people participating in it, on average, is lower. Because if the problem is democratic voting, I think there's worse issues than the debt.....which, by the way, who the fuck is going to "collect" on us? Realistically.

I think its the quality of the voter base in all honesty. There is an enormous amount of misinformed voters on both sides, but lets be realistic about this, one side is considerably worse than the other. The Republican party is a joke internationally, of course they don't care, and fair enough, but its all about perspective and I sometimes think the party and their voter base lack it.

Did you see Carl Rove on Fox News today? He is worried all the Republican candidates are too religious and too far to the right. When Carl Rove thinks your candidates are too far right you have a problem.

8/14/11

blastoise, i think that's taking it a bit far.

however i do agree that the political problem(s) lie in our system of democracy. since 50% of the voting population doesn't pay taxes (social security recipients, welfare recipients, etc.) but receives massive benefits they will never vote for someone who is in favor of reducing these benefits in order to solve our debt problems.

before 1776 there was taxation without representation. now there's representation without taxation. it's preposterous. voting is a privelege and only those who pay taxes should be allowed to elect the politicians who will spend them.

8/14/11
lone star state:

blastoise, i think that's taking it a bit far.

however i do agree that the political problem(s) lie in our system of democracy. since 50% of the voting population doesn't pay taxes (social security recipients, welfare recipients, etc.) but receives massive benefits they will never vote for someone who is in favor of reducing these benefits in order to solve our debt problems.

before 1776 there was taxation without representation. now there's representation without taxation. it's preposterous. voting is a privelege and only those who pay taxes should be allowed to elect the politicians who will spend them.

The Economist is a right wing publication, yet the vast majority of the comments are blaming the Republicans. I think you guys need to wake up to the fact that the Republicans have shifted so extraordinarily far to the right over the past decade that it has resulted in the political process in the US becoming nearly unworkable. You are alienating the young demographic in this country (myself included).

The Democrats have conceded enormously to the Republicans on many issues, yet the Republicans remain ideologically intransigent. You do not belong in government if you categorically refuse to compromise, and your party should take a long deep look in the mirror when a Christian Fundamentalist (Bachmann) who has a history of skewering and ignoring the truth is one your frontrunners for the Presidency.

8/14/11

I wouldn't go so far and say that The Economist is a right wing publication. Sure, they favor a smaller government vs. a larger one, but the positions that The Economist take are more in line with "Classical Liberalism" than any in other political philosophy.

I think the biggest indicator of the madness that currently is the Republican Party, is that they continue to brand Obama as a socialist, when he's more right-wing than Nixon.

8/14/11
Chillguy:

I wouldn't go so far and say that The Economist is a right wing publication. Sure, they favor a smaller government vs. a larger one, but the positions that The Economist take are more in line with "Classical Liberalism" than any in other political philosophy.

I think the biggest indicator of the madness that currently is the Republican Party, is that they continue to brand Obama as a socialist, when he's more right-wing than Nixon.

That is the crux of the issue, by the historical standards of liberalism vs conservatism the Republican party has gone so far to the right that they would not be taken seriously as a mainstream party in any other developed country. Of course they don't care, and they will criticism me for saying such, but they need to get a bit of perspective.

8/14/11
awm55:
Chillguy:

I wouldn't go so far and say that The Economist is a right wing publication. Sure, they favor a smaller government vs. a larger one, but the positions that The Economist take are more in line with "Classical Liberalism" than any in other political philosophy.

I think the biggest indicator of the madness that currently is the Republican Party, is that they continue to brand Obama as a socialist, when he's more right-wing than Nixon.

That is the crux of the issue, by the historical standards of liberalism vs conservatism the Republican party has gone so far to the right that they would not be taken seriously as a mainstream party in any other developed country. Of course they don't care, and they will criticism me for saying such, but they need to get a bit of perspective.

So we should lower our standards to the other countries? If you are #1 you shouldn't care about what #2-350 is doing wrong. Just what they are doing right And they are failing right and left. Even the great China is having problems with their ghost towns and inflation.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/14/11
Chillguy:

I wouldn't go so far and say that The Economist is a right wing publication. Sure, they favor a smaller government vs. a larger one, but the positions that The Economist take are more in line with "Classical Liberalism" than any in other political philosophy.

I think the biggest indicator of the madness that currently is the Republican Party, is that they continue to brand Obama as a socialist, when he's more right-wing than Nixon.

Yes. Richard "We're all Keynesians now" Nixon. The bastion of American politics. You know you've lost when you put a pariah in the forefront.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/14/11

Your definition of "right wing" is so wrong it's laughable. Republicans are far LESS religious today than before, but the media contorts it to such a degree that you think differently. Look at the issue of gay marriage. A lot of the candidates are for equal-treatment civil unions. But since it's not "marriage" they are homophobic. Personally I'm still waiting for my common law canonization, but that another story. Look in the 80s...no candidate Democrat or Republican...hell even in the 1990s would say that they support gay marriage or even similar stuff. Saying that "God is on our side" or that "He will deliver us from these problems" aren't spurring pople to inaction, but rather the opposite. Economic policy wise, this BS Keynesianism stuff has been going oon for less than 100 years. 100 years of waning economic power. Tons of people said that once we lost a clear cut enemy (the USSR) Americas power would decine because the economic base was weak and without the military-based fear/propaganda against the Commies we would fall apart. I don't understand how anyone could look at Europe right now and say that's where we need to head. Every policy Obama outlined in his campaign (thank God he has fulfilled like one) has come straight from Europe. The freest countries economically are like Switzerland and Hong Kong (I know it's not a country) and ... I never would have guessed but they have more right skewed policies. The only reason that universal healthcare works in Switzerland is because most of the money (or at least a very sizable portion) they receive comes from out of the country (hence it doesn't benefit those foreign nationals). No country has a thriving economy and universal healthcare. The more welfare a country has, generally the lower the per capita GDP is. If you want to say "I'd rather everyone make 25k a year than someone make 1m and some not work" then you are a socialist and there is no reason arguing with the reasonless.

The reason that the Democrats are compromising is because the American people are not on their side. Like at all. Every single poll taken is heavily against the Democrats on almost all issues. Universal healthcare. The budget. The debt ceiling. Taxes. Government spending. The list goes on and on. The Republicans refuse to let their constituents down in favor of scoring points with the media and the social elite. The problem with your thinking blastoise is that, like most liberals do (not saying you are one) you think that the mass knows better than the individual. The government better than the citizen. The problem today is that the different populations of the USA are so intrinsically different that it is becoming what occurred to the Austrian Empire years ago. If you don't know- the empire was broken apart by the different ethnic groups clashing because they had massively divergeant needs. Imagine Turkey, Greece and Austria as one state today. that would suck. I'm not saying that the USA should break up, but I did write a paper last year explaining the similarities between the histories of the two states. And believe you me, they are striking.

Fuck it. I wanna live in Texas.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/14/11
MMBinNC:

Your definition of "right wing" is so wrong it's laughable. Republicans are far LESS religious today than before, but the media contorts it to such a degree that you think differently. Look at the issue of gay marriage. A lot of the candidates are for equal-treatment civil unions. But since it's not "marriage" they are homophobic. Personally I'm still waiting for my common law canonization, but that another story. Look in the 80s...no candidate Democrat or Republican...hell even in the 1990s would say that they support gay marriage or even similar stuff. Saying that "God is on our side" or that "He will deliver us from these problems" aren't spurring pople to inaction, but rather the opposite. Economic policy wise, this BS Keynesianism stuff has been going oon for less than 100 years. 100 years of waning economic power. Tons of people said that once we lost a clear cut enemy (the USSR) Americas power would decine because the economic base was weak and without the military-based fear/propaganda against the Commies we would fall apart. I don't understand how anyone could look at Europe right now and say that's where we need to head. Every policy Obama outlined in his campaign (thank God he has fulfilled like one) has come straight from Europe. The freest countries economically are like Switzerland and Hong Kong (I know it's not a country) and ... I never would have guessed but they have more right skewed policies. The only reason that universal healthcare works in Switzerland is because most of the money (or at least a very sizable portion) they receive comes from out of the country (hence it doesn't benefit those foreign nationals). No country has a thriving economy and universal healthcare. The more welfare a country has, generally the lower the per capita GDP is. If you want to say "I'd rather everyone make 25k a year than someone make 1m and some not work" then you are a socialist and there is no reason arguing with the reasonless.

The reason that the Democrats are compromising is because the American people are not on their side. Like at all. Every single poll taken is heavily against the Democrats on almost all issues. Universal healthcare. The budget. The debt ceiling. Taxes. Government spending. The list goes on and on. The Republicans refuse to let their constituents down in favor of scoring points with the media and the social elite. The problem with your thinking blastoise is that, like most liberals do (not saying you are one) you think that the mass knows better than the individual. The government better than the citizen. The problem today is that the different populations of the USA are so intrinsically different that it is becoming what occurred to the Austrian Empire years ago. If you don't know- the empire was broken apart by the different ethnic groups clashing because they had massively divergeant needs. Imagine Turkey, Greece and Austria as one state today. that would suck. I'm not saying that the USA should break up, but I did write a paper last year explaining the similarities between the histories of the two states. And believe you me, they are striking.

Fuck it. I wanna live in Texas.

"No country has a thriving economy and universal healthcare."

I'm sorry, this is one of the most idiotic things I have ever read on this forum, ever. We are the ONLY developed country that doesn't have universal healthcare. And never ever has a major Republican party Presidential Nominee been this far right, ever. By your parties standards now Reagan would have been a liberal because he raised taxes.

8/14/11

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

8/14/11
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

8/14/11
txjustin:
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

Yeah, because Brett Baier on Fox News loves calling out Republicans.

8/14/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

Yeah, because Brett Baier on Fox News loves calling out Republicans.

I don't have time to hit on everything but your reading headlines and not dealing with the facts. The objection to the 10:1 cuts were not that they weren't reasonable, it's that by "cut" it references down the road future spending as defined by our base-line budgeting system.

Additionally, right-wing/left-wing, it doesn't matter. Both sides have deviated FAR from their centrist counterparts of years past. If you don't believe that, I'll refer you to the Dem's excellent example in compromise when they passed Healthcare reform under referendum on a party line vote forcing it through in 2009. Both are guilty of this lacking of compromise, its not all right wingers.

I would offer for consideration that right wing fringe would not have a platform if the previous eight years of "conservatives" not operated as spendthrifts. "W" did as much to create the current problem and inspire the need for a push back to conservative ideology. Dem's aren't compromising anymore than right wing types. They are just extremely vocal about how willing they are but can't document anything they've actually conceded to that the other side wants. They'll mention what they've given up that they knew they'd never get, but can show nothing they've adopted the other side requested. That isn't compromise.

8/14/11
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

Yeah, because Brett Baier on Fox News loves calling out Republicans.

I don't have time to hit on everything but your reading headlines and not dealing with the facts. The objection to the 10:1 cuts were not that they weren't reasonable, it's that by "cut" it references down the road future spending as defined by our base-line budgeting system.

Additionally, right-wing/left-wing, it doesn't matter. Both sides have deviated FAR from their centrist counterparts of years past. If you don't believe that, I'll refer you to the Dem's excellent example in compromise when they passed Healthcare reform under referendum on a party line vote forcing it through in 2009. Both are guilty of this lacking of compromise, its not all right wingers.

I would offer for consideration that right wing fringe would not have a platform if the previous eight years of "conservatives" not operated as spendthrifts. "W" did as much to create the current problem and inspire the need for a push back to conservative ideology. Dem's aren't compromising anymore than right wing types. They are just extremely vocal about how willing they are but can't document anything they've actually conceded to that the other side wants. They'll mention what they've given up that they knew they'd never get, but can show nothing they've adopted the other side requested. That isn't compromise.

The National Review called the 8 candidates out, the freaking National Review.

The dems have conceded on a crap load, every major media source both domestically and internationally agrees on this. S&P explicitly stated that they downgraded the US because some in congress were intransigent on revenue increases and that some in the Republican party (including some potential Presidential Nominees) thought that the best thing we could do is default. S&P also stated they have never heard rhetoric like this used in a develop country ever, if you don't think that is fringe right wing then I can't help you.

8/15/11
awm55:
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

Yeah, because Brett Baier on Fox News loves calling out Republicans.

I don't have time to hit on everything but your reading headlines and not dealing with the facts. The objection to the 10:1 cuts were not that they weren't reasonable, it's that by "cut" it references down the road future spending as defined by our base-line budgeting system.

Additionally, right-wing/left-wing, it doesn't matter. Both sides have deviated FAR from their centrist counterparts of years past. If you don't believe that, I'll refer you to the Dem's excellent example in compromise when they passed Healthcare reform under referendum on a party line vote forcing it through in 2009. Both are guilty of this lacking of compromise, its not all right wingers.

I would offer for consideration that right wing fringe would not have a platform if the previous eight years of "conservatives" not operated as spendthrifts. "W" did as much to create the current problem and inspire the need for a push back to conservative ideology. Dem's aren't compromising anymore than right wing types. They are just extremely vocal about how willing they are but can't document anything they've actually conceded to that the other side wants. They'll mention what they've given up that they knew they'd never get, but can show nothing they've adopted the other side requested. That isn't compromise.

The National Review called the 8 candidates out, the freaking National Review.

The dems have conceded on a crap load, every major media source both domestically and internationally agrees on this. S&P explicitly stated that they downgraded the US because some in congress were intransigent on revenue increases and that some in the Republican party (including some potential Presidential Nominees) thought that the best thing we could do is default. S&P also stated they have never heard rhetoric like this used in a develop country ever, if you don't think that is fringe right wing then I can't help you.

Maybe that means something to you, but I watched the debate and heard Ron Paul and Cain specifically say no tax raises unless its regarding actual cuts not cuts to future spending increases. Since I actually saw it I'm more inclined to believe what I heard with my own ears than your recitation of hearsay.

You can use ambiguous references all you want but you have yet to show one single instance of these ever so prevalent democratic compromises. If you cannot see that you are caught up in political rhetoric I cannot help you.

8/15/11
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:

When all of the Republican parties presidential nominees refuse to concede on a deal that was 10 to 1 cut vs revenue rise that is insane. The fucking national review call them all crazy. You are living in a fantasy.

That was a trick question. If you can't see that you are living in a fantasy.

Yeah, because Brett Baier on Fox News loves calling out Republicans.

I don't have time to hit on everything but your reading headlines and not dealing with the facts. The objection to the 10:1 cuts were not that they weren't reasonable, it's that by "cut" it references down the road future spending as defined by our base-line budgeting system.

Additionally, right-wing/left-wing, it doesn't matter. Both sides have deviated FAR from their centrist counterparts of years past. If you don't believe that, I'll refer you to the Dem's excellent example in compromise when they passed Healthcare reform under referendum on a party line vote forcing it through in 2009. Both are guilty of this lacking of compromise, its not all right wingers.

I would offer for consideration that right wing fringe would not have a platform if the previous eight years of "conservatives" not operated as spendthrifts. "W" did as much to create the current problem and inspire the need for a push back to conservative ideology. Dem's aren't compromising anymore than right wing types. They are just extremely vocal about how willing they are but can't document anything they've actually conceded to that the other side wants. They'll mention what they've given up that they knew they'd never get, but can show nothing they've adopted the other side requested. That isn't compromise.

The National Review called the 8 candidates out, the freaking National Review.

The dems have conceded on a crap load, every major media source both domestically and internationally agrees on this. S&P explicitly stated that they downgraded the US because some in congress were intransigent on revenue increases and that some in the Republican party (including some potential Presidential Nominees) thought that the best thing we could do is default. S&P also stated they have never heard rhetoric like this used in a develop country ever, if you don't think that is fringe right wing then I can't help you.

