Pages

7/22/11

Interested to know your thoughts on Obama's press conference. What do you guys think will happen, both politically and with the markets?

I'm very proud of the House Republicans for holding to their beliefs and trying to force substantive cuts and save us from bankruptcy. My guess is they shove the cut, cap, and balance down the Dems throats (or try to), and the markets take a hit on Monday (how big, I don't know, depends what happens tomorrow and Sunday).

Comments (306)

7/22/11

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

The WSO Advantage - Hedge Funds

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Hedge Fund Interview Questions

10+ webinars & actual pitches.

Resume Help from HF Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your HF Mentor

Realistic HF Mock Interviews.

7/22/11
ANT:

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

I got the impression that O was a huge pussy when he had the house and senate.

7/22/11
ANT:

He is way to divisive. Every comment was blaming the Republicans, bringing up closed door discussions, basically shitting on them in every way. You don't work together and build relationships that way. When he had a majority in the House and Senate he treated Republicans like shit and forced legislation down their throat and now that he has to compromise and act like an adult he is failing miserably.

Ant, your last sentence is a very good point I hadn't even thought of. Thanks for bringing that up.

7/22/11

I'm not proud. I'm disgusted. It is pathetic that we have gotten to this point in political rhetoric. Often you have to see through all the bullshit in politics, but this is like trying to see through a pool of bullshit 12ft deep.

Both sides have been needing to drop the bullshit for so long. I think the Dems finally dropped most of it and the GOP is still lingering on.

All these Republican politicians will make you believe that a small tax increase on the upper class will drive our economy down. This isn't correct. 1) Our taxes are lower now than they have been for awhile. Actually during the Clinton boom, our tax rate was higher 2) There isn't any CLEAR evidence that raising taxes on the rich drives GDP or markets down. It is a theory that has yet to be met with any real evidence.

As a moderate republican myself, I'm embarrassed. I think that speech just won Obama the next presidency. If the GOP doesn't come to a deal, Obama wins. Even if GOP comes to a deal now, Obama still wins. People are pissed and Obama looked more pissed than anyone. The American people are going to eat it up, as they should. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

7/22/11
rothyman:

I'm not proud. I'm disgusted. It is pathetic that we have gotten to this point in political rhetoric. Often you have to see through all the bullshit in politics, but this is like trying to see through a pool of bullshit 12ft deep.

Both sides have been needing to drop the bullshit for so long. I think the Dems finally dropped most of it and the GOP is still lingering on.

All these Republican politicians will make you believe that a small tax increase on the upper class will drive our economy down. This isn't correct. 1) Our taxes are lower now than they have been for awhile. Actually during the Clinton boom, our tax rate was higher 2) There isn't any CLEAR evidence that raising taxes on the rich drives GDP or markets down. It is a theory that has yet to be met with any real evidence.

As a moderate republican myself, I'm embarrassed. I think that speech just won Obama the next presidency. If the GOP doesn't come to a deal, Obama wins. Even if GOP comes to a deal now, Obama still wins. People are pissed and Obama looked more pissed than anyone. The American people are going to eat it up, as they should. Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

If you really look at the data, the Dems haven't offered real spending cuts. Offering ~150B a year in spending cuts a year coupled with 100B a year in revenue increases is not a realistic solution when you're running $1+T deficits. Keep in mind that all these figures tossed around by the media are total numbers, which will be amortized over a long period of time. Also keep in mind that the entitlment spending is only going to go up. Anyone who really understands the numbers can draw no other conclusion than that the Dems are not serious about fixing this. We should cut at least $500B a YEAR, all from spending. That would still only bring us back to $600B or so a year in annual deficits. Amortized over 10 years, that's $5T. Keep in mind that even with this figure, our debt/GDP keeps going up. We should be cutting even more, maybe something like $800B. We need to make drastic cuts just to SMOOTH our way into lower spending/living within our means. Otherwise, one day, we'll wake up and see Treasury rates have skyrocketed, and can't afford to spend even on very basic things, nevermind a $500K quadruple heart bypass for an 80 year old terminally ill cancer patient (like we currently do). Look at how quickly interest rates skyrocketed on Greece, our debt/GDP ratio is already there, if you adjust for all the shenanigans in the reporting of the numbers.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/22/11

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

7/23/11
ANT:

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

Repubs won the house because of this thing called unemployment...conjecture, but if the stimulus worked - and it could've if it were implemented correctly - and unemployment was lower highly doubt they would've won the house.

7/23/11
restructure-this:
ANT:

The Republicans won the House because they were anti tax and smaller government. By allowing taxes to increase they would shoot themselves in the foot.

Taxes should go down, not up.

Repubs won the house because of this thing called unemployment...conjecture, but if the stimulus worked - and it could've if it were implemented correctly - and unemployment was lower highly doubt they would've won the house.

Republicans won the House for many reasons, unemployment being just one of them. Obama was a drunken mistake and the Republicans winning the House was the wake up from the night before. Hope and Change can get you elected, but they don't mean shit when it comes to actually doing anything.

7/22/11

@alex

I don't disagree with you about the need for more cuts. I am 100% in favor of deeper, non bs cuts that aren't just smoke in mirrors. However this isn't the reason the GOP has backed out. They backed out because they will NOT touch taxes. Even if Obama promised the cuts you listed above, the GOP would not vote for any tax increase. In my eyes, the Dems are still compromising more for their constituents than the Republicans are. Like I said before, tax rates for the upper-class are relatively low. It's not like they are relatively high at the moment.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

7/22/11

Why would the GOP vote for anything that involves tax increases? The rich are simply a policy scapegoat for Obama. Why would you increase taxes during a recession (or at least lack luster recovery)?

Why are the Democrats always the party of more taxes. The government is too big, wastes too much and needs to cut back. The last thing we need is to take more money out of the private market.

7/22/11

Yeah, he really has been all hype. I think Colin Powell would have been a much more appropriate first black president. The guy is a decorated veteran and had the stones and integrity to step down because he disagreed with Bush.

A cereal box could have run against Bush and won. In fact, one did.

7/22/11
ANT:

Yeah, he really has been all hype. I think Colin Powell would have been a much more appropriate first black president. The guy is a decorated veteran and had the stones and integrity to step down because he disagreed with Bush.

A cereal box could have run against Bush and won. In fact, one did.

Colin Powell said he was only in for one term before he was even nominated actually though I do agree with your point.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

7/22/11

My plan to restore america:

  1. 15% flat tax.
  2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
  3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
  4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
  5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
  6. abolish affirmative action.
  7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
  8. no foreign aid to any country.
  9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
  10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

7/22/11
ivoteforthatguy:

My plan to restore america:

  1. 15% flat tax.
  2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
  3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
  4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
  5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
  6. abolish affirmative action.
  7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
  8. no foreign aid to any country.
  9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
  10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

I like everything you said except I'm more for a flat/fair tax mix. Well done my friend!

7/23/11
txjustin:
ivoteforthatguy:

My plan to restore america:

  1. 15% flat tax.
  2. pull our troops from 110 countries across the world.
  3. let people under 35 opt out of social security and medicare.
  4. abolish the fed and restore a constitutional, commodity-backed currency.
  5. abolish the TSA, HUD, Education Department, HHS.
  6. abolish affirmative action.
  7. dismantle all of our torture chambers and secret prisons.
  8. no foreign aid to any country.
  9. seal the southern border and fund an e-verify mandate.
  10. no more executive wars.

boom, america's right as rain again.

I like everything you said except I'm more for a flat/fair tax mix. Well done my friend!

Love it. Although the "no foreign aid" would destroy countries like Saudi Arabia/our other "allies" in OPEC.

As for the tax thing...

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."- Calvin Coolidge

In 2001 Russia adopted a 13% flat tax. Russia's economy has expanded by about 10 percent by 2005. That may not be spectacular, but it's better than the United States, and it's very impressive compared to the anemic growth rates we see elsewhere in Europe.

I am still the most favorable to the Fair Tax. I repeat myself on so many threads its becoming ridiculous.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

Best Response
7/22/11

I'm not a huge Obama fan by any means but in broad strokes, I like the way he's handled the debt ceiling issue, as I think he's approached it as a centrist.

Most reasonable people would agree that spending cuts alone are not a realistic way to get out of the debt crisis; we need a mix of both revenue increases and spending cuts. The compromise package that the White House agreed to was 75% spending cuts and 25% revenue increases - not by raising taxes, but just by closing certain loopholes.

If a party is so ideologically closed that it can't take a 75-25 compromise in its favor, then I think its very dangerous for a democracy.

The R party is too far right and too beholden to the crazies at its base. Even poeple like Colin Powell, David Brooks, have been unable to find a place in the R tent nowadays.

7/23/11

There was a great article today either on BBG or in the journal, don't remember which, but it brought up a really good point. Obama is starting to look childish. He's too forward. I haven't seen this conference everyone was talking about late in the day, but before that the general sentiment was that every time he appeared in front of the camera, he hurt his poll numbers.

My personal belief is that the Gang of Six proposal is the only real, substantive idea going forward. Serious Dems, Serious Republicans sitting together to thrash out what needs to get done. Ironically enough, it essentially mirrors the Bowles-Simpson plan from last year; sad that that kinda got discarded, pushed off to the side with a "Hey thanks, great work, but no thanks."

Most people do things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.

Browse my blog as a WSO contributing author

7/23/11

At the end of the day this has all been about politics and its disgusting and embarrassing. The world is watching and america looks petty and childish - not bravo of the world leader.

Whether the republicans like it or not we are in this position and it has nothing to do with obama. If anything bush is the one the squandered the clinton surplus and the republican polices have put us in this position. Although that too is irrelevant - because we are hear regardless of the reason.

Taxes need to go up. Spending needs to go down. Period.

Personally, if I was obama, I'd just use the 14th amendment and call it a day.

This is the worst case every of cut your nose to spit your face.

7/23/11

Why do taxes need to increase? The deficit is huge because of an ever growing government, wars and entitlement programs. End the wars, cut spending and shrink the government. Done.

I see zero reason to give the morons in Washington one more red cent.

What I do support is cutting tax credits. The government has ZERO business encouraging or discouraging home ownership, marriage, children, etc.

Cut mortgage interest deductions, cut bullshit child credits, etc. I am so sick of the government trying to influence behavior.

7/23/11

I also think our government is just as retarded as the rest of the world.

7/23/11

The problem with comments like end the war end entitlement programs etc. is that its far more complicated than that.

Its unintelligible to offer such solutions...as if they were that easy to solve. There are an unlimited amount of unintended consequences for major sweeping changes and all need to be considered.

This isn't black and white, and its easy for people to sit on the sidelines and postulate about totally improbably and unrealistic solutions.

  • I would consider eliminating tax loop holes/credits/cuts to be tax increases.
7/23/11

Also, just because there is still unemployment doesn't mean the stimulus didn't work. We could be in a much worse situation without it.

7/23/11

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

7/23/11
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

7/23/11
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

I think you might not be aware of the views many of these tea partiers have. They are the ones protesting against the government healthcare option while at the same time wanting the government to keep their hands off their Medicare. They are the ones protesting the fact that Obama is a Socialist who wants to redistribute wealth when tax rates are in reality at historic lows. They honestly come across as hypocritical and undereducated, whether they are is up for debate.

7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

The Republican base is fundamentalist christians. The tea party is an ignorant mass of misinformed white people who call for lower taxes and to get the socialist out of the white house. The same socialist who has lowered taxes to their lowest levels in a century, far below what any Republican president ever has.

You seem to be the one who is misinformed. Based on how you describe the Tea Party you couldnt be more wrong. Please stick your head back in the sand now.

Please tell me then what they stand for, I genuinely want to know. They are very fiscally conservative but would they be for cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Judging by the age of most of them I doubt it.

The base believe in small government and minimal government intervention. If they don't believe in cuts in entitlements programs, then they're hypocrites and are no different than RINO's.

I think you might not be aware of the views many of these tea partiers have. They are the ones protesting against the government healthcare option while at the same time wanting the government to keep their hands off their Medicare. They are the ones protesting the fact that Obama is a Socialist who wants to redistribute wealth when tax rates are in reality at historic lows. They honestly come across as hypocritical and undereducated, whether they are is up for debate.

I really think you are describing the outliers. I can't say for fact, I am not affiliated with the Tea Party. I do know their core beliefs though as I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter.

7/23/11
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

7/23/11
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

7/23/11
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

are you joking? you obviously did not go into the residential neighborhoods, its a complete hole. its the most dangerous city in north america.

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
txjustin:
rothyman:
ANT:

Stimulus was shit. Cutting entitlements is just as easy as increasing taxes. Half this country pays ZERO in Federal taxes and that is utter bullshit.

Republicans should shit can any deal that raises taxes. The only thing I would be cool with is ending tax credits.

Glad to see the Republicans listening to their base. Democrats are being shown for exactly what they are, the party of theft from hard working people.

With all do respect ANT, without the stimulus our economy would be in the gutter right now. Everyone whines about how the stimulus did nothing, but few realize just how badly we needed it.

Cutting entitlements ISN'T just as easy as increasing taxes. When you cut entitlements, people effectively die & suffer. There should be a long term plan to cut entitlements, but massive cuts in entitlements right away is not so easy for those who live off them. As lucky the lucky individuals we are, we are ignorant to this fact.

Raising taxes on the rich (short-mid term) may not be the best solution, but it is far better than letting Americans starve. It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I'm not one for large government or lots of taxes, but why can't people grasp the problem in the short-term. We need more $$ coming in, less $$ going out. Cut some entitlements, raise some taxes. What is the goddamn problem???? The time to make major cuts in entitlements is when we are in the position in which we can do so without letting people suffer. Not now..

I agree, we need more coming in. YOu just don't realize we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, don't give me that liberal bullshit about people starving and shit. Fuckem. I grew up and did my shit on my own. This is America motherfucker, if you can't survive in this country, you'd be dead in a few minutes anywhere else. No sympathy here.

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHA What a fucking LIE!!!!!! Dude I spent the day in Camden today! Went to a baseball game at a really nice minor league stadium and everything. You have obviously never been to the 3rd world, never mind a war torn country. I've lived in places where the doormen to apartment buildings had pump action riot shotguns. I don't think the doormen in Camden carry those...

are you joking? you obviously did not go into the residential neighborhoods, its a complete hole. its the most dangerous city in north america.

Yeah ummm...I'm not going to go looking for trouble. Camden's not as bad as you imply, although there are some bad parts, no denying that. Nevertheless, what's your point? So some really shitty/useless people live in a shithole and do nothing to make their lives better. Am I supposed to give them money? Will my money make their lives better? Please explain to me how it will. My guess is they'll take my money and buy another handgun, or get some more gold in their teeth, or buy another bullshit item. They're obviously not starving. I've seen what TRUE poverty is, and Camden isn't it. I've seen places that made Camden look like the Ritz.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

7/24/11
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alechpasch:
awm:

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Aww but that's a CONSERVATIVE page, how could anything they say be true? But CNN, ABC, Media Matters are all factual...even if they poll 100 people who live on Haight and Ashbury.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
alexpasch:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Did you even look a that? During Obama's presidency tax revenue was reduced by approx 400 billion per year, and spending has increased by approx 550 billion from the Bush years. This makes the dems compromise more than fair. From 2013 the projections are that revenue and expenditure will grow at a similair rate.

How on earth did you get from that data that this is totally an expenditure problem?

7/25/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
rothyman:
alexpasch:
rothyman:

It's pathetic that people can't take a hit on an already LOW tax rate to save our economy. In effect, they'd rather see people starve.