Maybe that means something to you, but I watched the debate and heard Ron Paul and Cain specifically say no tax raises unless its regarding actual cuts not cuts to future spending increases. Since I actually saw it I'm more inclined to believe what I heard with my own ears than your recitation of hearsay.

You can use ambiguous references all you want but you have yet to show one single instance of these ever so prevalent democratic compromises. If you cannot see that you are caught up in political rhetoric I cannot help you.

Dude, what planet are you on?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18928600
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/...
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/08/mainstrea...

8/15/11
awm55:

Dude, what planet are you on?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18928600
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/...
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/08/mainstrea...

?

I guess I missed something somewhere. Anything you've written in the past I've found to be well thought out. What you posted is simply four articles of finger pointing. Maybe you didn't read my initial response where I disclosed there are fringe right in congress, but included the contagion of leftist equally as rigid. I'll sight Harry Ried's stance on a BBA being a deal breaker and his refusal to let a vote take place if it exists in any proposed legislation. Irony is not the debated issue here but it bares mentioning he proposed and voted for one in 2007.

The take away here for me is though I understand your frustration with the group on the right, you fail to consider how similar behavior is practiced regularly by those on the left, yet when conservatives do it they're "wrong"... Its a double standard and I honestly truly despise hypocrisy.

I appreciate your posting these links, but they define what you previously wrote. All I want to see is an example of compromise to republican ideals that the democrats insist they have been open to. I just don't see one and until I do, they are just as guilty of the rigidity they accuse the right of being and as such bare as much responsibility for the calamitous negotiations around the debt ceiling.

Have you considered that this fringe radical group was the only portion of any Congressional body to propose legislature that met the $4T figure disclosed by S&P and others that would have avoided a downgrade to our sovereign debt. I mean that is what the left was worried about before the deadline approached. A deadline that moved 3 times. If it was so important to them then, why, when agencies told them what they needed to see, weren't they willing to compromise to measures being proposed that would have saved our currency rating?

8/15/11
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:

Dude, what planet are you on?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61147.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18928600
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/...
http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2011/08/mainstrea...

?

I guess I missed something somewhere. Anything you've written in the past I've found to be well thought out. What you posted is simply four articles of finger pointing. Maybe you didn't read my initial response where I disclosed there are fringe right in congress, but included the contagion of leftist equally as rigid. I'll sight Harry Ried's stance on a BBA being a deal breaker and his refusal to let a vote take place if it exists in any proposed legislation. Irony is not the debated issue here but it bares mentioning he proposed and voted for one in 2007.

The take away here for me is though I understand your frustration with the group on the right, you fail to consider how similar behavior is practiced regularly by those on the left, yet when conservatives do it they're "wrong"... Its a double standard and I honestly truly despise hypocrisy.

I appreciate your posting these links, but they define what you previously wrote. All I want to see is an example of compromise to republican ideals that the democrats insist they have been open to. I just don't see one and until I do, they are just as guilty of the rigidity they accuse the right of being and as such bare as much responsibility for the calamitous negotiations around the debt ceiling.

Have you considered that this fringe radical group was the only portion of any Congressional body to propose legislature that met the $4T figure disclosed by S&P and others that would have avoided a downgrade to our sovereign debt. I mean that is what the left was worried about before the deadline approached. A deadline that moved 3 times. If it was so important to them then, why, when agencies told them what they needed to see, weren't they willing to compromise to measures being proposed that would have saved our currency rating?

Did you read the S&P reports? They sited both the fact that the cuts were not deep enough and the fact that revenue increases were taken off the table. They even went as far to say that they have never seen triple AAA rated sovereigns have politicians downplay the consequences of default.

And the Dems of conceded enormously, the Repubs got a deal with no new revenue (not even closed loopholes), how is that not the Dems compromising? Am I missing something?

8/15/11
awm55:

Am I missing something?

...yeah, you're on a finance site and it doesn't matter what the truth is. No one here CARES what the truth is. This is all about getting what one can out of the system.

It's very rare you're going to find an honest exchange of ideas: more likely, people are just relentlessly pushing thier agenda and they don't give a shit what's right or wrong.....that's life, get used to it.

Get busy living

8/14/11

What it comes down to is the role of government. Republicans of all degrees are in agreement that our current government has overstepped its bounds, is taking on more actions and responsibilities than it should or than it is legally allowed, and that funding such activities with an annual deficit is suicidal. Seeing the dire situation that European countries are in with even larger governments, our presidential candidates are understandably unwilling to back down. Democrats are coming around to this way of thinking, however, which is why they've been forced to admit defeat and concede so much in recent negotiations. Sorry for being right (in all senses of the word).

MMBinNC, come on down, the weather is great. And if things keep going the same way in DC, the type of split you're talking about is inevitable.

8/14/11

Thank God we are the only country without universal healthcare. Europe is arthritic and pulling apart at the seams. Why should we emulate them in any way, shape or form?

8/14/11

"You are alienating the young demographic in this country (myself included)."

Our parents and their parents had too few children for there to be enough youth to form a sizable proportion of voters. Hence, the demands of the middle-aged and old for more social protection will always overcome any of the demands or interest of the youth. The old vote both parties really needed to care about are the middle-aged and old (numerous and more activist) and minorities (rapidly growing and easy to win). Both these groups have a shared interest in more welfare, it just so happens.

Seriously, whoever thought any party (in this case the Republicans) would win an election based on cutting spending and actually follow through was caught up in the rhetoric and fanfare. My passion is history, and the only thing that is a commonality across all civilisations is that the people demand MORE, not anything in particular or anything from a set or list of demands.

That's what I'm sticking with at the moment, anyhow.

8/14/11

First off, I'm not a Democrat nor a Liberal in the American sense of the word. I'm a moderate and have always voted that way. American politics lives on bipartisanship. Unlike Europe, where the ruling party can often make change happen very quickly, our founding fathers created a system that made it difficult to enact change quickly. The same system that founders created to slow increases in the scope of government also make it difficult to quickly reduce it.

Take Reagan, the Republican party's biggest idol. During his presidency, government increased spending on all fronts, not just in the defense department. Sure he's hailed for lowering tax rates, but any monkey can do that. The mark of a true statesman is if he can lower government spending while still providing services that the citizens deem vital.

I've never been a huge fan of democracy ("democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"). I. After all, what right does the majority have in dictating how the minority wish go about their lives? Gay marriage shouldn't be an issue simply because it isn't the government's business. Marriage is a contract. Any two individuals should be allowed to sign it. Period.

The reason that the Democrats are compromising is because the American people are not on their side.

Every party thinks "the people" are on their side. They aren't. They like the idea of cutting big bad government spending and waste until they realize where their social security checks come from. When that happens they'll quickly change sides and vote the Democrats in to protect those checks. That's why the Republicans are promising not raise taxes, a position that is without a doubt fiscally irresponsible. No matter what happens, taxes are going to increase for a balanced budget (either through getting rid of the all the tax breaks, increases in tax rates, or a wider a tax base). That's the truth. Just take a look at the numbers in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/business/economy...

I will only support the Republicans once they get rid of the tax increase ban.

8/14/11

The entire line of reasoning that results in this half-baked thinking that business leaders aren't hiring or expanding their businesses because they are uncertain is a crock of shit. The reason why the economy is suffering is simple and doesn't require the mental jui jitsu that the aforementioned requires: PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ANY GOD DAMN MONEY TO PAY FOR THE USELESS GOODS AND SERVICES MOST AMERICAN COMPANIES PRODUCE! Thus, companies won't produce more

65 percent of Americans can't even produce $1000 dollars in case of an emergency. The last decades extravagance was built on people's homes rising in value. Whats happening now? Homes are dropping in value and are expected to drop another 25%. For every dollar the average American earns in salary he/she owes some financial institution 1.40 cents.

Every time I hear this phony line of reasoning, I know I am dealing with a mental amateur.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

8/14/11

I personally believe that the American consumer is tapped out. They front loaded so much spending during the housing crisis that people have all the goodies. On top of that, they now have woken up to the fact that when you buy on credit, you don't own anything, IT OWNS YOU.

The economy sucks and will suck. It should suck. People acted like drunken retards and need to sober up. The government cannot fix this right now. They are trying everything and it still isn't working.

The two largest parts of GPD (housing and consumer spending) are DOA. Government spending cannot fill the void of both of these.

Personally, if the government wants to do something, they should loosen bankruptcy standard. Let people go bankrupt and clean up their lives. People who should have never owned a home will go back to being renters, banks will smarten up and not lend to people who don't qualify and credit will contract. People will have more FCF, less stress and be able to go on with their life.

8/15/11
ANT:

I personally believe that the American consumer is tapped out. They front loaded so much spending during the housing crisis that people have all the goodies. On top of that, they now have woken up to the fact that when you buy on credit, you don't own anything, IT OWNS YOU.

The economy sucks and will suck. It should suck. People acted like drunken retards and need to sober up. The government cannot fix this right now. They are trying everything and it still isn't working.

The two largest parts of GPD (housing and consumer spending) are DOA. Government spending cannot fill the void of both of these.

Personally, if the government wants to do something, they should loosen bankruptcy standard. Let people go bankrupt and clean up their lives. People who should have never owned a home will go back to being renters, banks will smarten up and not lend to people who don't qualify and credit will contract. People will have more FCF, less stress and be able to go on with their life.

I agree Ant. No one has any money. Any and all money people had during our supposed boom during the 2000s came from tapping lines of equity, not from actually earning more money.

Get with it. The economy is going to be bad for a very, very long time. Yes, of course there are things that could easily boost economic growth. Getting rid of a lot of the regulations that prevent manufacturing more in the USA. Getting rid of the minimum wage so more kids can help out their struggling families. Ending the war on drugs that imprisons nearly 1 out of 100 Americans. Imagine if those people were free, earning wages (even if the wage was pitiful) and actually buying things. Ending the FDA would do wonders for small farms, so they can sell their wares without being harassed.

I am not cocky, I am confident, and when you tell me I am the best it is a compliment.
-Styles P

8/15/11

^^^lol

I want a lady on the street, but a freak in the bed,

Go Bucks!!

8/15/11

A massive amount of this money is also sitting in overseas accounts and they haven't lost faith in anything: they simply don't want to repatriate it and pay taxes. They have no loyalty towards helping maintain the platform which allowed them to make the money in the first place, and must be dealt with forcefully. The modern conservative is trying to justify one of the oldest motives for going into politics: GREED.

*** This, by the way, does not in any way excuse the other half of the political spectrum: who see every dollar earned as something to be taken away and given to something / someone else, in the name of some greater good or some other such nonsense.

I also agree with ANT: too many people are in too much debt to spend right now. The government could in theory print money, but that's just going to push off the necessary structural overhaul. The simple fact is that Americans have been spending a whole lot more than they make - individually and collectively - for a very long time now, and then blaming someone else. GOP and Dems have contributed equally to the debt, I don't want to hear the bullshit rationalizing, and the partisan politics have got to go.

My own opinion is that the economy is rightfully sluggish and SHOULD remain so for a while. It's taken so many short term jolts for so long that there's really not much left to do but just let it recover....but you're not going to hear this out of a politicians mouth. The best thing America can do is to start PRODUCING things that the rest of the world will buy; this will create jobs AND help offset the massive imbalance. But that would make sense......

Get busy living

8/15/11
UFOinsider:

A massive amount of this money is also sitting in overseas accounts and they haven't lost faith in anything: they simply don't want to repatriate it and pay taxes. They have no loyalty towards helping maintain the platform which allowed them to make the money in the first place, and must be dealt with forcefully. The modern conservative is trying to justify one of the oldest motives for going into politics: GREED.

As a "modern conservative" I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. We believe in the rule of law and believe the tax base should be extended to as many people and companies as possible. No conservative believes companies should illegally bypass taxation. In fact, we support US companies paying U.S. taxes, which is why we want to reduce corporate tax rates down to 10% or less and simplify the tax code by ending loopholes, which forces companies to pay some taxes versus no taxes. I don't know a single Republican/conservative who supports tax evasion. Legal tax avoidance we do support, but offshore accounts are NOT legal for individuals to avoid taxation. Before I went into business for myself I did extensive research on this before deciding against offshore accounts--because they're illegal. And you won't find any Republican or conservative who supports lawlessness.

8/15/11
UFOinsider:

A massive amount of this money is also sitting in overseas accounts and they haven't lost faith in anything: they simply don't want to repatriate it and pay taxes. They have no loyalty towards helping maintain the platform which allowed them to make the money in the first place, and must be dealt with forcefully. The modern conservative is trying to justify one of the oldest motives for going into politics: GREED.

*** This, by the way, does not in any way excuse the other half of the political spectrum: who see every dollar earned as something to be taken away and given to something / someone else, in the name of some greater good or some other such nonsense.

I also agree with ANT: too many people are in too much debt to spend right now. The government could in theory print money, but that's just going to push off the necessary structural overhaul. The simple fact is that Americans have been spending a whole lot more than they make - individually and collectively - for a very long time now, and then blaming someone else. GOP and Dems have contributed equally to the debt, I don't want to hear the bullshit rationalizing, and the partisan politics have got to go.

My own opinion is that the economy is rightfully sluggish and SHOULD remain so for a while. It's taken so many short term jolts for so long that there's really not much left to do but just let it recover....but you're not going to hear this out of a politicians mouth. The best thing America can do is to start PRODUCING things that the rest of the world will buy; this will create jobs AND help offset the massive imbalance. But that would make sense......

Here is the thing, no matter how far left you are I have never heard a person in the USA seriously advocate Socialism or any variant thereof. Ever.

Asking the rich to pay rates that are set at pre-Bush tax cut levels is not a far left idea, it just isn't. The Republicans have created a political atmosphere and stirred up their base to the point where any tax increases is just an example of how Obama wants us to be a semi-Socialist European democracy like Sweden. Its sheer lunacy, economically dangerous, and political suicide to state that any legislation that raises taxes is a way to advocate Socialism. There are no mainstream far left movements in the USA at all, there is however a major political party that is dangerously treading the line of crazy which will only further isolate the independents.

8/15/11

Yes, "crazy". We're "crazy" because we believe in balancing the budget within the next 30 years, expanding the tax base from 53% of wage earners onto as many people as possible (including the 47% of people who currently pay no federal income tax), reducing regulation and bureaucracy, and reevaluating the efficacy of return on our federal expenditures by asking the question, "does the program work? Is this program doing what it was intended to do?"

Yep, we must be batsh*t crazy to look at Europe and see what a failure the welfare state is. We're nuts! Well, if that makes me crazy then call me Jack Nicholson.

8/15/11

We should have two-term limits for Congressmen and Senators. We have them for the President; why not for everyone in Congress? This complacency and the obsession with being reelected is preventing our leaders from focusing on their jobs, which is to work for us. And it leads to complacency and sluggishness on the part of the government, which is uncalled for.

Agree?

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com

8/15/11

UFO - the problem is the snobby elite don't like people who disagree with them. The majority of Americans are religious (moderately), believe in freedom and responsibility and want the government to take less and stay out of there way.

The majority of hardworking Americans cannot identify with the North Eastern welfare state, the anti religious tilt on the left, the forcing of left wing beliefs on the average American.

The left wants increased taxes because they want to control people. They want to ban guns because they want only the police to control the power. They want to kill religion because only their beliefs should be worshiped. They want to destroy the family so that the state can dictate how someone can be raise.

8/15/11
ANT:

UFO - the problem is the snobby elite don't like people who disagree with them. The majority of Americans are religious (moderately), believe in freedom and responsibility and want the government to take less and stay out of there way.

The majority of hardworking Americans cannot identify with the North Eastern welfare state, the anti religious tilt on the left, the forcing of left wing beliefs on the average American.

The left wants increased taxes because they want to control people. They want to ban guns because they want only the police to control the power. They want to kill religion because only their beliefs should be worshiped. They want to destroy the family so that the state can dictate how someone can be raise.