I take it from your presence on this forum that you either already are, or plan to be, a wealthy individual. You ever see those commercials on tv asking for money for poor kids around the world so they don't starve? You're more than welcome to live like a pauper so those kids can have something to eat. Think about that whenever you spend money frivolously. Now, imagine if someone FORCED you to live like a pauper so your wealth could be given to others.

No one seems to understand the value of principle anymore. Milton Friedman was such a genius because he recognized the value of PRINCIPLE and theoretical backing to your position. The principles behind my argument are IDENTICAL to yours, but surely you would never agree to my suggestion that you live like a pauper so we may save as many famine-stricken kids around the world as possible?

I consider myself to be an extremely logical person, and was raised in a left-leaning household. I became a fiscal/economic conservative only because I have seen so many studies/research that back their policies. Stimulus was a horrible idea given the circumstances. Higher taxes are not a solution. We need tax reform and to delete all tax credits, but we don't need higher rates. Hell, making taxes more efficient in and of itself would help the economy grow, and raise tax revenues, without having to raise taxes (because the economy is bigger than it otherwise would have been absent such tax reform, your tax base is greater even though rates are unchanged). The individual is also better off, because the growth in the economy goes to them. Government gets more revenues, and individuals become wealthier. Remove government from all places it doesn't belong, and watch how the economy grows, as private industry moves back into areas from which it has been crowded out by inefficient government.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and the bricklayer is a Democrat.

Ha, I wish I was wealthy..

Believe it or not our beliefs are closer than you think. I love the work of Milton Friedman & totally support his view on free markets, personal property, and the idea that incentive drives human action. I am for little to no taxes. I am for cutting entitlements massively.

I'm not really arguing against these principles, but against the fact that sometimes politicians hold these 'principal's over the American people at the strangest times. Clearly in a steady economy in which we had a good grasp on our debts, these principles need to be put into action. Lower taxes, de-regulate, & size-down government. But clearly as someone said before, there is really no argument against not raising revenues (taxes) at the present moment. Moreover, there is no argument about not compromising right now. Great politicians compromise in hard times & change the world when the landscape is more forgiving. Our landscape right now is chaotic & I feel if politicians really cared then they would compromise. If the debt ceiling is not passed because we failed to raise revenues, then that is bad for everyone.

Also, it is my understanding that the tax-reform is not revolutionary at all. In fact, I've heard it's pretty minor. Closing some loop-holes to even the playing field & a minor widening of the tax base. A lot of large corporation get tax subsidies at the present moment. Would Milton Friedman preach these practices? I think not. From what I remember (in college), Friedman preached equal treatment & laws for every person & company so that everyone had the same incentive to drive profits.

Fair enough, but if you believe this is solely a spending problem (which I would argue it is), why raise taxes at all? Sure, let's reform it where necessary, but it's incorrect to assert that we need to both raise taxes and cut spending. That is just 100% factually incorrect. The argument should be Dems and Republicans fighting over what to cut (i.e. Dems getting Reps to cut back on defense), instead they want to frame it from the perspective of the Dems want to raise taxes and the Reps want to cut spending. That's just wrong. The Dems refuse to accept that this is 100% a spending problem, and have been doing a good job of spinning away from that reality as far as the media goes. Don't buy into the hype. Look at the growth in spending and the growth in revenues in the past decade. It's very clear what the culprit is. No tax hikes are needed, period.

The dems want 25% tax 75% cut deal, that is more than a fair compromise. The republicans are the one coming off looking terrible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

It is NOT a fair compromise when SPENDING, not TAXES is the problem. There's an implicit assumption in your argument that spending and taxes are equally distant from where they should be, when in fact spending is far, far more out of line. If tax rates were 5%, and the Republicans offered a deal that was 75% taxes and 25% cuts, would that appeal to you? Obviously not, because in such a scenario obviously taxes, not spending, are the issue and the fix should come solely from that end. The media can spin it however they want, but the Republicans are right, and I applaud Boehner for standing strong in the face of such inaccurate demagoguery.

Tax cuts we could not afford in the first place is definitely a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the problem is approx 75% too much spending and 25% too little revenue? I think that sounds about right though I obviously do not know the exact numbers. Considering taxes are at their lowest levels in decades I just don't see how you cant ignore this fact.

Look up the numbers. Look at tax REVENUES (not RATES), and compare to spending. Shame on you for chiming in on the discussion and not knowing the actual numbers. Go look up the numbers, and then tell me what you think the split should be...I can't wait for your response...

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Did you even look a that? During Obama's presidency tax revenue was reduced by approx 400 billion per year, and spending has increased by approx 550 billion from the Bush years. This makes the dems compromise more than fair. From 2013 the projections are that revenue and expenditure will grow at a similair rate.

How on earth did you get from that data that this is totally an expenditure problem?

Omg, are you really this retarded?

Look at the growth rates. Since 2000, revenues grew at a less than 1% CAGR (about the same as the S&P 500 index), but expenditures grew at 7% CAGR. You have to look at growth rates in the context of what the economy has done. If we were booming, then you could make the argument that the revenue growth rate should be higher, but that's obviously not the case. Let's look at what drove the spending growth. Two wars, and skyrocketing healthcare spending account for the overwhelming bulk of it. Given that the two wars we are involved in do not pose real national security threats, we can cut all that spending immediately. Also, given that most developed nations spend half the per capita amount on healthcare than we do yet achieve similar outcomes, we can conclude that we can also cut a ton on healthcare spending and maintain similar outcomes to what we have today. Then, finally, spending as a percentage of GDP is at astronomically high levels, and it's not like we're in the midst of WW2 here buddy. So, placing the numbers in context, it's easy to see that spending is 100% the problem, and taxes are not the issue.

Revenues are inherently tied to the size of the economy, so it's to be expected for revenues to be roughly flat given the weak economy. Meanwhile, because of the delusion that is Keynesianism (as well as just outright waste in defense and healthcare spending), spending has gone up astronomically, because we can borrow the remainder. Thus, revenues are sticky but spending doesn't have to be (and as such, spending is out of line, taxes are not). Lastly, the return on our spending is negative (it's not like we're borrowing $1+T to build high speed rail, or some other infrastructure projects that might provide a positive IRR even after interest expense).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11
alexpasch:

Here, I did your homework for you...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafa...

Look at the growth rates for each column. Spending has skyrocketed, clearly that's what needs to be fixed.

Also, keep in mind that all the numbers tossed around right now are amortized over ~10 years. Clearly a drop in the bucket. Cutting $3T over 10 years is nothing when you're running a $1+T deficit every year (and you know those deficits for years further out are understated).

Lets not forget that in some cases these spending "cuts" are actually just reductions in future spending GROWTH...so for you economics guys, we would essentially be increasing spending at a decreasing rate...which could still leave the US insolvent in the not so distant future.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/23/11

I think the issue comes from the fact that the austerity measures need to be shared equally among the population. The government needs to cut back, the poor and middle class need to stop relying on entitlement programmes as much, and the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes. The republicans are constantly saying a big "**** you" to 95% of the country when they want to cut medicare, medicaid, and SS and then refuse to consider any kind of tax increases (or to even close loopholes). Who is this party serving? Seriously? I honestly think they have tricked their base into thinking they are somehow working in their best interest when in reality almost everything they do is counter to it.

7/23/11

+1 awm55

This isn't your fathers republican party. Its one that has been dominated by single issue voters and christian extremists...abortion and gay marriage ring a bell?

Long gone are the days of intellectualism, small government and fiscal responsibility. Instead its a lot of christian conservatives trying to impose their religious beliefs. Palin, Bachman, Huckabee...its mind blowing that they aren't just relevant but titans of their base. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney get torn apart eventually for being a Mormon.

Small government so long as it doesn't go against my religious views...because if thats the case bring on regulations and tell people how the can and can not live their lives.

The republican party is the party of hypocrites. Whether or not the democrats are ideologically right at least the stick to their principles.

7/23/11
ke18sb:

+1 awm55

This isn't your fathers republican party. Its one that has been dominated by single issue voters and christian extremists...abortion and gay marriage ring a bell?

Long gone are the days of intellectualism, small government and fiscal responsibility. Instead its a lot of christian conservatives trying to impose their religious beliefs. Palin, Bachman, Huckabee...its mind blowing that they aren't just relevant but titans of their base. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney get torn apart eventually for being a Mormon.

Small government so long as it doesn't go against my religious views...because if thats the case bring on regulations and tell people how the can and can not live their lives.

The republican party is the party of hypocrites. Whether or not the democrats are ideologically right at least the stick to their principles.

We need someone like Bloomberg. Moderate Republican who does not pander to their nauseating base. Would vote for him in a heart beat. The fact that Michelle Bachmann is currently second for the Republican Presidential Nomination is absolutely terrifing. The rest of the world is laughing at us.

7/23/11

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

7/23/11
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

7/23/11
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

7/23/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

Obama has had several chances to cut spending. Now that it is the 11th hour he is forced to. The only reason he is trying to act in a bipartisan manner is because he has to. When the Dems had the Sen, House and Presidency he shoved everythign down the GOP's throats.

7/23/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Can you elaborate please?

Obama has had several chances to cut spending. Now that it is the 11th hour he is forced to. The only reason he is trying to act in a bipartisan manner is because he has to. When the Dems had the Sen, House and Presidency he shoved everythign down the GOP's throats.

Cuts are needed, I wouldn't deny that. Obama was asking a 75% cut 25% tax rise deal, that is more than fair. The GOP is coming off looking childish and stubborn when they categorically refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy or even to cut loopholes. That is stunning considering the number of concessions Obama has made. How do you think this makes them look?

7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Obama and all politicians...lets be fair here. Politics doesn't do shit, its just a large circle jerk.

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.

7/24/11
blackfinancier:
txjustin:
awm55:
ke18sb:

Agreed, the worst is when moderate republicans, mccain, a little romney gualiani, etc. give up their moderate views to gain support and pander to the overall base.

We need a moderate republican with some serious balls that is willing to stick to his principles and bring the party to him instead of sacrificing his beliefs and following the mob.

They ALL do it. The party has had a cosmic shift to the right in the past 15 years, as has much of the US political spectrum (which isn't a bad thing). The issue is that the Republican party by international standards wouldn't even be taken seriously, they would be a fringe party that maybe got a few percent of the vote every election season. They had to put Palin up there with McCain because he did not appeal enough to the hard right Christian demographic. Knowing what we know now about her could you imagine if this woman was put into a position that potentially made her the most powerful person in the world? I was finally turned off to them for the forseable future when they launched the most vile, anti-intellectual, lie-filled smear campaigns in memory against Obama. I am not an enormous fan of Obama, but he is trying to genuinely fix some aspects of the US that need to be (though he had horrific timing). Also, their fundamentalist base scares the hell out of me.

Pass what you're smoking please. Obama doesn't want to fix shit, he wants his voter base to expand.

Obama and all politicians...lets be fair here. Politics doesn't do shit, its just a large circle jerk.

agreed

7/23/11

The liberal insanity on this thread is hilarious. If I wasn't typing this on a BB I'd take you to task on this idocy.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

The WSO Advantage - Hedge Funds

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Hedge Fund Interview Questions

10+ webinars & actual pitches.

Resume Help from HF Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your HF Mentor

Realistic HF Mock Interviews.

7/23/11

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

7/23/11
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

Wow my man, you obviously haven't ventured out to any areas of the country that are slums and have been slums. These people are born into this, it's not totally in their control to shape their destiny. Just because you grew up in a middle-class (or even lower middle class family) and made your own life doesn't make you the end all be all on people in poverty. Congrats bro, A LOT of us grew up in families who weren't well to do and made it.

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world. Once you start leaving your own people out on the street, there is no turning back. It's what separates our country from the others. Believe it or not I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate conservative, but when it comes to leaving people out on the street over a cloud of shit-fulled politics, that is unforgivable.

It's like taking Oxycontin away from a opiate addict; the government has been giving these entitlements for so long that people rely on them. Shit, yes it is bad. We need to end the entitlements, I am all for that. But it needs to be done gradually. These politicians throw around the idea of defaulting on our debts like they're trading baseball cards.

7/24/11
rothyman:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

Wow my man, you obviously haven't ventured out to any areas of the country that are slums and have been slums. These people are born into this, it's not totally in their control to shape their destiny. Just because you grew up in a middle-class (or even lower middle class family) and made your own life doesn't make you the end all be all on people in poverty. Congrats bro, A LOT of us grew up in families who weren't well to do and made it.

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world. Once you start leaving your own people out on the street, there is no turning back. It's what separates our country from the others. Believe it or not I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate conservative, but when it comes to leaving people out on the street over a cloud of shit-fulled politics, that is unforgivable.

It's like taking Oxycontin away from a opiate addict; the government has been giving these entitlements for so long that people rely on them. Shit, yes it is bad. We need to end the entitlements, I am all for that. But it needs to be done gradually. These politicians throw around the idea of defaulting on our debts like they're trading baseball cards.

I agree with you on the fact that it needs to be done gradually. But it needs to be implemented now!

Obviously you have never been to Houston if you say I've never seen poverty. Also, I grew up in a town where I was a minority. Another thing, there are so many programs out there for the poor to succeed, no excuses. It's up to the parents.

And I wasn't being serious about let'em die, but they need to know this welfare shit is about to go through major changes and cuts so get out there and get a job and start paying for your shit.

7/24/11
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

7/24/11
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods.

No, I've never been to either...thankfully. I'm sick of hearing about disadvantaged blah blah blah. My father came from a very disadvantaged background, where he literally ate potatoes, and only potatoes, for dinner so often that it actually took several decades before he would voluntarily eat them again. He's doing pretty well now despite going to a rural school where several grades were taught in a single classroom for many years. It's utterly amazing he was able to do well for himself when you consider he grew up without a TV, microwave, air conditioning, a car and that he went to a school that didn't have top notch teachers or new books or new facilities, etc, etc, etc.

With that said, I've been to ghettos and projects and in some cases they do look similar to that, but why is that? Is it because the government built the projects like that, or is it because the occupants don't maintain any sense of ownership and/or pride in their residences because they are handed to them...for free?

Also note I never said places similar to the one shown in the picture don't exist. I merely said you are being intellectually dishonest by posting that picture and saying people live there...when it's pretty clear they don't.

awm55:

Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

This part of your response must have inadvertently migrated to my post because I wasn't the one who referenced poverty abroad...

rothyman:

You really show your ignorance when you say 'fuckem letem die' and honestly tells me you probably haven't seen a lot of the shit that I have seen being around the country/the world.

...so please, don't lecture me.

Regards

edit: Oh, and feel free to ask ANT about the picture I recently sent him that was taken by a buddy of mine that works as a law enforcement officer in the projects...it's fucking absurd.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Dude, I am for entitlement reform. Its just that I think everyone needs to contribute to the reform in one way or another. The poor and middle class via cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and the rich via a small rise in taxes. This is not mind blowing or socialist, its FAIR.

And for all intents and purposes the US is the wealthiest country in the world, small European/Middle Eastern countries with the population less than that of one US city aside.

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Looks like 5 star accomadations compared to the poor of most of the rest of the world. Another thing, I guarantee you the poor live their for free, er, at the expense of tax payers. Just like most civilized communities, they should take it upon themselves to clean it up. Take some fucking pride and not wait on the government to tell you what to do.

txjustin, you shouldn't even acknowledge such childish posts. That picture is not of a neighborhood where people live and it was intellectually dishonest of awm55 to post it. That is a picture of abandoned buildings, in which no one, other than a vagrant, is living. Anyone who has ever actually been to ANY projects knows that it is impossible to take a picture of an empty street and porch stoops in the middle of the day because while the rest of the country is at work and not likely to be home, these welfare leeches have no where to be (other than court, maybe) and nothing better to do than sit on their front stoops and gossip.