The problem ANT is that all of the "real American" states drain more from the country than they contribute. I think Texas is the exception.

The ironic thing is most Americans want freedom, I agree, and North Eastern liberalism from a social standpoint is a hell of a lot less restrictive than some bible humping fringe right candidate who wants to force their religion down everyone's throat. I am Roman Catholic btw, but I staunchly support separation of church and state.

8/15/11
awm55:
ANT:

UFO - the problem is the snobby elite don't like people who disagree with them. The majority of Americans are religious (moderately), believe in freedom and responsibility and want the government to take less and stay out of there way.

The majority of hardworking Americans cannot identify with the North Eastern welfare state, the anti religious tilt on the left, the forcing of left wing beliefs on the average American.

The left wants increased taxes because they want to control people. They want to ban guns because they want only the police to control the power. They want to kill religion because only their beliefs should be worshiped. They want to destroy the family so that the state can dictate how someone can be raise.

The problem ANT is that all of the "real American" states drain more from the country than they contribute. I think Texas is the exception.

The ironic thing is most Americans want freedom, I agree, and North Eastern liberalism from a social standpoint is a hell of a lot less restrictive than some bible humping fringe right candidate who wants to force their religion down everyone's throat. I am Roman Catholic btw, but I staunchly support separation of church and state.

Fine and dandy and I also support a separation. We had a very religious Texan in the White House and guess what, abortion is still legal, being gay is still legal, porn is still legal, divorce is still legals.

I don't see the horror of a religious person in power. We have a Constitution and Supreme Court to keep them in check.

8/15/11
ANT:
awm55:
ANT:

UFO - the problem is the snobby elite don't like people who disagree with them. The majority of Americans are religious (moderately), believe in freedom and responsibility and want the government to take less and stay out of there way.

The majority of hardworking Americans cannot identify with the North Eastern welfare state, the anti religious tilt on the left, the forcing of left wing beliefs on the average American.

The left wants increased taxes because they want to control people. They want to ban guns because they want only the police to control the power. They want to kill religion because only their beliefs should be worshiped. They want to destroy the family so that the state can dictate how someone can be raise.

The problem ANT is that all of the "real American" states drain more from the country than they contribute. I think Texas is the exception.

The ironic thing is most Americans want freedom, I agree, and North Eastern liberalism from a social standpoint is a hell of a lot less restrictive than some bible humping fringe right candidate who wants to force their religion down everyone's throat. I am Roman Catholic btw, but I staunchly support separation of church and state.

Fine and dandy and I also support a separation. We had a very religious Texan in the White House and guess what, abortion is still legal, being gay is still legal, porn is still legal, divorce is still legals.

I don't see the horror of a religious person in power. We have a Constitution and Supreme Court to keep them in check.

Bachmann and Perry are way way more religious than Bush was. Perry's religious rally had people who claim Oprah is the anti-christ and Muslims are all inbred (and that is a fact!). They are far more explicit with their intention to incorporate Christianity into government and schools. Bush was largely a fairly moderate guy in comparison.

8/15/11

AWM - Italian politicians are a joke. French IMF chiefs are a joke. British politicians, who allow their country to be raped for days by insolent entitlement babies, are a joke. Greek politicians are a joke.

You seem to think the rest of the world is so great, yet fail to see how incompetent the rest of the world is.

Also, I fail to see how Republicans did anything wrong. They played hardball, got cuts and didn't raise taxes. Exactly like I wanted them to and exactly like they should have done.

8/15/11

Being a drain doesn't mean they are bad states. The North is where all the cities are, finance is, etc. Of course they will be net contributors. How much industry is in Alabama or Oklahoma? That is what happens when you have a country the size of a continent.

Europe has its shitty countries and its wealthy countries also.

8/15/11

Rural America = Anti-America, but is "indeed the voice of real America"??? Real American's but its "unfortunate" they are paying attention and halfway understand what the "educated" class do? Do you even have a concept of how elitist that realm of thinking is?

The same 20% of American's (who produce 70% of the world's grain supply and 40% of the production of the world's 3rd largest oil producer) living in rural areas getting internet access is responsible for what is wrong with the country? They, with their new fangled techumnologies accumulated $14 trillion in debt?

I'll tell you what... now those bumpkins have an innernet I hope they read this tripe... cut your skinny-pant wearing asses off and come by in about a month to divide up your shit. You might stop to consider those uneducated rural American's, provide you with food, energy, and basically every other commodity by which your narcissistic existence is allowed to continue. How dare they feel as though they are entitled to an opinion?

@ UFO, you are right, no one can "collect" but after the cut off point and until U.S. manufacturing and textile industries rebuild to catch up with demand, things would suck for a long time.

8/15/11

And neither will win the nomination or an election. Politicians move towards the middle if they want to be elected. Everyone needs a fervent core to raise money , work the phone banks, etc. The left has just as many loonies as the right.

I wouldn't say Oprah is the anti Christ, but she is a POS. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

8/15/11
ANT:

And neither will win the nomination or an election. Politicians move towards the middle if they want to be elected. Everyone needs a fervent core to raise money , work the phone banks, etc. The left has just as many loonies as the right.

I wouldn't say Oprah is the anti Christ, but she is a POS. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

You think so? Again, I am a fairly moderate guy but when was the last time a Democratic party candidate wanted the country to default, wanted to end the census, thought CO2 was a harmless gas because it was produced naturally, and held religious rallies full of nutty hard right evangelicals.

Seriously, I just don't see this bat shit crazy stuff from the Dems. At least not to the same extent. The hard right has far far more pull in this country than the hard left (which largely does not exist in any form in the US government).

8/15/11
awm55:
ANT:

And neither will win the nomination or an election. Politicians move towards the middle if they want to be elected. Everyone needs a fervent core to raise money , work the phone banks, etc. The left has just as many loonies as the right.

I wouldn't say Oprah is the anti Christ, but she is a POS. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

You think so? Again, I am a fairly moderate guy but when was the last time a Democratic party candidate wanted the country to default, wanted to end the census, thought CO2 was a harmless gas because it was produced naturally, and held religious rallies full of nutty hard right evangelicals.

Seriously, I just don't see this bat shit crazy stuff from the Dems. At least not to the same extent. The hard right has far far more pull in this country than the hard left (which largely does not exist in any form in the US government).

....because they don't need to. Remember 2003? Wooooo, freakshow

Get busy living

8/15/11
UFOinsider:
awm55:
ANT:

And neither will win the nomination or an election. Politicians move towards the middle if they want to be elected. Everyone needs a fervent core to raise money , work the phone banks, etc. The left has just as many loonies as the right.

I wouldn't say Oprah is the anti Christ, but she is a POS. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

You think so? Again, I am a fairly moderate guy but when was the last time a Democratic party candidate wanted the country to default, wanted to end the census, thought CO2 was a harmless gas because it was produced naturally, and held religious rallies full of nutty hard right evangelicals.

Seriously, I just don't see this bat shit crazy stuff from the Dems. At least not to the same extent. The hard right has far far more pull in this country than the hard left (which largely does not exist in any form in the US government).

....because they don't need to. Remember 2003? Wooooo, freakshow

Not sure what you mean?

8/15/11
awm55:
UFOinsider:
awm55:
ANT:

And neither will win the nomination or an election. Politicians move towards the middle if they want to be elected. Everyone needs a fervent core to raise money , work the phone banks, etc. The left has just as many loonies as the right.

I wouldn't say Oprah is the anti Christ, but she is a POS. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

You think so? Again, I am a fairly moderate guy but when was the last time a Democratic party candidate wanted the country to default, wanted to end the census, thought CO2 was a harmless gas because it was produced naturally, and held religious rallies full of nutty hard right evangelicals.

Seriously, I just don't see this bat shit crazy stuff from the Dems. At least not to the same extent. The hard right has far far more pull in this country than the hard left (which largely does not exist in any form in the US government).

....because they don't need to. Remember 2003? Wooooo, freakshow

Not sure what you mean?

Take a break, clear your head, and then re-read this. The dems are in office, and their incumbency is a natural advantage. The party trying to break the add is always forced to be more intense/extreme.....they're also more agitated because their guy isn't in office....

Get busy living

8/15/11
UFOinsider:
awm55:
UFOinsider:

....because they don't need to. Remember 2003? Wooooo, freakshow

Not sure what you mean?

Take a break, clear your head, and then re-read this. The dems are in office, and their incumbency is a natural advantage. The party trying to break the add is always forced to be more intense/extreme.....they're also more agitated because their guy isn't in office....

This is so true... I forget how vocal the Michael Moore, Janeane Garoforsnatch, and Howard Dean types were when Bush ran in '03-'04. Hell, Alec Baldwin said he'd move to Canada... so glad he didn't, love me some 30 Rock.

8/15/11
ragnar danneskjold:
UFOinsider:
awm55:
UFOinsider:

....because they don't need to. Remember 2003? Wooooo, freakshow

Not sure what you mean?

Take a break, clear your head, and then re-read this. The dems are in office, and their incumbency is a natural advantage. The party trying to break the add is always forced to be more intense/extreme.....they're also more agitated because their guy isn't in office....

This is so true... I forget how vocal the Michael Moore, Janeane Garoforsnatch, and Howard Dean types were when Bush ran in '03-'04. Hell, Alec Baldwin said he'd move to Canada... so glad he didn't, love me some 30 Rock.

I agree, except these people are not presidential candidates. I was referring to Democratic politicians, Howard Dean was not fringe left wing and neither are any Democratic politicians I can think of.

8/15/11

Not raising the debt ceiling would not of caused a default, we just would have had to make tough choices. Honestly, both parties played chicken with the issue and the Republicans won.

S&P said cuts were not big enough and revenues were not high enough. The Dems has a token revenue increase. If you want to really increase revenues, you remove all the dam tax credits. Phase out the child tax credit, mortgage interest deductibility, etc.

I personally believe in global warming, but then again, I could be wrong. I honestly could careless who is right, I would like to see less deforestation and more nuclear energy. But then again, I am am rather anti human and pro animal/environment.

To me 10 White Rhinos are more precious than a million people, but I digress.

You need to look at the logical conclusion. If you say global warming is real, you need to do something about it. You need to shut down coal plants, subsidize alternative energy and thereby increase operating costs for American businesses. All for something that might not be a big deal or might not be real (even though I think it is). There are major ramifications for doing certain things.

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation +

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed Here

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

8/15/11

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

8/15/11
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

8/15/11
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

The Republicans have the entire south, how is that working out for them...?

8/19/11
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

Even though they are very Democratic, last time I checked, Arnold is a Republican

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

Even though they are very Democratic, last time I checked, Arnold is a Republican

Dude, California is Democrat. Last time I checked, Arnold wasn't the governor of California.

8/19/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

Even though they are very Democratic, last time I checked, Arnold is a Republican

Dude, California is Democrat. Last time I checked, Arnold wasn't the governor of California.

....and when he WAS governor, they were Democrat. I'm thinking that Maria did some serious ideological arm twisting.

Get busy living

8/19/11
UFOinsider:
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

Even though they are very Democratic, last time I checked, Arnold is a Republican

Dude, California is Democrat. Last time I checked, Arnold wasn't the governor of California.

....and when he WAS governor, they were Democrat. I'm thinking that Maria did some serious ideological arm twisting.

I knew you would say that, just pointing out that even though it is a completely liberal state, I don't think it is a good example for what you used it for. Also, you cannot say, it is democratic and they are in deep shit, texas is republican and they are doing great. You can't take those two examples and draw conclusions from that. For example, Norway is great, it is socialist. America is not so great, it is capitalist.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:
UFOinsider:
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
txjustin:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want. I still find it really crazy that the Democrats won't just let us have a decentralized government. It's not like you can't still have your universal healthcare, just instead of the fed forcing EVERYONE to get in on it, the states can vote on whether or not they want to get in on it.

Crazy crazy

The Democrats already have a state, California. How's that working out for'em?

Even though they are very Democratic, last time I checked, Arnold is a Republican

Dude, California is Democrat. Last time I checked, Arnold wasn't the governor of California.

....and when he WAS governor, they were Democrat. I'm thinking that Maria did some serious ideological arm twisting.

I knew you would say that, just pointing out that even though it is a completely liberal state, I don't think it is a good example for what you used it for. Also, you cannot say, it is democratic and they are in deep shit, texas is republican and they are doing great. You can't take those two examples and draw conclusions from that. For example, Norway is great, it is socialist. America is not so great, it is capitalist.

I was being 99% fecitious :) but yeah, I understand what you're saying

Get busy living

8/17/11
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want.

WE DO! The Democrats control states like New York, Massachusetts, California and Hawai'i. The Republicans dominate states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee.

Which state is home to the financial capital of the world? New York, a state run by democrats.
Which states are home to the cutting edge of health care and biotech innovation? Massachussetts and Cali.
Which state is home to all our technological innovation? California again.

What exactly are the red states known for again? There's only that that's even remotely successful, Texas, and that's thanks to oil revenues.

Crazy Crazy indeed...

8/17/11
redninja:
D M:

Why don't we just create a Democrat and a Republican state. The blues can do whatever the fuck they want, the reds can do whatever the fuck they want.

WE DO! The Democrats control states like New York, Massachusetts, California and Hawai'i. The Republicans dominate states like Mississippi, Alabama, Kansas and Tennessee.

Which state is home to the financial capital of the world? New York, a state run by democrats.
Which states are home to the cutting edge of health care and biotech innovation? Massachussetts and Cali.
Which state is home to all our technological innovation? California again.

What exactly are the red states known for again? There's only that that's even remotely successful, Texas, and that's thanks to oil revenues.

Crazy Crazy indeed...

Hmm...so states that industrialized earlier or came into fruition during an economic boom are doing better than historically agricultural ones. OMG and those states were founded on CONSERVATIVE principles? Let's be honest, if NYC started this crap in the 19th Century we'd be looking at Detroit 2.0

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/15/11

We're not bankrupt, so pretty good. Not gonna dig up stats right now. We can go at it tomorrow.

8/16/11

Actually, the Democrats ruled the south from the Civil War at the state level up until about 5-10 years ago because much of the deep south is 25-35% black and the blacks have been voting in overwhelming numbers for the Democrats since the late 1960s. Take Mississippi, for example--overwhelmingly Democratic at the state level but still put Republicans in for the national representation.

One has to admire the Democrats on this: from Louisiana to NYC to Kansas City to Oakland to Honolulu, the Democrats have mastered the art of local machine politics. Even in my conservative Christian white Kansas suburb that voted overwhelmingly for John McCain--puke--the Democrats manage to run the local school boards and city council--machine politics at its finest. That's kind of why the idea of "red" and "blue" states is somewhat misleading. Even Kansas was blue until the 2000s.

8/16/11

Democrats are the party of taxation and control. I just wish they would be honest. They cow-toe to the poor and unions with political kick backs (aka entitlement programs). They want to enslave people with freebies.

Do you think all the rich Democrats, who pretend to give a shit about the poor and needy, would ever want to live anywhere near these people? That is the true test. Democrats want to take from those who work and give to the poor in exchange for their votes.

Welfare, no taxes, blaming the rich, all tools of power. Keep them dumb, needy and blaming everyone else and you will have a dependent voting base for years.

Nothing but power people, don't think it is anything else.

8/17/11

Corporate America will not invest back into America simply because of the high taxes. 35% Corporate Tax is out of hand.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minute...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7376848n&ta...

8/17/11

we all studied economics, don't we?? and we all know that each dollar in circullation has a multiplying effect on economy...And when the richest 1% takes in 24% off all nation's income and bottom 90% takes about 6%. ,well then i must say , that the government 's job to tax the top and return part of that into the circullation... that how it should be.. Commom, in ancient and medievel times the richest kept all they wealth in vaults...,. well today they invest about 30% of their income abroad and some of the rest on WS... No, b.s. but basically today's China was built by multinationals( american corporations)... well, you've got the idea... The bottom line is that it's a game: the government's job is to tax and redistribute, and richests job is to complain about taxes ..

8/17/11
iloveicecream:

we all studied economics, don't we?? and we all know that each dollar in circullation has a multiplying effect on economy...And when the richest 1% takes in 24% off all nation's income and bottom 90% takes about 6%. ,well then i must say , that the government 's job to tax the top and return part of that into the circullation... that how it should be.. Commom, in ancient and medievel times the richest kept all they wealth in vaults...,. well today they invest about 30% of their income abroad and some of the rest on WS... No, b.s. but basically today's China was built by multinationals( american corporations)... well, you've got the idea... The bottom line is that it's a game: the government's job is to tax and redistribute, and richests job is to complain about taxes ..

^ Basically. It's simpler than that though: they provide the platform on which most business operates. There's a lot of waste, but libertarian 'intellectuals' just don't want to pay taxes....and given that most self proclaimed 'statists' are trying to get something for nothing, there's a systemic political gridlock that needs to be broken through at some time. A lot of people thought the last president was going to do that, others hoped this one would, but I'm really beginning to thing that we're not going to see forward movement until at least 2012, maybe even further down the road.

By each side holding so dearly to their ideological 'purity' and taking such a hard line approach, nothing is getting resolved. I really think it's going to take an independant candidate to get shit done. Anyone else see it this way?

Get busy living

8/17/11
iloveicecream:

we all studied economics, don't we?? and we all know that each dollar in circullation has a multiplying effect on economy...And when the richest 1% takes in 24% off all nation's income and bottom 90% takes about 6%. ,well then i must say , that the government 's job to tax the top and return part of that into the circullation... that how it should be.. Commom, in ancient and medievel times the richest kept all they wealth in vaults...,. well today they invest about 30% of their income abroad and some of the rest on WS... No, b.s. but basically today's China was built by multinationals( american corporations)... well, you've got the idea... The bottom line is that it's a game: the government's job is to tax and redistribute, and richests job is to complain about taxes ..

This is a retarded way of thinking because the money taken from the top isn't redistributed effectively by any means. No one would have problems with tax increases if the tax increases were transparent. In the sense that you know exactly where your tax money is going and that money is going to help some legitimate, not being pissed down a drain. Rich people didn't get there by wasting their money... they complain because giving money to the government is a waste. Bottom line. Until the government is transparent about where tax money is going and entitlement programs are cleaned up and there are limited loopholes in them, people who have the money will complain about giving it up.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

8/17/11

You always hear older generations talk about how the younger are not as committed or great as their own because life is easier. I'd say a lot of that is nostalgia but what I will say is when I compare the generations of my family, things get interest. My grandpa, after surviving the Holocaust and loosing his parents, became a career solider and reached the rank of Major General. My dad, a West Point grad, left the army one rank below General for the business world. Maybe its because my Grandpa is just old and does't care as much but he is resilient and perseveres, while my dad can get thrown for a loop over a bad morning in the market or if a call starts late.

I think Americans might be giving up a mental battle because they only follow bad news thanks the 24 hour news. Every day they think the world will end because of the president, or china, or whatever the headline is that day. Shit sucks now. I get it, but the only way it will get better is by going to work every day and doing better. America wasn't always number one, it got there because of generations of hard work. Shit sucks now, we all know it, get over it, do better. Or in the words of Jack Welsh, WIN. Sometimes we just need to remember that.

"Ambition and education is first and talent is second"- T.I.

8/17/11

Have you looked at the fiscal situation of any of those wonderful Democrat run states you mentioned?

8/17/11

The US has to be one of the worst democracies the developed world. I sure hope the actions of republicans/democracts are not representative of the US populous.

8/17/11

Yes Justin, I have looked into the fiscal situations. Lets look at California real quick. When Prop 13 passed in California in the late 70s, it drastically lowered property taxes and made it virtually impossible to raise taxes again. Since then, Cali education and infrastructure has been strapped for funds, and year after year of cuts have brought the whole system to its knees.

The CA budget deficit last year was $20 billion, and CA has about 40 million people in it. That means that the budget deficit was roughly $500 per person. California per-capita income last year was $43,000. This means that the CA budget deficit, the deficit that has paralyzed the CA government and eaten away at the CA infrastructure could be solved by a tax increase of 1.2%. But CA can't raise taxes due to Prop 13. Thanks a lot, conservatives.

Anyway...

MMBinNC, you do realize Silicon Valley only came into fruition since the late 1900s - it wasn't a part of the industrial revolution. Why did Silicon valley develop in California? California has been a liberal state long before then. Why didn't silicon valley develop in Mississippi, or Alabama, or Kansas, where the lower tax rates and hands-off state government would have allowed all those entrepreneurs to take home a bigger piece of the pie?

And why is it that the most educated states with the highest per-capita incomes and greatest number of white-collar jobs are also the most liberal, while the least educated states with the highest obesity rates are the most conservative? I'm having a hard time figuring that one out too.

8/17/11
redninja:

Yes Justin, I have looked into the fiscal situations. Lets look at California real quick. When Prop 13 passed in California in the late 70s, it drastically lowered property taxes and made it virtually impossible to raise taxes again. Since then, Cali education and infrastructure has been strapped for funds, and year after year of cuts have brought the whole system to its knees.

The CA budget deficit last year was $20 billion, and CA has about 40 million people in it. That means that the budget deficit was roughly $500 per person. California per-capita income last year was $43,000. This means that the CA budget deficit, the deficit that has paralyzed the CA government and eaten away at the CA infrastructure could be solved by a tax increase of 1.2%. But CA can't raise taxes due to Prop 13. Thanks a lot, conservatives.

Anyway...

MMBinNC, you do realize Silicon Valley only came into fruition since the late 1900s - it wasn't a part of the industrial revolution. Why did Silicon valley develop in California? California has been a liberal state long before then. Why didn't silicon valley develop in Mississippi, or Alabama, or Kansas, where the lower tax rates and hands-off state government would have allowed all those entrepreneurs to take home a bigger piece of the pie?

And why is it that the most educated states with the highest per-capita incomes and greatest number of white-collar jobs are also the most liberal, while the least educated states with the highest obesity rates are the most conservative? I'm having a hard time figuring that one out too.

They don't like statistics. Texas is the ONLY state in the south that is a net contributor to tax revenue (and barely). The states in the south also have the highest poverty, lowest life expectancy, least accessible medical care, highest obesity rate, and highest rate of gun crime.

And it has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, if pumping money into healthcare and education makes you liberal then I know where I stand.

8/17/11
redninja:

Yes Justin, I have looked into the fiscal situations. Lets look at California real quick. When Prop 13 passed in California in the late 70s, it drastically lowered property taxes and made it virtually impossible to raise taxes again. Since then, Cali education and infrastructure has been strapped for funds, and year after year of cuts have brought the whole system to its knees.

The CA budget deficit last year was $20 billion, and CA has about 40 million people in it. That means that the budget deficit was roughly $500 per person. California per-capita income last year was $43,000. This means that the CA budget deficit, the deficit that has paralyzed the CA government and eaten away at the CA infrastructure could be solved by a tax increase of 1.2%. But CA can't raise taxes due to Prop 13. Thanks a lot, conservatives.

Anyway...

MMBinNC, you do realize Silicon Valley only came into fruition since the late 1900s - it wasn't a part of the industrial revolution. Why did Silicon valley develop in California? California has been a liberal state long before then. Why didn't silicon valley develop in Mississippi, or Alabama, or Kansas, where the lower tax rates and hands-off state government would have allowed all those entrepreneurs to take home a bigger piece of the pie?

And why is it that the most educated states with the highest per-capita incomes and greatest number of white-collar jobs are also the most liberal, while the least educated states with the highest obesity rates are the most conservative? I'm having a hard time figuring that one out too.

If you seriously think that Commifornia is in the gutter because of taxes then we will just never agree. It's spending plain and simple.

8/17/11

AWM - Give me a dollar amount that we need to pump into schools to fix things. I want a hard, fixed amount. Liberals always talk about investing in schools, yet the hand is continually outstretched.

You know how you make schools better? Bulldoze the playgrounds. Eliminate sports. Mandatory uniforms and you bring military discipline into schools. Education in America is one place where we need a little Middle Eastern action. Especially in the inner city. We need military schools to teach these kids discipline.

And please, the South sucks because it is rural. Spread out populations, low property tax, agriculturally based (which is changing now). Looking at Alabama and saying it sucks because it is Republican is silly. The North has always been more manufacturing./Industrialized.

AWM, come to the dark side. I know you are a conservative deep down in side. You got a little taste of the weak nanny state and what welfare coddles. The force is strong in you. Commmmeeeeeee to the Dark Sideeeeeee.

8/17/11
ANT:

You know how you make schools better? Bulldoze the playgrounds. Eliminate sports. Mandatory uniforms and you bring military discipline into schools. Education in America is one place where we need a little Middle Eastern action. Especially in the inner city. We need military schools to teach these kids discipline.

While I too agree that education has become too lax, there's a limit to how strict you can make it. If you make the schools like jails and treat the kids like criminals, then you create a school to jail pipeline and the prophesy fulfills itself. Notice that the best charter schools in the nation still have sports and arts. These schools have a TON of discipline, but they also have high expectations for their kids to go to college and to have a life outside of school.

8/17/11

You're right. The military is the best jail pipeline because it is rife with discipline.

The kids in inner city schools have zero self control and no role models at home. We sacrifice the 20% who have a shot at becoming successful because we feel bad for the 80% who will fail regardless. Time to save who we can and chalk the others up to a cost of doing business.

Build more jails, force prisoners to do manual labor for the state and call it a day. Some people are a waste of space.

8/17/11

You wanna know how to make education better? Abolish the Department of Education. Worst fucking thing ever!

8/17/11
ANT:

You're right. The military is the best jail pipeline because it is rife with discipline.

The military is a great source of discipline. That's why there aren't any psychotic or homeless vets ... oh wait

txjustin:

You wanna know how to make education better? Abolish the Department of Education. Worst fucking thing ever!

I'm curious, what has the DoE done that has so wronged you? Do you think NCLB was too much federal intervention into state education?

8/17/11

They have done nothing to wrong me. Ever since the DofE was established educaion has gone downhill. I'm also for the abolishment of a host of other federal departments.

8/17/11

Oh wow, you are right. Homeless vets are like 80% of all veterans.

What is this bullshit. You are nuts. Inner city schools are fucking shit holes. These kids need military discipline. Considering that I have actually donated a good amount of time in these hell holes I can speak from experience.

You need to kick out kids who disturb others. 80% of the kids will be failures. As long as you can save the 20%, that is all that matters.

8/17/11
ANT:

Oh wow, you are right. Homeless vets are like 80% of all veterans.

What is this bullshit. You are nuts. Inner city schools are fucking shit holes. These kids need military discipline. Considering that I have actually donated a good amount of time in these hell holes I can speak from experience.

You need to kick out kids who disturb others. 80% of the kids will be failures. As long as you can save the 20%, that is all that matters.

Fuck it, one more comment. I agree with the last thing you said. Except it's not 80% of kids that are failures and 20% that will make it. It's more like 90% of kids that will make it and 10% that are failures. Walk into a 1st grade classroom in the inner city and that's the ratio you'll see. Over time, the 10% slowly corrupt the other 90% and the numbers reverse, but if you can control for it early, you can save almost all of them.

And go watch Full Metal Jacket.

Good night, will have to do this again tomorrow.

8/18/11
ANT:

Oh wow, you are right. Homeless vets are like 80% of all veterans.

What is this bullshit. You are nuts. Inner city schools are fucking shit holes. These kids need military discipline. Considering that I have actually donated a good amount of time in these hell holes I can speak from experience.

You need to kick out kids who disturb others. 80% of the kids will be failures. As long as you can save the 20%, that is all that matters.

I agree...fuck

8/17/11

It has? I always thought education in America had just flatlined as the other nations passed us. Over time we've become more aware the the poor get a shitty shitty education (thank you TFA for pointing that out), but no worse off than before.

One of my favorite reasons for why actually has to do with feminism. Back in the day, women didn't have any career options, so they stayed home and helped the kids with homework. The most ambitious women went into teaching and kicked ass. As women became empowered, nobody was left to stay at home and make sure kids were learning, and the smart women left the classrooms to go work at banks and businesses, leaving only the mediocre to teach.

If left to its own devices, education WOULD have gone downhill because of this social trend, but instead we started throwing money at it. We burned money by making class sizes smaller (from 30 students to 1 teacher to 20 students to 1 teacher) - unfortunately, small class sizes don't impact education nearly as much as having a kick-ass teacher, so it did little stop the bleeding. Feel free to chew on that theory for a while.

Anyway, I'm off for the night. It's been a pleasure =)

8/17/11

Watch it? Been there done that, absolutely love that movie.

I agree, if you instill military discipline in 1st graders maybe more will make it.

8/18/11

Hold on...what is this "The South is Republican"....if you blame the development of the South on the Republicans you have like the past 20 years to do so. Until the 1950s the South constantly voted Democrat, and even still many of the state level politicians are Democrats. The Democratic machine is still big down here, and while they don't control Presidential voting, state and local elections are heavily skewed in that direction. Look at the split in the South 10 years ago...heavily Democrat. Just this past midterm election did Republicans gain control of a majority of state legislatures/governors.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/18/11

Come to the dark side AWM

8/18/11
ANT:

Come to the dark side AWM

We agree on welfare issues, lets just go with that...

8/18/11

Join us, and together we can rule the Tea Party...

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

8/18/11
D M:

Join us, and together we can rule the Tea Party...

You're not my father, NOOOOOOOOOO

Get busy living

8/18/11

Welfare issues?

What do we disagree with then?

8/18/11
ANT:

Welfare issues?

What do we disagree with then?

lmfao

and UFO: who's your daddy?

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

8/18/11

Dammit, site is blocked at work. I was going with the Darth Vader reference......

Get busy living

8/19/11

I see what you're saying street, but look at the states that have been hardest hit by the recession [Dem=MI, CA, OR, RI, (DC), IL, NV; Rep= IN, KY, SC]. Also, the Norway vs USA comparison is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. 1) USA is 10x the size of Norway, 2) our politicians blow balls.

Also, Arnold may have been Republican, but he was a very moderate Republican.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

8/19/11

Bravo MMBinNC.

Government must shrink. There is no need for such a large Federal apparatus. The States know how to manage.

I love how people complain about layers of bureaucracy in companies and how when a company goes flat people call it innovative. Yet people still think layers of government are somehow better than private enterprise.

8/19/11

What does that have to do with shit?

I love people advocating more taxes. They somehow think a larger government is going to all of a sudden use this new found money efficiently or appropriately.

Sorry that I think people who earn their money should keep it. I guess giving up 1/3rd isn't enough. Tell me how much of MY money and I ALLOWED to keep.

GTFO

8/19/11
ANT:

What does that have to do with shit?

I love people advocating more taxes. They somehow think a larger government is going to all of a sudden use this new found money efficiently or appropriately.

Sorry that I think people who earn their money should keep it. I guess giving up 1/3rd isn't enough. Tell me how much of MY money and I ALLOWED to keep.

GTFO

How can you complain about more taxes. Call me a socialist liberal god hating hippy douche, but you live in one of the greatest most prosperous countries in the world. The reason you are able to make so much money is because you live here, and you are complaining about raising taxes? The average income on a global scale is $2000 and you can't deal with the government increasing revenue.

And how can you say the private sector is better than the government? Granted that government, when it becomes to large and cumbersome can become inefficient, but many corporations do not take your side. The goal of a private company is to make money. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't bother with you.