On the whole, there is unequivocally no comparison between being "poor" in the US and being poor elsewhere in the world...and it's flat out disingenuous to say, or imply, that is the case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern...

Regards

Have you ever been to Camden New Jersey or Northern Philadelphia? The picture I posted is not unusual AT ALL for poor inner city neighborhoods. Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

I'm going to clusterfuck your liberal mind so hardcore that tiger blood will be leaking out of your ears...so brace yourself...

The US is NOT the wealthiest country on Earth, nowhere close, especially on a per capita basis. If we don't cut our spending and instead honor our current entitlement liabilities, as well as state, local, and personal liabilities, we're bankrupt. The only way to restore any semblance of financial health is to reduce our entitlement liabilities. So yes, not only is the comparison appropriate, but enlightening. We are not wealthy, and our poor are already well off, so why spend more?

When Donald Trump was in the midst of his bankruptcy proceedings, he walked by a homeless guy with his daughter. He told her, "that guy asking me for money is wealthier than me". She looked at him incredulous and he said, "because if you take into account my liabilities, my net worth is negative, his is zero". America is like Donald Trump back then, it CAN be exorbitantly wealthy and certainly appears so, but it needs to get from A to B and do the right things. Right now though, that remains to be seen and arguments that "oh we are so wealthy so let's give more to the poor" are plain wrong. It's that type of thinking that will bankrupt us as a nation. It's as if Donald Trump said back then, "oh my assets are $2B, so let me give $1B to the poor" without paying attention to the fact that his liabilities are already $3B.

And btw, there's tons of evidence out there that suggests that the worst thing you can do to a poor person, is entitlements. When you remove someone's need for personal responsibility, it's not surprising that they lose their personal responsibility. The sons and daughters of welfare families that have gone on to succeed usually say that welfare was a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Dude, I am for entitlement reform. Its just that I think everyone needs to contribute to the reform in one way or another. The poor and middle class via cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and the rich via a small rise in taxes. This is not mind blowing or socialist, its FAIR.

And for all intents and purposes the US is the wealthiest country in the world, small European/Middle Eastern countries with the population less than that of one US city aside.

By and large, the Republicans have been willing to raise tax revenues by making the tax code more efficient. That would hit the rich more than anyone else. I don't see why you think the rich are not contributing...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

You honestly can't compare America with the rest of the world and the quality of living. They put themselves in those living conditions. There is no better place in the world for opportunities. The government has enabled them to live like that and continues to allow it. Enough is enough.

This is a government mandated standard of living?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Camden_NJ_povert...

Showing abandoned property in a city that has decreased in size because of governmental mismanagement is not really what you should be striving for here buddy...

Your example is just stupid, it doesn't say anything. I could just as easily post a picture of a decayed Detroit neighborhood and say, "see, this is what Democrats do to your economy!" Would that make logical sense to you? Your post/argument is equally ridiculous.

Looking at just about any objective measure, America's poor live very, very well. In fact, if their quality of life is poor, it is their own doing (drugs, violence, and other social things that government will never be able to control).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/23/11

Half this country pay nothing. I think the issue is we have 150MM free riders.

The poor in Camden are kings in Somalia. Our poor are pretty well off.

7/23/11

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

7/23/11
blastoise:

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

My reasoning is pretty simple:

Whatever we give the government is going to be completely shitted down the drain. Does anyone who advocates more taxes actually believe that ANY of this money will be used to pay down the debt and not just thrown at more pet projects to get these guys reelected? Or maybe another Nancy Pelosi $150K open bar happy hour on her taxpayer owned private jet?

7/24/11
Nobama88:
blastoise:

what are the arguments against raising taxes when the United States is 15 trillion in debt?

My reasoning is pretty simple:

Whatever we give the government is going to be completely shitted down the drain. Does anyone who advocates more taxes actually believe that ANY of this money will be used to pay down the debt and not just thrown at more pet projects to get these guys reelected? Or maybe another Nancy Pelosi $150K open bar happy hour on her taxpayer owned private jet?

This is what I am talking about, the utter lies that you guys are spoon fed. I know the Dems are guilty of it as well but I swear the republican party has absolutely no shame. The shit you guys come up with is like reading a bad tabloid.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements...

If you go on Politifact and skim through it without fail most of the completely batshit crazy made up slander is said by Republican's.

7/23/11

People are born into poverty all over the world. People are born poor and come to the US and do very well. US poor have free education K-12, plenty of assistance programs, charities, etc. Not saying it is easy, but it is entirely possible.

The real thing that screws poor kids is bad parenting and that is something that cannot be controlled.

Tax increases cannot solve this problem. Only half the country shoulder the burden. We spend too damn much. What we need to do is cut tax credits. Why should people be rewarded for having kids? Why should people deduct mortgage interest?

Government needs to get out of the business of trying to reward social behavior.

7/24/11
ANT:

People are born into poverty all over the world. People are born poor and come to the US and do very well. US poor have free education K-12, plenty of assistance programs, charities, etc. Not saying it is easy, but it is entirely possible.

The real thing that screws poor kids is bad parenting and that is something that cannot be controlled.

Tax increases cannot solve this problem. Only half the country shoulder the burden. We spend too damn much. What we need to do is cut tax credits. Why should people be rewarded for having kids? Why should people deduct mortgage interest?

Government needs to get out of the business of trying to reward social behavior.

What are you talking about?

We are discussing SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programmes need to be revamped gradually, not restructured with a shotgun budget bill for political purposes. Its not like we are talking about giving some sponger family cash to buy a new tv, its support so the poor and elderly can get acces to healthcare and live comfortably in their older years.

You guys are really showing your true colors and its not pretty.

7/24/11

there's a basic level of decency that we should guarantee one another. I agree that the welfare system is as we have it is poorly developed, but that doesn't mean that the alternative is no support at all for people who need it.

7/24/11
09grad:

there's a basic level of decency that we should guarantee one another. I agree that the welfare system is as we have it is poorly developed, but that doesn't mean that the alternative is no support at all for people who need it.

Agree, but support should be ultra minimal and provided in as capitalist a way as possible. We are very, very far from that. Arguments that if we don't raise the debt ceiling that "people will starve" are ridiculous. More likely than not, Moesha won't be getting the latest iPhone. I can live with that...

My point is, the poor in America live so well, and have so many things that would be considered luxuries anywhere else, that to suggest that we bankrupt the country so that they can keep these living standards is ridiculous.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11

Actually awm, I think we need a "shotgun blast" bill that changes Medicare/Medicaid/SS over ten years, just like Obama was going to implement universal health care over ten years.

Rothyman, just because people rely on entitlements is terrible reasoning for why we should give them to them. You're telling me that I should keep paying for people's welfare checks because they've grown happy collecting them. And I know plenty of people that are and it's bullshit. Another "shotgun blast" bill winding down entitlement spending is needed.

Defense spending cuts need to be made as well, of course.

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

7/24/11

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

7/24/11
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

How are they set up to fail? Hell, here in Texas you can't even fail your kids anymore. What a joke. No accountability anymore. NO pride. Liberals think everyone should and will succeed. Guess what, that's not realistic. Give them the opportunity, which is being done, then let their parents do the rest. It sounds to me like you want the .gov to be mommy and daddy. If that's what you want, move to Europe.

7/24/11
txjustin:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

How are they set up to fail? Hell, here in Texas you can't even fail your kids anymore. What a joke. No accountability anymore. NO pride. Liberals think everyone should and will succeed. Guess what, that's not realistic. Give them the opportunity, which is being done, then let their parents do the rest. It sounds to me like you want the .gov to be mommy and daddy. If that's what you want, move to Europe.

Well in Texas they change textbooks and science classes to teach creationism and intelligent design.

7/24/11
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

The vast majority of revenue needed to fund education is for pensions I believe, it has far less to do with salaries. You cannot cut the pensions of teachers that have been contractually bound, which is what Christie in NJ was trying to do. You can cut pensions for new incoming teachers, but not for teachers who have been working for an entire career.

7/24/11
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
awm55:
alexpasch:
ke18sb:

ANT, seriously your posts make it seem like you are so far removed from reality. Sure poor kids have free school, but those schools are a joke. Don't pretend they have the same opportunities as others. The poor, especially the kids, are set up to fail.

Yeah, so the Dems solution is to pay more money to shitty teachers that are not getting results. The Republicans solution is vouchers and other free market reforms to the system that would make schools/teachers compete. Many other countries have more Republican style public education systems (ironically, Europe), and they are loads better.

There is a difference between a teacher being shitty and the kids not showing up.

Yes, and only one of those problems is fixable by government. If the kids are not showing up, why should we spend more money on those schools?

You do realize that teachers make less than half after decades working than a first year analyst makes in their first year...

And? Please explain to me why this is wrong? If teachers' skills are better used elsewhere, then surely they can quit their job and do something else that will pay them more. I'm sure that if we offered to pay teachers $1K a year, that they would all quit. The fact that teachers are not quitting en masse suggests to me that they are content with their compensation/profession.

Your point has no basis in logic, it's an oft-cited, retarded platitude. You want to run the economy on that? Go right ahead. Hell, let's pay all the teachers MD salary. Let's see how that one works out.

The vast majority of revenue needed to fund education is for pensions I believe, it has far less to do with salaries. You cannot cut the pensions of teachers that have been contractually bound, which is what Christie in NJ was trying to do. You can cut pensions for new incoming teachers, but not for teachers who have been working for an entire career.

When Enron went bankrupt, people lost their pensions. When/if NJ goes bankrupt, these teachers will lose their pension. Now, do you think they should lose it all at once, suddenly, or maybe make concessions now that will allow for a smoother transition and allow the state to stay solvent? They're actually far worse off in the former scenario, because let's face it, teachers are not smart and act like the pension is going to be there forever. And the teachers never deserved those ridiculous pensions in the first place. Total malfeasance on the part of government.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11

Parenting is the issue. Dirt poor people come from aroun the world and succeed. You know why schools in bad areas suck? Because the kids are violent, disruptive and unruly. No one wants to teach in the hood because it is a living hell. If parents taught these kids to respect teachers and that an education was the way out the schools would be a lot better.

Government cannot stop bad parenting. There will always be poor, there will always be bad areas, that is life.

The government is not intended to be a parent. It needs to shrink and spend less. If you feel so compelled to help the poor go donate your time and money. It will be more effective than a government program.

Besides, we are talking about the federal budget. Schools are largely a state issue and money isn't solving the problem anyway. If you want to fix schools you bring back year long schooling, school uniforms and you have a zero tolerance for disruptions and violence. Schools in bad areas need to be run like bootcamps and teachers need to have authority to teach discipline, something the parents completely fail to do so.

Friggin animals instinctually know how to raise their children, but humans so utterly fail all the time. What a joke.

I'll donate to a program that buys free condoms and birth control so morons who can't raise a kid don't have them.

7/24/11
ANT:

Parenting is the issue. Dirt poor people come from aroun the world and succeed. You know why schools in bad areas suck? Because the kids are violent, disruptive and unruly. No one wants to teach in the hood because it is a living hell. If parents taught these kids to respect teachers and that an education was the way out the schools would be a lot better.

Government cannot stop bad parenting. There will always be poor, there will always be bad areas, that is life.

The government is not intended to be a parent. It needs to shrink and spend less. If you feel so compelled to help the poor go donate your time and money. It will be more effective than a government program.

Besides, we are talking about the federal budget. Schools are largely a state issue and money isn't solving the problem anyway. If you want to fix schools you bring back year long schooling, school uniforms and you have a zero tolerance for disruptions and violence. Schools in bad areas need to be run like bootcamps and teachers need to have authority to teach discipline, something the parents completely fail to do so.

Friggin animals instinctually know how to raise their children, but humans so utterly fail all the time. What a joke.

I'll donate to a program that buys free condoms and birth control so morons who can't raise a kid don't have them.

To add on to your last sentence: we fucking reward people for having kids! Unbelievable!! I'll definitely donate!

7/24/11

While I agree that parenting is a huge issue, you guys are over simplifying a much larger societal issue that its worth getting into. Its not black and white nor easy nor cheap to fix.

7/24/11
ke18sb:

While I agree that parenting is a huge issue, you guys are over simplifying a much larger societal issue that its worth getting into. Its not black and white nor easy nor cheap to fix.

I agree somewhat. Problem is, we have not been trying to fix it. It needs to be addressed now. We can't continue to subsidize the lives of the poor permanently.

7/24/11

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

7/24/11
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

7/24/11
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

7/24/11
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

7/24/11
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

7/24/11
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

7/24/11
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

7/24/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

I didn't say anything was wrong with it. We all hear the bitching and moaning all the time that [insert group] are people too and should be treated as equals so why not do that? Just teach history and if someone happens to like weiners in their various holes then talk about it if it comes up. This is the same reason a lot of educated African Americans hate Black History month.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

7/24/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

7/24/11
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

7/24/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

quoted for length!

7/24/11
blastoise:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
Nobama88:
awm55:
txjustin:

That example and the way California is now teaching gay history, or whatever it's called, is another example of why the government today is a failure. I bet all those liberal teachers just love Texas' new textbooks, haha.

What? Gay history is actual fact and actually happened and is no different than teaching the history of any other minority group. Intelligent design is based on the teaching of a religion with absolutely no fact to back it up. It has no place in schools.

WTF is the difference between gay history and hetero history? Now instead of learning about the history of Alexander the Great, do the 5th grade social studies teacher have to point out that Alexander the Great fucked little boys? I dont get it...

Wow, classy guy.

I think they would teach the civil rights fight aspect of it...

No, I am dead serious. I want you to tell me the difference between hetero and gay history. California is requiring public schools in the state to teach students about the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americas. AKA, instead of teaching about the history of Alexander the Great, as most of us were taught, they will now have to tell the students that he was more then likely gay who fucked young boys within his own army?

I dont get it. What is the difference between hetero and gay history?... the bill does not address teaching the civil rights fight aspect WHATSOEVER, this is requiring teaching every contribution.

really? in that case then I agree with you, I thought it was being taught similair to the black civil rights movement.

that being said, i hardly see the issue with mentioning the fact that certain people throughout history were homosexual.

Nope, you would think that but it isn't. They are literally looking for accomplished people in history that were also gay and teaching about them and their accomplishments

Whats wrong with that? Its a decent way to change the perspective of how young kids view homosexuals, because lets be honest gay people don't exactly handle their public image all that well.

Quit with all this bullshit. I cannot remember 1 time in my educational life where a teacher distinguished a historical character as homo or hetero.

i think that is the point...

quoted for length!

I'm pretty sure girth is far more important.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11

Yah because knowing about evolution is absolutely essential when it comes to having work force skills. Religious people can't hold jobs because evolution makes them unemployable.

I love how we are discussing fiscal issues and anti religion spills out. Once again, everyone is ready to throw more money at something that time and time again has proven that money is not the solution. Maybe if all the tax and spend liberals volunteered 10 hours a week something real could get done. Naaaaa.

7/24/11
ANT:

Yah because knowing about evolution is absolutely essential when it comes to having work force skills. Religious people can't hold jobs because evolution makes them unemployable.

I love how we are discussing fiscal issues and anti religion spills out. Once again, everyone is ready to throw more money at something that time and time again has proven that money is not the solution. Maybe if all the tax and spend liberals volunteered 10 hours a week something real could get done. Naaaaa.

Or if those same liberals would lead by example and donate instead of tax...naaaaaa. Theft is always the best option.

7/24/11

You are the very reason my kids will go to private schools. Indoctrination of liberal propaganda has no place in schools. You are too stuck on liberal/conservative to see the point I was making.

7/24/11

Haha, great points Bravo! I hadn't thought of those and they are very true! Those streets would be filled with people sitting at small tables playing domino's and drinking 40s.