Don't completely misinterpret me, I do admire a lassez faire economic model, but I just don't think the average human would not miss a chance to fuck over another to make a buck. Many countries with large government operate very efficiently (not talking communism here) and it amazes me that people do not realize that capitalism is just not very self sustaining. Fire at will ANT, I know I'm in for it.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:
ANT:

What does that have to do with shit?

I love people advocating more taxes. They somehow think a larger government is going to all of a sudden use this new found money efficiently or appropriately.

Sorry that I think people who earn their money should keep it. I guess giving up 1/3rd isn't enough. Tell me how much of MY money and I ALLOWED to keep.

GTFO

How can you complain about more taxes. Call me a socialist liberal god hating hippy douche, but you live in one of the greatest most prosperous countries in the world. The reason you are able to make so much money is because you live here, and you are complaining about raising taxes? The average income on a global scale is $2000 and you can't deal with the government increasing revenue.

And how can you say the private sector is better than the government? Granted that government, when it becomes to large and cumbersome can become inefficient, but many corporations do not take your side. The goal of a private company is to make money. If they weren't making money, they wouldn't bother with you.

Don't completely misinterpret me, I do admire a lassez faire economic model, but I just don't think the average human would not miss a chance to fuck over another to make a buck. Many countries with large government operate very efficiently (not talking communism here) and it amazes me that people do not realize that capitalism is just not very self sustaining. Fire at will ANT, I know I'm in for it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

This is so stupid it is laughable. Efficient governments? lol No response necessary.

lololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololollololololol

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/19/11

^^ Large governments that I would consider partially efficient. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Holland, France, Belgium, Finland, UK, Switzerland. You can say look at them now, but that doesn't mean they don't have a better standard of living

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:

^^ Large governments that I would consider partially efficient. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Holland, France, Belgium, Finland, UK, Switzerland. You can say look at them now, but that doesn't mean they don't have a better standard of living

They have no national defense to speak of. They are are also in massive financial trouble because of their social programs.

America is about freedom and limited government. Deviating from that is a receipt for ruin.

8/19/11

Yah, because governments fuck people Over less than companies.

This country is great because of a limited government. We are in a financial mess because the federal government has grown and taken responsibility for things it was never meant to. Sorry that I don't think one third of what I worked for is just a beginngin.

It truly sickens me to realize that there are people who advocate the government taking 40-50-60% of a persons earnings. Absolutely disgusting.

8/19/11

I can't wait fron taxes to increase past 50% so I can start sucking off the government. No way in hell will I work half my life for another person to benefit. How those fools in Europe do it is beyond me.

8/19/11

First of all, if the government had let other banks fail and did not take responsibility during 2008, things would be way more fucked than they are now. It had to be done, it was the corporations (banks) faults for trading such stupid fucking securities. Also, it isn't their social programs, it is the euro, sweden, norway and others not on the Euro (besides UK) are doing great. I have roommates both from sweden and they have great social programs and one of the highest living standards in the world. You can keep saying social programs fuck them, but really they don't. They are not on the euro, they're fine. And the Euro problems do not stem from social programs, although they are taking austerity measures, it is a different matter entirely.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:

First of all, if the government had let other banks fail and did not take responsibility during 2008, things would be way more fucked than they are now. It had to be done, it was the corporations (banks) faults for trading such stupid fucking securities. Also, it isn't their social programs, it is the euro, sweden, norway and others not on the Euro (besides UK) are doing great. I have roommates both from sweden and they have great social programs and one of the highest living standards in the world. You can keep saying social programs fuck them, but really they don't. They are not on the euro, they're fine. And the Euro problems do not stem from social programs, although they are taking austerity measures, it is a different matter entirely.

WRONG! You cannnot document anything as the result of bailout other than those who supported them are now the same claiming the resession was larger than we estimated and the recovery is slower/taking longer than projected. All that government interference did in this situation was ease us into the level we are currently in and make it last longer than in necessarily had to. TARP, Stimulous, QE, they are all manipulative tactics to offset the effect of inefficiencies created by government such as the fiasco of government backed subprime mortgages and everything the government lending programs created that the free market would have never allowed. Government caused it. Government tried to fix it and made it worse, hurt longer, and still claims deny-ability. They point the fingers at wallstreet for taking advantage of the mess they created. Government bailed out banks because they created the market for the bad loans they forced banks to make. Its what happens when "efficient" governments mess with the free market.

Furthermore, the bailout cheated many smaller banks with stronger balance sheet from realizing greater market shares through takeovers and buyouts. The bailouts are everything that is wrong with government and our new approach to minimizing consequences to bad business and demonizing success.

8/19/11
ragnar danneskjold:
streetwannabe:

First of all, if the government had let other banks fail and did not take responsibility during 2008, things would be way more fucked than they are now. It had to be done, it was the corporations (banks) faults for trading such stupid fucking securities. Also, it isn't their social programs, it is the euro, sweden, norway and others not on the Euro (besides UK) are doing great. I have roommates both from sweden and they have great social programs and one of the highest living standards in the world. You can keep saying social programs fuck them, but really they don't. They are not on the euro, they're fine. And the Euro problems do not stem from social programs, although they are taking austerity measures, it is a different matter entirely.

WRONG! You cannnot document anything as the result of bailout other than those who supported them are now the same claiming the resession was larger than we estimated and the recovery is slower/taking longer than projected. All that government interference did in this situation was ease us into the level we are currently in and make it last longer than in necessarily had to. TARP, Stimulous, QE, they are all manipulative tactics to offset the effect of inefficiencies created by government such as the fiasco of government backed subprime mortgages and everything the government lending programs created that the free market would have never allowed. Government caused it. Government tried to fix it and made it worse, hurt longer, and still claims deny-ability. They point the fingers at wallstreet for taking advantage of the mess they created. Government bailed out banks because they created the market for the bad loans they forced banks to make. Its what happens when "efficient" governments mess with the free market.

Furthermore, the bailout cheated many smaller banks with stronger balance sheet from realizing greater market shares through takeovers and buyouts. The bailouts are everything that is wrong with government and our new approach to minimizing consequences to bad business and demonizing success.

I still disagree, had to be done. Lehman went under and others were on the verge. If they had allowed others to fail, credit markets would be frozen and nobody would be able to get money. The government did not create the mortgage backed bonds or CDOs or synthetic CDOs. The banks made these instruments and sold them to buyside institutions. They leveraged themselves so heavily with off the book stuff that nobody could even see what they were doing. Banks I think are too big. Everyone uses day to day lending to fund operations and without it things other than banks would have also begun to fail. The government did not create that market, the banks did. QE was necessary to lower interest rates to stimulate the credit market and therefore increase lending and growth. Unless I am missing something fundamental here?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11

Yeah because Sweden is in the same league as the USA. Keep comparing super nations to unimportant ones.

Sorry dude, but I'm never going to work so someone else won't have to. Unless you put a gun to my head and force me. Oh, and if that happens in doubt we will be a limp wristed leftist dictatorship lol.

8/19/11

?? The countries themselves have nothing to do with it. The only reason they are not a "super" nation is because it doesn't have nukes and a huge army. If thats the trade off then fine, they certainly aren't hated around the world the way we are. Would you like me to compare us to communist China which is kicking our ass as well?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11

1) size of a nation and international standing are important. The USA has many more obligations, a larger land mass. With diverse interests, different socio economic issues as well as immigration.

2) we are not hated around the world and even if we were, who fucking cares. The USA is resented because we are the best. Pro tip, confidence isn't worrying about what others think, piss on them.

3)military is the job of the Federal government. a strong defense is a great offense.

China is not beating us. They have social issues, pollution, massive poverty and food inflation which is a large % of their budget, unlike here. Hourly wages are rising and we will find another low cost manufacture somewhere else.

This is rookie shit man, you need to step it up. Saying that China is beating us is a little naive. Also, realize that Sweden is a homogenous, small country and has none of the problems or responsibilities as the USA does. Comparing the nations is a disservice and laughable.

8/20/11
ANT:

2) we are not hated around the world and even if we were, who fucking cares. The USA is resented because we are the best. Pro tip, confidence isn't worrying about what others think, piss on them.

A lot of good that did us on 9/11. I know you're probably going to respond that you don't care about the 3000 Americans that died in the twin towers, and I know the only person you care about is yourself. But 9/11 also cost us over $1.2 trillion dollars in two wars (so far), which is over $4,000.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't pay taxes anyway.

8/20/11
redninja:

A lot of good that did us on 9/11. I know you're probably going to respond that you don't care about the 3000 Americans that died in the twin towers, and I know the only person you care about is yourself. But 9/11 also cost us over $1.2 trillion dollars in two wars (so far), which is over $4,000.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't pay taxes anyway.

Are you proposing we should have been attacked and not responded, because it costs money?

I think that we are all clinging to a great many piano tops...

8/20/11
ekimlacks:
redninja:

A lot of good that did us on 9/11. I know you're probably going to respond that you don't care about the 3000 Americans that died in the twin towers, and I know the only person you care about is yourself. But 9/11 also cost us over $1.2 trillion dollars in two wars (so far), which is over $4,000.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't pay taxes anyway.

Are you proposing we should have been attacked and not responded, because it costs money?

What? This was in response to "we are not hated around the world and even if we were, who fucking cares." I fucking care, if the world attacks us it's expensive, both in terms of lives lost and money burned. To the extent that we can, we should avoid having the world hate us. Invading Afghanistan for not handing over bin Laden was the right move, but it would have been better if Afghanistan didn't hate us so much they would harbor that terrorist in the first place.

Notice how nobody hates or attacks Canada. Part of the reason why is that they care what other nations think and don't openly antagonize them. Being a huge dick to the rest of the world is a bad idea.

8/19/11

1) We may have a different socioeconomic issue. However, Sweden faces large immigration issues from Turkey, MiddleEast, etc. The only obligations that we have are our own, such as foreign affairs. We get ourselves into things like Iraq and then you say that it is our obligation when it was not in the first place. We cannot be world peace keepers. Canada compares in land mass and has a similar system to Sweden and they have a very high living standard. No country is comparable to us exactly, but many European nations are the closest that it'll get.

2) That is naive. When people hate you and want to kill Americans and attack the US, shrugging it off and building more weapons is not a very good diplomatic strategy. We can be confident, but need to consider other country's as allies, not as tools to build upon. Perhaps we are not hated everywhere, and many people would like to live here, but we need to become more of a diplomatic role model instead of the world's policeman.

3) The amount we spend on our military is astronomical and ridiculous. There is a point to being able to defend yourself, but not to the extent to which we have made it.

China may not be better living standards or the same health as a state, but they control us. They continually finance our debt. Without China's cheap labour and exports, things would be alot more difficult. They are becoming a comparable nation along with India, and soon possibly Brazil.

I could also compare us to Germany. Similar system to Sweden. With Euro issues they are struggling, but their welfare programs are not the problem.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:

3) The amount we spend on our military is astronomical and ridiculous. There is a point to being able to defend yourself, but not to the extent to which we have made it.

Here you are spot on. Its not about defense as much as presence in foreign lands and treating other countries as welfare states, like Europe and their non-existent defense system b/c of US presence since WWII, largely due to the cold war.

I could also compare us to Germany. Similar system to Sweden. With Euro issues they are struggling, but their welfare programs are not the problem.

If you have ever been to either of these two places you would understand a large part of why their model of social government is sustainable is due to the demographics being largely homogenous.

8/19/11

Even though it may be a very stupid in your opinion, liberal mindset, I think a larger government is not a bad thing. I only would hope to cut unnecessary branches and make the efficient programs more transparent perhaps. Socialism is not as bad as everyone thinks, given America would make its own form of it. You are right, we cannot copy Sweden's and use it, but the ideas that they use are the right ones in my opinion.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11
streetwannabe:

Even though it may be a very stupid in your opinion, liberal mindset, I think a larger government is not a bad thing. I only would hope to cut unnecessary branches and make the efficient programs more transparent perhaps. Socialism is not as bad as everyone thinks, given America would make its own form of it. You are right, we cannot copy Sweden's and use it, but the ideas that they use are the right ones in my opinion.

Then move there. Don't fuck up my country.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/19/11
MMBinNC:
streetwannabe:

Even though it may be a very stupid in your opinion, liberal mindset, I think a larger government is not a bad thing. I only would hope to cut unnecessary branches and make the efficient programs more transparent perhaps. Socialism is not as bad as everyone thinks, given America would make its own form of it. You are right, we cannot copy Sweden's and use it, but the ideas that they use are the right ones in my opinion.

Then move there. Don't fuck up my country.

I just want free dental. That's all

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

8/19/11
ANT:

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

I highly suggest you live outside the US for a bit, I think you might look back and realize how incredibly idiotic you are being.

8/20/11
awm55:
ANT:

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

I highly suggest you live outside the US for a bit, I think you might look back and realize how incredibly idiotic you are being.

I don't know what your problem with socialism is ANT. I mean you seem intelligent. If you look at like philisophically, in my gay opinion, and look at existentialism I can't seem to help to feel sorry for others. Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it. Granted, many people make their own decisions, but have you ever wondered why you were born into the life you have? As opposed to being born in a trailer park in missouri with no father and a mother who couldn't give a shit about you?

I just think its unfair to look at a person's situation and judge them from your position. Maybe even if you could succeed out of the worst living conditions, you aren't the same as others. So you need to consider that when you say poor people can fuck themselves.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
streetwannabe:
awm55:
ANT:

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

I highly suggest you live outside the US for a bit, I think you might look back and realize how incredibly idiotic you are being.

I don't know what your problem with socialism is ANT. I mean you seem intelligent. If you look at like philisophically, in my gay opinion, and look at existentialism I can't seem to help to feel sorry for others. Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it. Granted, many people make their own decisions, but have you ever wondered why you were born into the life you have? As opposed to being born in a trailer park in missouri with no father and a mother who couldn't give a shit about you?

I just think its unfair to look at a person's situation and judge them from your position. Maybe even if you could succeed out of the worst living conditions, you aren't the same as others. So you need to consider that when you say poor people can fuck themselves.

I have to quote you on something. "Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it". You feel pride in that?

8/20/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
awm55:
ANT:

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

I highly suggest you live outside the US for a bit, I think you might look back and realize how incredibly idiotic you are being.

I don't know what your problem with socialism is ANT. I mean you seem intelligent. If you look at like philisophically, in my gay opinion, and look at existentialism I can't seem to help to feel sorry for others. Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it. Granted, many people make their own decisions, but have you ever wondered why you were born into the life you have? As opposed to being born in a trailer park in missouri with no father and a mother who couldn't give a shit about you?

I just think its unfair to look at a person's situation and judge them from your position. Maybe even if you could succeed out of the worst living conditions, you aren't the same as others. So you need to consider that when you say poor people can fuck themselves.

I have to quote you on something. "Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it". You feel pride in that?

What?

Most people in this country were born into their situation. The US has terrible economical mobility.

8/20/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
awm55:
ANT:

Get a fucking job then.

Socialism is completely against human nature. Makes me sick to see the thought of it alive in America.

I highly suggest you live outside the US for a bit, I think you might look back and realize how incredibly idiotic you are being.

I don't know what your problem with socialism is ANT. I mean you seem intelligent. If you look at like philisophically, in my gay opinion, and look at existentialism I can't seem to help to feel sorry for others. Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it. Granted, many people make their own decisions, but have you ever wondered why you were born into the life you have? As opposed to being born in a trailer park in missouri with no father and a mother who couldn't give a shit about you?

I just think its unfair to look at a person's situation and judge them from your position. Maybe even if you could succeed out of the worst living conditions, you aren't the same as others. So you need to consider that when you say poor people can fuck themselves.

I have to quote you on something. "Just because I have a great life doesn't mean I earned it". You feel pride in that?

?? I fail to see the question. How would I be proud? I just think some people are given better chances than others. I think people who are successful need to respect that sometimes and the fact that the people "below them" are the reason that they are such a success.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11

^ You're right he should have said that socialism promotes the worst part of human nature... apathy, complacency, and a sense of entitlement. None of which America was built upon.