7/24/11

I've been to Camden and all over Philly. I see kids out at all times at night, talking shit and flash mobbing. These kids are not starving and wearing rags. The violence in Philly schools is horrible. Please tell me how it is not a parenting issue? If I was disruptive in school my parents would have fucked me up. I guess that is why I turned out fine.

Good parenting is the key. Money does not make up for basic manners and knowing right from wrong. Ghetto schools suck because no one wants to teach dangerous kids. How can kids who want to learn gain anything from school when they are surrounded by violent and disruptive kids.

I've volunteered in bad schools extensively and it is flat out a bad parenting issue.

Oh, I also worked with a Camden charity that taught real world skills to inner city adults. It was a religious group also. Too bad stupid religious people can never hold a job. I'm still looking for an athiest charity.

7/24/11
ANT:

I've been to Camden and all over Philly. I see kids out at all times at night, talking shit and flash mobbing. These kids are not starving and wearing rags. The violence in Philly schools is horrible. Please tell me how it is not a parenting issue? If I was disruptive in school my parents would have fucked me up. I guess that is why I turned out fine.

Good parenting is the key. Money does not make up for basic manners and knowing right from wrong. Ghetto schools suck because no one wants to teach dangerous kids. How can kids who want to learn gain anything from school when they are surrounded by violent and disruptive kids.

I've volunteered in bad schools extensively and it is flat out a bad parenting issue.

Oh, I also worked with a Camden charity that taught real world skills to inner city adults. It was a religious group also. Too bad stupid religious people can never hold a job. I'm still looking for an athiest charity.

I worked at a church in Camden New Jersey, nice try.

7/24/11

PS Alexander the Great was not American obviously. He was just the first example that came to my head of someone I learned about early in grade school who may or may not have been gay. Point being, I dont understand the difference between hetero and gay history and how you could teach it to young kids as such. I never learned about someones contributions in school and was told "this guy is a heterosexual".

7/24/11

Any one who held a weekend long position are you shitting in your pants atm? Going to be interesting to see where Asia opens!

7/24/11

Wow, you volunteered at a church in Camden. That disqualifies my experience because there is only one charity in the whole city.

I wish the government would just take 100% of our wages so we could finally live in Eutopia.

7/24/11

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

7/24/11
ANT:

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

what ya thinking about nation wide in high school students must take at least 8 semesters of math, 2 of chemistry, 2 of bio, 1 typing class, 1 econ, 4 English, rest are electives free of choosing(yes even gym)

at my high school would be like this

so out of 40 credits there would be a minimum
8 in math
2 in chem
2 in bio
1 in typing
1 in econ
4 in English

leaving 40 - 18 - 22 classes they can freely chose from for minimum diploma

let's be honest do hsers really need to learn about arcane words no one uses any more that are forgotten by end of year?

7/24/11
ANT:

We are falling behind in basic education, but gay history is where we are focusing on. Makes sense. Who needs math as long as you can identify prominent gays throughout history.

Talk about a group of people pushing a political agenda. Thanks, but I'll teach morality and right and wrong in my own house. I don't need the nanny state teaching ethics and beliefs.

I think its more the fact that some states are mandating intelligent design which would negatively effect the US's education system, not the fact that some curriculums make a point of stating that certain famous historical figures happen to be gay.

7/24/11

Don't even know where I came in on that response I was talking to txjustin.. and yes I still stand by my statement. Anyone who is going to say 'fuckem letem die' doesn't really deserve to be in the conversation in the first place. He responded anyways saying that he didn't really mean it, so it's a null issue.

7/24/11

Man, I used to get so worked up over this shit on here. Just not worth it. But, let's be clear about something. The position held by the House Republicans is supported by ~5 - 10% of Americans. Basically, the House Republicans are holding the economic health of the country hostage to do the bidding of 8% of the country. Polls show that the majority of Americans want a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And the plans being put forth are mainly talking about tax increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and cleaning up the tax code.

7/24/11
TheKing:

Man, I used to get so worked up over this shit on here. Just not worth it. But, let's be clear about something. The position held by the House Republicans is supported by ~5 - 10% of Americans. Basically, the House Republicans are holding the economic health of the country hostage to do the bidding of 8% of the country. Polls show that the majority of Americans want a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. And the plans being put forth are mainly talking about tax increases in the form of closing tax loopholes and cleaning up the tax code.

First off, if you look at polls, you can see that the response to of "No" to the question of "Would you raise the debt ceiling and allow the government to borrow more?" was substantially higher than 5 to 10%. And, even if it were that low, did it ever occur to you how retarded 90+% of the American population is? What if the 10% who support something happen to be the smartest individuals on the topic? Thank god we have a Republic and not Referendum Democracy (look how well that's worked for California, LOL).

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/24/11
7/24/11

God bless. If you read this damn thread start to finish you'd want to run out into the street stark naked and pray a bus hits you to end the misery...

Americans need to suck shit up. That means EVERYONE not just the rich.

To the point of the original post: Politics is killing this country, our jobs, and our economy. If Obama thinks that passing a debt ceiling increase to maintain the status quo and then espousing cuts that don't even take effect until after his first term just so he can get re-elected... FUCK THAT!!!

This is serious shit. Fucking be a man. Anyone who calls his terms and conditions on any budget proposal "centrist" doesn't have a fucking clue.

Dems haven't put one bill together. Obama said anything that doesn't get him through till after the 2012 election he'll veto. Repubs asked that the cuts be now not in the future. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous.

The cuts need to start now. End all duplicate spending. Cut congresses salary and benefits. End subsidies. Deregulate everything and end the federal departments that regulate them.

I'm going to post on the new CFPB in the next few days by drawing analogies between it and other "well intended" programs that end up as drains on the American tax payer and a burden to business/the economy, as part of a research report.

7/24/11

30% of my income goes to taxes. I think 1/3 is plenty. I honestly cannot believe people think paying a third of your income to the government is not enough.

People fail to realize that the government might raise taxes, but that doesn't mean the extra income will go to paying down the debt. It will get siphoned off to another pork barrel program or entitlement. In 10 years they will be back with their hand out asking for more. I am sorry, but asking a man to pay 1/3rd of their money is far enough. Maybe if we made everyone pay into the system instead of only 50% of this country things would get better.

7/24/11

Any increase in taxes will fail unless it is written in the bill that money from the increase will only be spent on debt reduction or whatever.

The general fund is the Bermuda triangle of tax dollars.

7/24/11
ANT:

Any increase in taxes will fail unless it is written in the bill that money from the increase will only be spent on debt reduction or whatever.

The general fund is the Bermuda triangle of tax dollars.

i agree

7/24/11

How are the Republicans looking horrible to anyone but Democrats?

You know who hates the Republicans and think that they are retarded? Democrats. Republican voters are loving this. Why would they try and make people who will never vote for them like them?

I think the Democrats look like fools. The economy sucks and you want to increase taxes on an ever decreasing tax base?

7/24/11
ANT:

How are the Republicans looking horrible to anyone but Democrats?

You know who hates the Republicans and think that they are retarded? Democrats. Republican voters are loving this. Why would they try and make people who will never vote for them like them?

I think the Democrats look like fools. The economy sucks and you want to increase taxes on an ever decreasing tax base?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20080250-50...

7/24/11

Well then we agree. I would happily support an increase in taxes if it ONLY went to pay down debt and once things we well within hand, the tax cuts would end.

Unfortunately that is not what is being proposed and you know as well as I do that the government is less than honest, both parties included.

It is like a crack head with a mortgage. You know they need the money to pay for their house, but the second they get your check it is right into the pipe.

7/24/11

30% man. One third. Only 50% pay anything.

If you want to raise taxes by eliminating tax credits I will support you, but increasing income taxes is dead on arrival.

I also looked at that poll. The PDF with the raw data wouldn't open for me, but I don't think 810 Americans is enough of a sample size. Also, they ran with the negative headline on the Republicans for a reason. 58% think the Dems are sucking and 50% think Obama sucks. This isn't completely the Republicans fault, unlike what the headline tries to convey.