8/19/11

AWM, are you advocating socialism is a viable form of government?

8/19/11

I was stating the fact that he has no idea what Socialism truly is. The USA is far from it, and Obama is certainly not bringing us any closer. Get a fucking passport.

8/19/11

No offense man, but 100 years of world history to document socialism is all one needs... You don't need to smell shit when you can see it. Problem with socialism is it never stops at its ideal point of balance, it continues as people game the system and generations improve on the idea with fewer and fewer left to pay for what others are willing to accept. Austerity in Europe is not a topic of conversation because of anything other than socialism and socialistic policies.

8/20/11
ragnar danneskjold:

No offense man, but 100 years of world history to document socialism is all one needs... You don't need to smell shit when you can see it. Problem with socialism is it never stops at its ideal point of balance, it continues as people game the system and generations improve on the idea with fewer and fewer left to pay for what others are willing to accept. Austerity in Europe is not a topic of conversation because of anything other than socialism and socialistic policies.

Austerity in europe was not brought on by social programs. It was due to the Euro and the fact that Ireland and Greece could borrow at rates set by stronger members such as Germany. Now they cannot pay back the large sums they've borrowed and people are starting to realize that they are not as credit worthy as the big boys. Austerity is just a step to fixing their current problems. Just like QE was part of ours, not necessarily the chosen path we are taking.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
streetwannabe:
ragnar danneskjold:

No offense man, but 100 years of world history to document socialism is all one needs... You don't need to smell shit when you can see it. Problem with socialism is it never stops at its ideal point of balance, it continues as people game the system and generations improve on the idea with fewer and fewer left to pay for what others are willing to accept. Austerity in Europe is not a topic of conversation because of anything other than socialism and socialistic policies.

Austerity in europe was not brought on by social programs. It was due to the Euro and the fact that Ireland and Greece could borrow at rates set by stronger members such as Germany. Now they cannot pay back the large sums they've borrowed and people are starting to realize that they are not as credit worthy as the big boys. Austerity is just a step to fixing their current problems. Just like QE was part of ours, not necessarily the chosen path we are taking.

Why did they borrow such large sums? Did the unsustainable social programs have anything to do with it?

8/20/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
ragnar danneskjold:

No offense man, but 100 years of world history to document socialism is all one needs... You don't need to smell shit when you can see it. Problem with socialism is it never stops at its ideal point of balance, it continues as people game the system and generations improve on the idea with fewer and fewer left to pay for what others are willing to accept. Austerity in Europe is not a topic of conversation because of anything other than socialism and socialistic policies.

Austerity in europe was not brought on by social programs. It was due to the Euro and the fact that Ireland and Greece could borrow at rates set by stronger members such as Germany. Now they cannot pay back the large sums they've borrowed and people are starting to realize that they are not as credit worthy as the big boys. Austerity is just a step to fixing their current problems. Just like QE was part of ours, not necessarily the chosen path we are taking.

Why did they borrow such large sums? Did the unsustainable social programs have anything to do with it?

If you think Greece and Ireland are in trouble because of universal healthcare and welfare you are a complete moron.

8/20/11
awm55:

If you think Greece and Ireland are in trouble because of universal healthcare and welfare you are a complete moron.

Man I just don't get it... How are you so dense and ideologically brain washed not to see the connection to the social programs you identify and support and the inevitable slide to where PIIGS and even the UK currently are. It is an infectious mindset that never ends with well intended policies and promotes and facilitates abusers of the system. It never stops at welfare and universal healthcare. There's always just one more right that must be provided...

I just don't understand how you can see the need for consequences in the example of the London riots but are so blind in endorsing a system that promotes their developing sense of entitlement and lack of accountability.

8/20/11
ragnar danneskjold:
awm55:

If you think Greece and Ireland are in trouble because of universal healthcare and welfare you are a complete moron.

Man I just don't get it... How are you so dense and ideologically brain washed not to see the connection to the social programs you identify and support and the inevitable slide to where PIIGS and even the UK currently are. It is an infectious mindset that never ends with well intended policies and promotes and facilitates abusers of the system. It never stops at welfare and universal healthcare. There's always just one more right that must be provided...

I just don't understand how you can see the need for consequences in the example of the London riots but are so blind in endorsing a system that promotes their developing sense of entitlement and lack of accountability.

I think punishments for abusing the system need to be harsh, I have never wavered on this stance. But for Christ sake do a bit of research, you clearly know absolutely nothing about the PIIGS.

8/20/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:
ragnar danneskjold:

No offense man, but 100 years of world history to document socialism is all one needs... You don't need to smell shit when you can see it. Problem with socialism is it never stops at its ideal point of balance, it continues as people game the system and generations improve on the idea with fewer and fewer left to pay for what others are willing to accept. Austerity in Europe is not a topic of conversation because of anything other than socialism and socialistic policies.

Austerity in europe was not brought on by social programs. It was due to the Euro and the fact that Ireland and Greece could borrow at rates set by stronger members such as Germany. Now they cannot pay back the large sums they've borrowed and people are starting to realize that they are not as credit worthy as the big boys. Austerity is just a step to fixing their current problems. Just like QE was part of ours, not necessarily the chosen path we are taking.

Why did they borrow such large sums? Did the unsustainable social programs have anything to do with it?

Jesus, I can't believe I have to explain this. Because they are emerging countries, housing markets, infrastructure etc. They borrowed just the same fucking reasons people in America take out home loans and the same reason they get them without documentation. Fucking money, when the economy is booming and you want to build a housing developement or new road, you borrow the fucking money. Then it all goes to hell and this is whats left over.Thats what was happening in leading up to 08. Everybody in the developed world was doing the same thing. NOTHING TO DO WITH WELFARE FUCKING PROGRAMS

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/19/11

Yah, he is right. I've never traveled outside of the USA. I am just a dumb hick.

Socialism is anti what this country is all about. I don't need to go to Europe to know how sick that entire continent makes me. Frankly, I am happy that Europeans look at the USA and think we are nuts. I would be offended if people like that actually liked us.

I will never support nor will I ever participate in a socialist form of government. Obama might not be a socialist, but he is far too left for America and I think the people have spoken.

Smaller government and more states rights. That is the answer and where we need to move towards.

8/19/11

Socialism is great until you run out of people to steal from.

8/20/11

Yeah, I don't pay taxes. Suck my dick .

8/20/11

Nobody is surprised you don't pay taxes, and there are more than enough people here sucking it for you. I can think of four off the top of my head, and I'm pretty sure none of them pay taxes either.

8/20/11

I really do hope none pay taxes because providing money to this expansionist and criminal government is like giving a drug addict their next fix.

And there will always be a place in line for a bitch like you to blow me.

hahaha clown

8/20/11

Wow, because retirement at an early age and generous benefits don't have a cost. I mean the UK isn't cutting social programs or anything.

Listen, social programs are always paid for on the backs of other people. Europe has very very generous programs. That is why they rob from then rich so much. They also free ride on the US military.

The USA should really turn its back on Europe and start making better friends with Russia. To think we wasted American lives keeping them free, only to seen these ingrates turn their back on freedom and become socialist nanny states.

Sorry AWM, I will not work for another persons benefit.

@street - if you look at things from an original position perspective, I would want the US to be exactly how it is. Opportunity for all, a basic safety net and free K-12 education with low cost state universities.

Effort is all that is needed. Being poor is nothing when you have parents who tell you that education is important.

I'm a monster because I expect people to own up to their own life decisions. Man, no wonder so many people are liberals. It is so easy to make excuses for being a failure and you guys just feed that cycle. Such a weak political party. Sickening.

8/20/11
ANT:

Wow, because retirement at an early age and generous benefits don't have a cost. I mean the UK isn't cutting social programs or anything.

Listen, social programs are always paid for on the backs of other people. Europe has very very generous programs. That is why they rob from then rich so much. They also free ride on the US military.

The USA should really turn its back on Europe and start making better friends with Russia. To think we wasted American lives keeping them free, only to seen these ingrates turn their back on freedom and become socialist nanny states.

Sorry AWM, I will not work for another persons benefit.

@street - if you look at things from an original position perspective, I would want the US to be exactly how it is. Opportunity for all, a basic safety net and free K-12 education with low cost state universities.

Effort is all that is needed. Being poor is nothing when you have parents who tell you that education is important.

I'm a monster because I expect people to own up to their own life decisions. Man, no wonder so many people are liberals. It is so easy to make excuses for being a failure and you guys just feed that cycle. Such a weak political party. Sickening.

I agree that personal responsibility (or lack thereof) is a problem in Europe, especially the UK. However, the US is not trying to emulate Europe, this is the constant disconnect in your argument. You think something is happening when its really not. Obama is moderate, end of story, he is far from Socialist. The litmus test you apply for Socialism would be failed by most presidents historically, including Reagan.

We agree on welfare issues with regards to being especially harsh on people who milk the system or abuse it, however I also understand that people fall on hard times completely out of their control. They may not have the resources to prop themselves up in the short term, and its important these people are not allowed to slip through the cracks. No one in this country should be going bankrupt because of medical bills for example or because some scumbag husband leaves his wife to support their 3 kids on her own.

This has nothing to do with failure or success, shit happens to people and they need help in the short term and perhaps even in the long term in some cases. This does not bother me, its reality. However, at the same time as you know I am extremely strict on welfare recipients or people housed in public housing committing crimes. Its a one strike you are out rule, if you are a liability of the taxpayer then the taxpayer should not be supporting a criminal. This is where personal responsibility comes in, in Europe they are not harsh enough on people like this and I think this is where we agree.

8/20/11
ANT:

Wow, because retirement at an early age and generous benefits don't have a cost. I mean the UK isn't cutting social programs or anything.

Listen, social programs are always paid for on the backs of other people. Europe has very very generous programs. That is why they rob from then rich so much. They also free ride on the US military.

The USA should really turn its back on Europe and start making better friends with Russia. To think we wasted American lives keeping them free, only to seen these ingrates turn their back on freedom and become socialist nanny states.

Sorry AWM, I will not work for another persons benefit.

@street - if you look at things from an original position perspective, I would want the US to be exactly how it is. Opportunity for all, a basic safety net and free K-12 education with low cost state universities.

Effort is all that is needed. Being poor is nothing when you have parents who tell you that education is important.

I'm a monster because I expect people to own up to their own life decisions. Man, no wonder so many people are liberals. It is so easy to make excuses for being a failure and you guys just feed that cycle. Such a weak political party. Sickening.

Wait, we wasted American lives?? What the fuck are you talking about? Please don't be WWII because you have your head in the clouds. Japan attacked us, we attacked them. Japan and Germany were friends, Germany declares war on us. We attack Germany so they don't take over ALL OF EUROPE and north africa along with Japan and bend us over.

And many children's parent don't tell them that they need a good education. Many kids actually think, just because they are poor, that they don't stand a chance and relegate themselves to the mass of other poor children who think they are stupid because they are poor.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11

Really? Nothing... So what I am missing pray tell?

8/20/11
ragnar danneskjold:

Really? Nothing... So what I am missing pray tell?

Most of these countries were always fundamentally weak and culturally are very very different.

Greece's economy and fiscal position were shitty even before it entered the EMU, in fact Goldman Sachs used structured swaps to hide Greece's budget deficit so it could qualify for membership.

Also:

1) Since 1800 Greece has spent 50% of its existence in default or restructuring.
2) Greece has experienced multiple periods of inflation topping 25%+
3) Rampant government bribery and a terrible tax collection system that has allowed tax evasion to become a national sport
4) A history of political and social unrest

And for Ireland, the country was dirt poor 20 years ago...read the article below. Sums it up quite nicely. Don't kid yourself into thinking welfare and Socialism are the root of all the eurozones problems, its a great talking poitn that fits into your agenda, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Every country is different. In fact, Ireland's problems stem largely from coddling large corporations.

"Ireland's problems are, sadly, far deeper than the need for simple fiscal austerity. The Celtic Tiger's impressive reported growth over the past decades was in part based on its aggressive attempts to help major corporations in the United States reduce their tax bills. The Irish government set corporate taxes at just 12.5 percent of profits, thus attracting all sorts of businesses -- from computer services like Google and Yahoo, to drug companies like Forest Labs -- that set up corporate bases and washed profits through Ireland to keep them out of the hands of the Internal Revenue Service.

The remarkable success of this tax haven means that roughly 20 percent of Irish gross domestic product is actually "profit transfers" that raise little tax for Ireland and are owned by foreign companies. Since most of these profits are subject to the tax code, they are accounted for in Ireland where they are lightly taxed; they should not be counted as part of Ireland's potential tax base. A more robust cross-country comparison would be to examine Ireland's financial condition ignoring these transfers. This is easy to do: a nation's gross national product excludes the profits of foreign residents. For most nations, gross national product and G.D.P. are nearly identical, but in Ireland they are not.

When we adjust Ireland's figures accordingly, the situation is dire. The budget deficit was about 17.9 percent of G.N.P. in 2009, and based on European Commission projections (and assuming the G.N.P.-G.D.P. gap remains the same) it will be roughly 14.6 percent in 2010 and 15.1 percent in 2011, while the debt-to-G.N.P. ratio at the end of this year is expected -- by our calculation -- to be 97 percent, and 109 percent at the end of 2011. These numbers make Ireland look similarly troubled to Greece, with a much higher budget deficit but lower levels of public debt.

Ireland's politicians, rather than facing up to their problems, are making things ever worse. Simply put, the Irish miracle was a mirage driven by clever use of tax-haven rules and a huge credit boom that permitted real estate prices and construction to grow quickly before declining ever more rapidly. The biggest banks grew to have assets twice the size of official G.D.P. when they essentially failed in 2008. The government has now made a fateful choice: rather than make creditors pay some part of the losses, it is taking the bank debt onto the national balance sheet, effectively ballooning its already large sovereign debt. Irish taxpayers are set to be left with the risk of very large payments to make on someone else's real estate deals gone bad"

8/20/11

awm, stop wasting your intellect and time with these lunatics.

greece was driven into ruin by corruption, the nordic countries have similar welfare levels to greece without corruption and destroy the us on the HDI and any other satisfaction metric.

and if you think ireland was driven into ruin by social welfare then just kill yourself.

8/20/11
leveredarb:

awm, stop wasting your intellect and time with these lunatics.

greece was driven into ruin by corruption, the nordic countries have similar welfare levels to greece without corruption and destroy the us on the HDI and any other satisfaction metric.

and if you think ireland was driven into ruin by social welfare then just kill yourself.

At least AWM has some intellect to waste. This is the 2nd time I have seen you roll into a post as if you know everything and try and come off as debating a topic isn't worth your time.

Ireland was actually a great example of moving away from the European model. Pro business and lower taxes. What happened was expansionist credit policy and a housing crisis. If not for these, Ireland would be a bright shinning example of what Europe should follow.

Greece has many issues, but high social entitlement programs are a big problem. People retire early, have great benefits and these are expensive. Also, they have a declining tax base. Hmmm, sounds like another country I know.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/17/greece-c...

"Chronic problems include rampant tax evasion -- the labour minister has estimated a quarter of the economy pays nothing."

Wow, 1/4 pay taxes. Sounds like where the USA will be moving towards.

To say corruption, by itself, is why Greece is in danger of collapsing is to hide the full story or not know what you are talking about. I will assume you are not the latter.

I think we can all agree that welfare and entitlement programs need to be paid for by someone. The poor are not going to pay, that's for sure. So now that we have a common ground I think the difference comes from how much should someone else pay.

I believe that the USA provides plenty of opportunity. The left in this country say we do not provide enough. The liberals think (correct me if I am wrong) that is taxes on the upper half are raised, life and opportunity on the lower half will be better. If this is true and if higher taxes on the upper parts helped more people escape poverty and end the cycle, I would 100% support more taxes. Who wouldn't? Less poverty means eventually more people able to share the burden and eventually lower taxes for all.

Unfortunately, I do not believe this. One only needs to look at the EU to see that higher taxes, higher regulation and more government fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Europe...
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ee&v=74
http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer04/blanchard.html

Unemployment is higher, on average, than the USA as well as longer. You really need to look across all of Europe, including the countries people like to exclude when we talk of the EU. The USA is diverse and if someone is going to compare the USA to just Western Europe, they are really cheating and being dishonest.

Poverty rates in Europe are also about the same as the USA. How can this be so???
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveyreports/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United...
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa_vs._world

(this last link is informative, but I haven't had a chance to look at the info in detail)

So lets take that last link since it makes the USA look the worst. We are 6.5 points off of the UK, a very generous country. All those taxes, all those nanny state programs and you are only 6.5 points better?!!

That chart also excludes many Eastern European countries, which is absolutely unfair. Comparing only relatively wealthy Western European nations to the whole USA is bullshit. Compare it to the north east or only a few select states. The USA has some states that are comparable to France and some states that are like Bosnia.

Europe and the USA also use different measures of poverty (relative vs. absolute) which need to be reconciled.

Either way, I am not seeing a resounding winner. All that tax money looks like it gets wasted IMO.

8/20/11

I know lot of you will flame me, but let me ask how many of you have lived in one bedroom where 7 family members slept in one room without any AC or heating. When was that you studied under a candle because there was no money for electricity. The family did not have enough food to eat. My dad came from such a background and he explains why we have to work harder than others in order to escape poverty.

Last Sunday, I went to Disney. What I saw there surprised me that a lot of foreigner student from other countries were working in Disney. Has anyone see this when you go to any theme park? These kids are on some sort of exchange program and they are willing to work very hard and are very polite. So why theme park do not employ our own kids (inner city and rural)?, The kids who are getting education in old gold USA.

As I look American educational system, I see more and more people getting mass promotion and these kids can not read can not do math and severely lack motivation skills. I see many of my Ivy League fellows working on teach for America and after few years of resume polishing the Ivy League bails out. Why? The inner city and rural students have no aspiration and the element of motivation is missing among masses. No body gives a F*** about the educational system? Politician and tecaehrs union thinks the answer lies in more money spent on per student. If you look, the money spent is exceeding but results are not what they should be. Honestly the kids are falling behind and failing because no one tells them why they need to develop strong work skills. In turn we all blame either parents/teachers/TV/society. Meanwhile most of these students end up watching TV. They think they call can play in NBA, NFL etc. NO one talks about how to get out of this cycle of poverty. Problem is when they grow up, they are not ready for the workforce as they severely lack skills required to work.

Now this system is happening n colleges where there are remedial classes and we are designing courses that are fluff and do not end up in sustaining careers.

Now lately I see that there is a demand growing that everyone is entitled to a job.

So let us assume everyone gets a job. So if everyone gets a job and nobody wants to complete the task then who is responsible to take care of customers, come on time, do not take unnecessary time off etc.etc.

Until USA politician prepare our young one with a sense of responsibility, this is going to get ugly as more and more job will go to people with skill (Either these people come to work in USA or jobs will be shipped abroad where it is cheap labor). Why Latin American can find job in construction when our own do not get a job. Because Mexican are willing to work for less and whose fault it is the business person. Well if you will demand more money he will fold and not give job to anyone like right now is happening. Why this person will take risk and not give time to his family. Moreover, we are completely screwed.

My grandpa explained that when he was in eastern europe and I was a little baby, he saw this and this led to collapse of the market system. Nobody showed up for work as people assumed that someone will come if they do not show up for the work. People assumed that somebody will do other peoples job. When people saw it they start repeating the action. That is why there was no food in grocery stores.

This mentality that we are entitled to a college degree and job, is a big problem. You will see this coming more from liberals as school teachers/parents are just moving kids without teaching them responsibility and hard work.

I came to this country ans still struggle with English as my mother tongue is eastern european. As a person I have to work harder than many people in my class and who are born with connections.

8/20/11
mulandee:

I know lot of you will flame me, but let me ask how many of you have lived in one bedroom where 7 family members slept in one room without any AC or heating. When was that you studied under a candle because there was no money for electricity. The family did not have enough food to eat. My dad came from such a background and he explains why we have to work harder than others in order to escape poverty.

Last Sunday, I went to Disney. What I saw there surprised me that a lot of foreigner student from other countries were working in Disney. Has anyone see this when you go to any theme park? These kids are on some sort of exchange program and they are willing to work very hard and are very polite. So why theme park do not employ our own kids (inner city and rural)?, The kids who are getting education in old gold USA.

As I look American educational system, I see more and more people getting mass promotion and these kids can not read can not do math and severely lack motivation skills. I see many of my Ivy League fellows working on teach for America and after few years of resume polishing the Ivy League bails out. Why? The inner city and rural students have no aspiration and the element of motivation is missing among masses. No body gives a F*** about the educational system? Politician and tecaehrs union thinks the answer lies in more money spent on per student. If you look, the money spent is exceeding but results are not what they should be. Honestly the kids are falling behind and failing because no one tells them why they need to develop strong work skills. In turn we all blame either parents/teachers/TV/society. Meanwhile most of these students end up watching TV. They think they call can play in NBA, NFL etc. NO one talks about how to get out of this cycle of poverty. Problem is when they grow up, they are not ready for the workforce as they severely lack skills required to work.

Now this system is happening n colleges where there are remedial classes and we are designing courses that are fluff and do not end up in sustaining careers.

Now lately I see that there is a demand growing that everyone is entitled to a job.

So let us assume everyone gets a job. So if everyone gets a job and nobody wants to complete the task then who is responsible to take care of customers, come on time, do not take unnecessary time off etc.etc.

Until USA politician prepare our young one with a sense of responsibility, this is going to get ugly as more and more job will go to people with skill (Either these people come to work in USA or jobs will be shipped abroad where it is cheap labor). Why Latin American can find job in construction when our own do not get a job. Because Mexican are willing to work for less and whose fault it is the business person. Well if you will demand more money he will fold and not give job to anyone like right now is happening. Why this person will take risk and not give time to his family. Moreover, we are completely screwed.

My grandpa explained that when he was in eastern europe and I was a little baby, he saw this and this led to collapse of the market system. Nobody showed up for work as people assumed that someone will come if they do not show up for the work. People assumed that somebody will do other peoples job. When people saw it they start repeating the action. That is why there was no food in grocery stores.

This mentality that we are entitled to a college degree and job, is a big problem. You will see this coming more from liberals as school teachers/parents are just moving kids without teaching them responsibility and hard work.

I came to this country ans still struggle with English as my mother tongue is eastern european. As a person I have to work harder than many people in my class and who are born with connections.

This /endthread +1 when I get some.

The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee

WSO is not your personal search function.

8/20/11

ragnar danneskjold

You are right on the Irish story.

8/20/11
mulandee:

ragnar danneskjold

You are right on the Irish story.

no he's not

8/20/11

Guys, we should stop arguing.

Some people think they have a right to another persons property. I call it stealing. They call it social programs.

It's funny how the left always wants to take more of what you earn and is also the ones most against gun rights. Yeah, I mean when you steal from hard working Americans all the time I would be afraid of gun rights also.

8/20/11
ANT:

Guys, we should stop arguing.

Some people think they have a right to another persons property. I call it stealing. They call it social programs.

It's funny how the left always wants to take more of what you earn and is also the ones most against gun rights. Yeah, I mean when you steal from hard working Americans all the time I would be afraid of gun rights also.

Hard working americans? Give me a fucking break. You think that liberals want to raise taxes on the guys digging ditches 12 hrs a day in 90 degree heat? Or the mom who works two jobs to help her kids? Its the "hard Working" rich people who really do not work that hard in my mind. Working hard to get somewhere, and actually working hard once you're there are two completely different things. It may suck being in law/med school and you may earn your money, but the doctor/lawyer whose been in practice for the last 15 years surely can afford an extra 5-10% taken out of their yearly income in taxes to fund some welfare.

The only way you keep trying to put liberal view point down is saying "Stealing", when it is hardly that. Perhaps if there were higher taxes, the state could provide better police and more of them? You wouldn't need as many guns. They could revamp old projects and neighborhoods so that they were not such dangerous areas? You seem to have a very narrow viewpoint of what is possible and twist the idea into slanderous philosophies of the liberals.

Liberal viewpoint does help out the weaker people, which you seem to disregard, however being the douchey liberal I am, I think this life is the only one you get. So if you have enough money to have two houses, three cars, kids, a wife, dog, and take two vacations a year, you can spare an extra 2000 for fucking taxes so a family in the projects of Chicago will have heat this winter.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
ANT:

Guys, we should stop arguing.

Some people think they have a right to another persons property. I call it stealing. They call it social programs.

It's funny how the left always wants to take more of what you earn and is also the ones most against gun rights. Yeah, I mean when you steal from hard working Americans all the time I would be afraid of gun rights also.

regardless how much you hate it, the fact is, there will always be taxes...
It will have less negative impact on people's lives if we get more of those taxes from the rich than from the poor.
40% tax rate on someone who makes 100k is quite different from someone who makes 10mm

8/20/11

I get so frustrated with my letting myself getting sucked into these conversations.

AWM, if nothing else I always take something away from reading your responses so before I go any further I'll credit you with getting a better perspective on thought processes of those who share your view point.
Your article on Ireland is telling, but probably not for the reasons you intended. Let me first start by saying I'm fully aware of the struggles and history of most European countries and their economies. Not positioning myself as an expert but I have done my due diligence, so please refrain from making gross generalizations with no basis.
While your article clearly identifies why the Irish economy is in shambles by documenting the contrast in GNP to GDP with respect to credit market deterioration, it ultimately stops short. Like many do. It's as though, anything prior to the struggles of the credit market are left without consideration to their current situation. So I did some digging.

* Jobseeker's Benefit
* Illness Benefit
* Maternity Benefit
* Adoptive Benefit
* Health and Safety Benefit
* Invalidity Pension
* Widow's, Widower's or Surviving Civil Partner's (Contributory) Pension
* Guardian's Payment (Contributory)
* State Pension (Contributory)
* State Pension (Transition)
* Bereavement Grant
* Treatment Benefit
* Occupational Injuries Benefit
* Carer's Benefit
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfar...

These are the benefits that you can expect as part of Ireland's Social Protection system.

In 2005 the spending levels accounted for 18.2% GDP and 21.4% of GNP. That was in 2005... (The average for EU15 in 2005 was 26.4%)
http://www.eapn.ie/documents/1_Social%20Welfare%20...

Per your own resource current and future budget deficits have or are projected to come in at 17.9% in 2009, 14.6% in 2010, and 15.1% in 2011, of GNP respectively.

Do you see the difference in our perspectives? You see a failed credit market for economic struggles that placed them into potential default. I see years of deficit spending with Social Protection spending levels in excess of the percentage of the projected deficits, that when backed out at 2005 levels (not current levels which are higher) would yield budget spending level less than GNP. My point is that Social spending programs contributed to Ireland's not being able to with stand an economic downturn, as is similar to so many other European nations.

Too tired to try to explain it any differently. I hope that made sense.

8/20/11

ANT: Here is a video that may enlighten your liberal side if you have one. Just to clarify for me, socialism does not make people lazy and complacent. People want to succeed at something, it is a personal drive. Some may pursue that dream because of money, however it is the success which mainly drives them. It is the reason that we are arguing right now. We want to succeed and be seen as successful in debating what we believe we stand for. Children do not grow up and say, "Oh, I don't want to go to school or learn anything, I'll just live off of state welfare." Many or my friends from Sweden are the most driven kids I know and study all the time and get exceptional marks. So your argument that socialism causes people to lazy

Also about not including Eastern European countries into the chart is stupid. They were recent communist countries, we do not include a continent. Western Europe is more comparable to the US. They have the demographic diversity and the wealth similar to ours. We do not lump Mexico into our side of the argument, so why would you put Serbia, Ukraine, Kosovo, Albania into Europe's?
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/19LPgF/m.lifehacker....

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11

Dude, I am arguing with you because people who believe what you believe want to steal from me what I have rightfully earned. I am not trying to prove jack balls to you, I am trying to prevent a nation I love from becomes a worthless cesspool.

The USA has a diverse socio economic mix up. Massachusetts is very difference from Nevada. Only having Western European states ignores the poor Eastern countries. Your point on Mexico is moot since Mexico is a different country.

The USA is a country the size of a continent. Europe has countries the size of US states.

You know what motivates people? The desire to live and eat.

Bottom line, 50% of this country pay for the other 50%. Sorry that life sucks, but you are getting a free ride on someone elses back. 35% of what you earn (plus state tax and a myriad of other consumption taxes) is enough. No man should have to work half their life for the government.

8/20/11
ANT:

The USA has a diverse socio economic mix up. Massachusetts is very difference from Nevada. Only having Western European states ignores the poor Eastern countries. Your point on Mexico is moot since Mexico is a different country.

The USA is a country the size of a continent. Europe has countries the size of US states.

I am under the notion that this statement, the one streetwannabe is talking about, is saying that a country in Europe is more homogenous than the entire U.S.- which makes their problems/solutions non-applicable. If Sweden has a high standard of living that is because, in part, the entire country is full of a people of homogenous backgrounds. What works in Sweden would not work in Greece because the people act differently, get their money differently, and have generally different views about those things as well. The "solution" would not act the same because it's applying a set of rules determined by one population onto another, fundamentally different one. Like putting Massachusetts tax, driving, and corporate laws in place in Texas or Alabama.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/20/11
MMBinNC:
ANT:

The USA has a diverse socio economic mix up. Massachusetts is very difference from Nevada. Only having Western European states ignores the poor Eastern countries. Your point on Mexico is moot since Mexico is a different country.

The USA is a country the size of a continent. Europe has countries the size of US states.

I am under the notion that this statement, the one streetwannabe is talking about, is saying that a country in Europe is more homogenous than the entire U.S.- which makes their problems/solutions non-applicable. If Sweden has a high standard of living that is because, in part, the entire country is full of a people of homogenous backgrounds. What works in Sweden would not work in Greece because the people act differently, get their money differently, and have generally different views about those things as well. The "solution" would not act the same because it's applying a set of rules determined by one population onto another, fundamentally different one. Like putting Massachusetts tax, driving, and corporate laws in place in Texas or Alabama.

I guess we interpret it differently. I was talking about EU (Sweden isn't in it) and how you could take the EU and compare it to the US because those countries would make up for the lack of homologous backgrounds in the US. Many of these countries are not the same, and may differ on a greater scale compared to the different states, however they do have similar structures, but with different people cultures, backgrounds et.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11

And dude, of course socialism doesn't make everyone lazy. Someone has to go out and work so millions can do nothing.

How we continually punish the producers for the sake of the users is beyond me. It's like killing the strong to benefit the weak.

8/20/11
ANT:

And dude, of course socialism doesn't make everyone lazy. Someone has to go out and work so millions can do nothing.

How we continually punish the producers for the sake of the users is beyond me. It's like killing the strong to benefit the weak.

Its not killing the strong. Its the strong helping the weak because of something called compassion. And people actually like to work, granted they are able to do something they feel positive about. For some people it could be closing a merger, some saving lives, and some don't care if they work as a dishwasher.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
streetwannabe:

Its not killing the strong. Its the strong helping the weak because of something called compassion. And people actually like to work, granted they are able to do something they feel positive about. For some people it could be closing a merger, some saving lives, and some don't care if they work as a dishwasher.

I wouldn't call it compassion, I call it being in the same country and having the same citizenship

Same reason why red states are receiving so much federal transferred money from the blue states,
same reason why in war times, everyone is required to fight, poor or rich, even though someone from nevada might not have any relatives/friends in pearl harbor and don't really care what happens in Europe

8/20/11

1) I never said I want to eliminate all taxes.

2) What right do you have or anyone has to take 40% of a mans earnings.

A flat tax is the only thing fair. What I have is no ones business.

I love how people support crimes against their fellow man under the auspice of doing good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

8/20/11

And the other problem with this argument comes down to principle. This country was founded on people's freedom to do as they please. Sadly, the Republicans have taken that away in terms of shit like drugs, abortion, gay rights, etc. Even more sadly is the Democrats want to tax us more so they can decide what to do with our money.

You can argue the numbers all you want, but you can't argue the principles. Go through the Constitution line by line, word by word, compare it to what our forefathers wrote and spoke about, and there's no way they could have envisioned this kind of godforsaken political BS.

Now people just don't think. Take the stock market for example. Should that be regulated? I'd say no if everyone wasn't retarded, but now it's the normal thing to invest in stocks. People just throw money into 401ks assuming they're going to get it back without actually understanding what *could* happen to it. It's their own fault.

We've also made it so that if you don't want to work in this country you don't have to. It's retarded, that's not how our country was supposed to be run. It was to make sure you were safe from physical manipulation and fraud so the people could do with as they pleased.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer
"Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee

8/20/11

ANT:
1) Western Europe are not states, they are countries (just like USA and Mexico). Also Spain has very different demographics and culture to that of Germany or Holland. More so than that of Mass. and Nevada.

2) If you feel that strongly about what you've "earned" then fine. I am more mastery based I guess and as long as I make enough to be happy that is fine with me (250K would definitely do it) to pay an extra 5% or so.

3) Flat tax is downright stupid. The rich have continued to become richer and will trend even moreso if you flat tax everyone. People making 10MM should consider society sometimes, as it is the one you exist in and need to respect that. You think that if you make alot of money it is undeniably yours? For what? Society gave you this money through your skill and innovations, however you need to regard the fact that it came to you from them. You bash liberals for being socialist such as myself, when I am a white male in finance (aka worst tax bracket) and yet I somehow conjure up my ethical duties to society to admit the fact that I should pay my dues to the system that made me so profitable.

PS: Liberals do not equal socialists. Just like libertarians do not equal anarchists. Don't be so black and white.

And DM:
Thank you, good point. No self regulated market will ever be logical. Corporations in general are not out to do goodwill, no matter how blatantly generous and successful they may seem. Read some of the BS Monsanto does to people.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
streetwannabe:

ANT:
1) Western Europe are not states, they are countries (just like USA and Mexico). Also Spain has very different demographics and culture to that of Germany or Holland. More so than that of Mass. and Nevada.

2) If you feel that strongly about what you've "earned" then fine. I am more mastery based I guess and as long as I make enough to be happy that is fine with me (250K would definitely do it).

3) Flat tax is downright stupid. The rich have continued to become richer and will trend even moreso if you flat tax everyone. People making 10MM should consider society sometimes, as it is the one you exist in and need to respect that. You think that if you make alot of money it is undeniably yours? For what? Society gave you this money through your skill and innovations, however you need to regard the fact that it came to you from them. You bash liberals for being socialist such as myself, when I am a white male in finance (aka worst tax bracket) and yet I somehow conjure up my ethical duties to society to admit the fact that I should pay my dues to the system that made me so profitable.

PS: Liberals do not equal socialists. Just like libertarians do not equal anarchists. Don't be so black and white.

And DM:
Thank you, good point. No self regulated market will ever be logical. Corporations in general are not out to do goodwill, no matter how blatantly generous and successful they may seem. Read some of the BS Monsanto does to people.

Dude everything you say is socialist. Even more than that your "I'm more mastery-based" comment is stupid. You think that the average American would rather study/practice for 10 hours more to get that surgery perfect than go an get it in? You are an idiot. Generalizations are BS the start off with but generalizing a personal feature that few have is borderline retarded.

The state/country argument makes no sense. They would be LESS threatened by ethnic differences if they were broken up and more homogenous within the country. No one said that the countries bordering each other are homogenous or that the EU is a country. Get your facts straight.

And for your opposition to the flat tax is dumb. It discourages growth, income, savings, pretty much everything, if a progressive tax is in. Your white man's guilt justification for it is just you. If you want to give more, DO IT. But I don't wanna pay for your stupidity.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/20/11
MMBinNC:
streetwannabe:

ANT:
1) Western Europe are not states, they are countries (just like USA and Mexico). Also Spain has very different demographics and culture to that of Germany or Holland. More so than that of Mass. and Nevada.

2) If you feel that strongly about what you've "earned" then fine. I am more mastery based I guess and as long as I make enough to be happy that is fine with me (250K would definitely do it).

3) Flat tax is downright stupid. The rich have continued to become richer and will trend even moreso if you flat tax everyone. People making 10MM should consider society sometimes, as it is the one you exist in and need to respect that. You think that if you make alot of money it is undeniably yours? For what? Society gave you this money through your skill and innovations, however you need to regard the fact that it came to you from them. You bash liberals for being socialist such as myself, when I am a white male in finance (aka worst tax bracket) and yet I somehow conjure up my ethical duties to society to admit the fact that I should pay my dues to the system that made me so profitable.

PS: Liberals do not equal socialists. Just like libertarians do not equal anarchists. Don't be so black and white.

And DM:
Thank you, good point. No self regulated market will ever be logical. Corporations in general are not out to do goodwill, no matter how blatantly generous and successful they may seem. Read some of the BS Monsanto does to people.

Dude everything you say is socialist. Even more than that your "I'm more mastery-based" comment is stupid. You think that the average American would rather study/practice for 10 hours more to get that surgery perfect than go an get it in? You are an idiot. Generalizations are BS the start off with but generalizing a personal feature that few have is borderline retarded.

The state/country argument makes no sense. They would be LESS threatened by ethnic differences if they were broken up and more homogenous within the country. No one said that the countries bordering each other are homogenous or that the EU is a country. Get your facts straight.

And for your opposition to the flat tax is dumb. It discourages growth, income, savings, pretty much everything, if a progressive tax is in. Your white man's guilt justification for it is just you. If you want to give more, DO IT. But I don't wanna pay for your stupidity.

I am liberal socialist, I didn't deny it. Talking in general idiot. And yes, if you want to become good at what you do, you do that. And I really don't care if I'm rich, I just want to be good at what I do. So maybe its dumb but its applicable.

And ANT implied that you cannot compare even the entire EU to the US because of our diversity. So yeah, it was said.

And of course you don't want to pay. Liberal view points are more social based, as opposed to yours which seem to be more personal based, and fuck society, it will act accordingly which it doesn't. When you question higher taxes on people making 10mm a year you seem stupid to me in the fact that you are petty and greedy. People who make that much don't fucking stimulate the economy in a consumer's sense, but save and invest which does nothing for the country as a whole. And excuse the white man quote, meant single male.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
D M:

Now people just don't think. Take the stock market for example. Should that be regulated? I'd say no if everyone wasn't retarded, but now it's the normal thing to invest in stocks. People just throw money into 401ks assuming they're going to get it back without actually understanding what *could* happen to it. It's their own fault.

streetwannabe:

And DM:
Thank you, good point. No self regulated market will ever be logical. Corporations in general are not out to do goodwill, no matter how blatantly generous and successful they may seem. Read some of the BS Monsanto does to people.

Where the hell did your deduction come from streetwannabe? Corporations are out to fuck their shareholders because investors don't know how to invest? What does Monsanto dumping chemicals and hurting the environment hurt shareholders? If anything they benefited the shareholders by circumventing expensive REGULATIONS.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/20/11
MMBinNC:
D M:

Now people just don't think. Take the stock market for example. Should that be regulated? I'd say no if everyone wasn't retarded, but now it's the normal thing to invest in stocks. People just throw money into 401ks assuming they're going to get it back without actually understanding what *could* happen to it. It's their own fault.

streetwannabe:

And DM:
Thank you, good point. No self regulated market will ever be logical. Corporations in general are not out to do goodwill, no matter how blatantly generous and successful they may seem. Read some of the BS Monsanto does to people.

Where the hell did your deduction come from streetwannabe? Corporations are out to fuck their shareholders because investors don't know how to invest? What does Monsanto dumping chemicals and hurting the environment hurt shareholders? If anything they benefited the shareholders by circumventing expensive REGULATIONS.

Excuse me, different topics. Not related I know. However, that is what I am implying. I did not say companies are out to fuck their shareholders. Generally (note use of generally) companies are their to benefit their shareholders, and not society. That is what I was saying.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11

Another point: Flat tax rate. A single man making 10MM a year off of a popular idea (Facebook) deserves to be taxed as much as a family of three children whose parents work blue collar jobs that might actually benefit their society who have a child with aggressive adolescent lung cancer from the pollution caused by refineries in Louisiana? Fuck off

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/20/11
streetwannabe:

Another point: Flat tax rate. A single man making 10MM a year off of a popular idea (Facebook) deserves to be taxed as much as a family of three children whose parents work blue collar jobs that might actually benefit their society who have a child with aggressive adolescent lung cancer from the pollution caused by refineries in Louisiana? Fuck off

This is so stupid i can't believe it. Someone making 10mm a year let's say a 20% tax. Richie= $2mm Poor(assuming 80k income)= $16k. Hmmm...$2mm seems > than $16k... And for some reason I would imagine the dude who create and is still creating hundreds or thousands of jobs is a little more valuable than the person milking cows. And the cancer thing is such a stupid liberal ploy. A lot of people get sick, it doesn't make it the norm. Even if the child had lung cancer, the parents will either have the child government HC, their employers HC, charity care from the hospital, or private. If they made the decision to not kick in the money for their own HC and are bitching about it now...it is honestly their fault.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

8/20/11
MMBinNC:
streetwannabe:

Another point: Flat tax rate. A single man making 10MM a year off of a popular idea (Facebook) deserves to be taxed as much as a family of three children whose parents work blue collar jobs that might actually benefit their society who have a child with aggressive adolescent lung cancer from the pollution caused by refineries in Louisiana? Fuck off

This is so stupid i can't believe it. Someone making 10mm a year let's say a 20% tax. Richie= $2mm Poor(assuming 80k income)= $16k. Hmmm...$2mm seems > than $16k... And for some reason I would imagine the dude who create and is still creating hundreds or thousands of jobs is a little more valuable than the person milking cows. And the cancer thing is such a stupid liberal ploy. A lot of people get sick, it doesn't make it the norm. Even if the child had lung cancer, the parents will either have the child government HC, their employers HC, charity care from the hospital, or private. If they made the decision to not kick in the money for their own HC and are bitching about it now...it is honestly their fault.

Granted. Will retract cancer example. Just making vivid point. And 2mm is more, never said that. And I'm not talking about corporate taxes. If you're making 10MM and have 4MM taken instead of 2mm and all of the sudden decide that its too much and are not motivated to do your work and continue your job, fuck you. Did you not watch the video I posted above?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

8/21/11
streetwannabe:

Granted. Will retract cancer example. Just making vivid point. And 2mm is more, never said that. And I'm not talking about corporate taxes. If you're making 10MM and have 4MM taken instead of 2mm and all of the sudden decide that its too much and are not motivated to do your work and continue your job, fuck you. Did you not watch the video I posted above?

I doubt this will alter your thinking, but this notion is so incredibly flawed with no consideration to real world application. You can make the tax rate on the rich 10,000% if you want. It won't matter. Those with means will exercise whatever necessary to avoid tax liability and maintain control of assets. They'll send it over seas, set up foriegn shell companies, contribute to charitable remainder trusts, blind trusts, give it away, whatever they must do, employ whomever they must until the point of diminishing return. In essence, they'll spend $1MM to save $1MM and 1 cent. They reduce they're taxable income to the point you'd be lucky if theyre effective rate is half of their scheduled rate. It's how it is when your tax code is set up to benefit those with the means to manipulate it, and burdens those without. Those making 10MM and the people they have access to because of their means are smarter than people who think they can just levy a new tax and all will be right in the world.

8/22/11
ragnar danneskjold:

I doubt this will alter your thinking, but this notion is so incredibly flawed with no consideration to real world application. You can make the tax rate on the rich 10,000% if you want. It won't matter. Those with means will exercise whatever necessary to avoid tax liability and maintain control of assets. They'll send it over seas, set up foriegn shell companies, contribute to charitable remainder trusts, blind trusts, give it away, whatever they must do, employ whomever they must until the point of diminishing return. In essence, they'll spend $1MM to save $1MM and 1 cent. They reduce they're taxable income to the point you'd be lucky if theyre effective rate is half of their scheduled rate. It's how it is when your tax code is set up to benefit those with the means to manipulate it, and burdens those without. Those making 10MM and the people they have access to because of their means are smarter than people who think they can just levy a new tax and all will be right in the world.

1 Just because someone will try to avoid tax, doesn't mean you shouldn't collect them
2 people will try to avoid tax whether it is 35% or 50%, it doesn't really matter..

8/22/11
tsong:
ragnar danneskjold:

I doubt this will alter your thinking, but this notion is so incredibly flawed with no consideration to real world application. You can make the tax rate on the rich 10,000% if you want. It won't matter. Those with means will exercise whatever necessary to avoid tax liability and maintain control of assets. They'll send it over seas, set up foriegn shell companies, contribute to charitable remainder trusts, blind trusts, give it away, whatever they must do, employ whomever they must until the point of diminishing return. In essence, they'll spend $1MM to save $1MM and 1 cent. They reduce they're taxable income to the point you'd be lucky if theyre effective rate is half of their scheduled rate. It's how it is when your tax code is set up to benefit those with the means to manipulate it, and burdens those without. Those making 10MM and the people they have access to because of their means are smarter than people who think they can just levy a new tax and all will be right in the world.

1 Just because someone will try to avoid tax, doesn't mean you shouldn't collect them
2 people will try to avoid tax whether it is 35% or 50%, it doesn't really matter..

A flat tax resolves both of these.

Corporate taxes should be abolished. They are an impediment to competition for the reasons I previously stated, they favor companies with the greatest means to allocate towards avoidance.

8/21/11
streetwannabe:

Another point: Flat tax rate. A single man making 10MM a year off of a popular idea (Facebook) deserves to be taxed as much as a family of three children whose parents work blue collar jobs that might actually benefit their society who have a child with aggressive adolescent lung cancer from the pollution caused by refineries in Louisiana? Fuck off

Why shouldn't they pay the same amount (percentage wise) of tax? Because they did better for themselves? You call it compassion most every sane person calls it theft, except for the recipients of said handouts.

8/21/11
txjustin:
streetwannabe:

Another point: Flat tax rate. A single man making 10MM a year off of a popular idea (Facebook) deserves to be taxed as much as a family of three children whose parents work blue collar jobs that might actually benefit their society who have a child with aggressive adolescent lung cancer from the pollution caused by refineries in Louisiana? Fuck off

Why shouldn't they pay the same amount (percentage wise) of tax? Because they did better for themselves? You call it compassion most every sane person calls it theft, except for the recipients of said handouts.

I don't think most taxpayers call it theft, maybe they do in Texas...

8/20/11

Liberal socialist = someone who wants to steal and control.

You want to impose your beliefs on me. If you want to help your neighbor, do so. Do not take from me implement your ideals.

This is why the left is always dangerous. Your have your beliefs and if I don't willingly give you what I have earned, you will forcebly take it. Essentially a limp wristed Nazi.

8/20/11
ANT:

Liberal socialist = someone who wants to steal and control.

You want to impose your beliefs on me. If you want to help your neighbor, do so. Do not take from me implement your ideals.

This is why the left is always dangerous. Your have your beliefs and if I don't willingly give you what I have earned, you will forcebly take it. Essentially a limp wristed Nazi.

I think as far as modern politics go the right wing party in the states seems to be the one hell bent on controlling peoples lives. Just an observation.