7/25/11
ANT:

30% man. One third. Only 50% pay anything.

If you want to raise taxes by eliminating tax credits I will support you, but increasing income taxes is dead on arrival.

I also looked at that poll. The PDF with the raw data wouldn't open for me, but I don't think 810 Americans is enough of a sample size. Also, they ran with the negative headline on the Republicans for a reason. 58% think the Dems are sucking and 50% think Obama sucks. This isn't completely the Republicans fault, unlike what the headline tries to convey.

Dude, don't even waste your time trying to analyze what all these polls say...they are jokes. Follow the link to the poll below and you will see that Americans are just pissed. Some approve of Obama, some don't, some think we are heading in the wrong direction, some don't. 60% of those polled think both sides need to compromise more, which tells me that the people answering the question don't have any personal beliefs on how the country could/should be fixed...in my opinion, you either support one parties point of view or you don't

The point is, there is no clear cut winner or loser. The poll at the link below actually asks the people being polled if they recognize certain names and in most cases over 25% of the respondents have "never heard of" these folks that are leading these talks. That right there should tell you just how useless these are. Not to mention that in some of these polls conducted by CNN and other liberal/left leaning "news" organizations they typically poll 5-7% more Democrats than Republicans.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/cn...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/24/11

I don't think anyone is saying Camden is nice. Let's face it, the ghettos in America are horrendous. But the welfare system is making the problem worse, not better. I used to work during the school year at a company in downtown Durham. Didn't pay "work-study" but they paid me under the table so all was well. But the people I met there told me how they gamed the system to get Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, etc. by getting paid mostly in cash and underreporting income. They would have children that they couldn't support, and rather than set them up for adoption/abortion, they kept them because they would get more money from the state. The money that they earned didn't go tho Jr.s education, their house, moving to a nicer neighborhood or anything. It went to liquor, drugs, TVs, game systems, hair and clothes. Rather than treat the welfare money as income, it was disposable. The fact is that the system as it s now, is too big, too wasteful, and to easy to be gamed/tricked. And when the people get the money they don't spend it wisely.

The school thing could easily be fixed by vouchers. Simple as that. But the teacher's unions don't want layoffs, competition, or the children to succeed at all. They want job security, a pension, and money. I believe most teachers deserve LESS than thy make now. Hell, most people would kill for a job they can't get fired from, gets 3+ months of vacation, and has a massive, guaranteed pension. The "kids not showing up" thing is bullshit. All kids have to go to school under the age of 16 (or so). That's what truant officers and fines are for. Parenting is a huge problem as they don't care if their child drops out, has a child, or bangs everyday. The single working mothers try hard, but it is not possible to work multiple jobs and have a great family life at the same time. While this is sad, it is not fixed by throwing money at the women. As I said, they spend it horrendously. It is a community based problem and culture based. I don't need to go out and spend 2 weeks pay on 22" rims, why do they while their kids eat the free lunch?

You BS survey about how the Republicans suck is terrible. I dont put too much credence into the Washington Examiner poll that was double the sample size of the one you're talking about and guess what? Had a far different result. I think the shit thrown at Obama is far more telling since Congress generally has a low approval rating. Hey, compared to the approval rating of the last Congress (what like 2%?) 29% is mad good.

No one wants our taxes raised except students (since they don't pay), liberals (generally ones who make a lot of $$$ through capital gains), and the people too wealthy to care. Most of America wants spending to be cut. DoD, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc. Hell, I've seen people come to me when I was a cashier at Harris Teeter and put down their new Escalade keys and give me an EBT card. BULLSHIT. F.A. Hayek believed in a safety net, but not a fucking Tempurpedic mattress.

If you want to raise my taxes (although I have like no income) for the good of the poor...why don't you fucking liberals go and donate to charity. I donate to my church, even when I was little. But the liberals can't donate to anything religious or religious sounding? Therefore they'd rather the government just take it and waste 1/2. I call that just being FUCKING LAZY.

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
MMBinNC:

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? And may I suggest, if you do not understand evolution, that you read up on it? You are obviously very ignorant when it comes to this topic. If you have a degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and wish to provide intelligent refutations, instead of some moronic platitudes, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, please STFU.

Whether it be evolution, global warming, economics, or whatever, it amazes me how often people disregard logic/reason and form strong opinions when they know absolutely nothing on the topic at hand. People just believe whatever they want to believe. I don't fucking voice an opinion on topics on which I'm ill informed. If I voice a strong opinion on something, it's because I've done my fucking homework and know the facts. Does this mean I'm always right? Of course not, but goddamnit, I've at least done my best to be well informed. Why are people telling me what the tax/spending ratio should be when they have never seen the numbers? Why are people who don't understand evolution preaching to me about how ID merits anywhere near the same level of respect? Why are some of you so fucking stupid? I don't care if you disagree with me on any topic, no matter how inane, but for fuck's sake, give me facts and reason, not emotionally charged hearsay.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11
alexpasch:
MMBinNC:

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? And may I suggest, if you do not understand evolution, that you read up on it? You are obviously very ignorant when it comes to this topic. If you have a degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and wish to provide intelligent refutations, instead of some moronic platitudes, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, please STFU.

Whether it be evolution, global warming, economics, or whatever, it amazes me how often people disregard logic/reason and form strong opinions when they know absolutely nothing on the topic at hand. People just believe whatever they want to believe. I don't fucking voice an opinion on topics on which I'm ill informed. If I voice a strong opinion on something, it's because I've done my fucking homework and know the facts. Does this mean I'm always right? Of course not, but goddamnit, I've at least done my best to be well informed. Why are people telling me what the tax/spending ratio should be when they have never seen the numbers? Why are people who don't understand evolution preaching to me about how ID merits anywhere near the same level of respect? Why are some of you so fucking stupid? I don't care if you disagree with me on any topic, no matter how inane, but for fuck's sake, give me facts and reason, not emotionally charged hearsay.

I didn't say that I didn't understand or believe in evolution. While I am not a bio major I have taken classes in genetics and evolution. (For what reason, I don't know lol- certainly not my degree) I honestly hadn't read the third page of comments when I wrote this and one of the last ones on that page was awm saying how we are making America's kids stupider by mentioning ID. I don't see how anyone can believe that everything in the universe arose from nothing and became as it is from randomness. Even so the mention of ID by a teacher doesn't lend anywhere near as much weight as evolution. Hell courses in college, semesters in college are spent on evolution and genetics. I am pretty much in the boat that if you believe in God you believe in some kind of ID. If you can't accept that I really don't care.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
MMBinNC:
alexpasch:
MMBinNC:

Oh and Intelligent Design.....waht is wrong with that. The 8% of America that are atheists can opt out of that class or something, but I feel it is a major leap of faith (lol) to say we all just became what we are by fucking luck. No scientist can or ever will be able to explain what was the genesis. So have fun with your crazy theory of shit popping out of nowhere, evolution and natural laws just happening, intelligent just evolving, etc. Its all just BS unti you can tell me how it started. And when you can say that, maybe intelligent design can die. But it is utterly ridiculous that the two cannot coexist. The presence of evolution doesn't disprove intelligent design, but intelligent design could destroy what the atheist want to believe. It is sickening that people believe that ID is hurting America. I've learned ID and creationism in class and its not like the teacher getts up and is like "Well, the Lord Baby Jesus looked at space and said, I think their needs to be a planet 'round here". It's more like, alternate theories exist and here they are. If anything it teaches children to question convention, not retard them.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? And may I suggest, if you do not understand evolution, that you read up on it? You are obviously very ignorant when it comes to this topic. If you have a degree in biology with an emphasis on evolutionary biology and wish to provide intelligent refutations, instead of some moronic platitudes, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, please STFU.

Whether it be evolution, global warming, economics, or whatever, it amazes me how often people disregard logic/reason and form strong opinions when they know absolutely nothing on the topic at hand. People just believe whatever they want to believe. I don't fucking voice an opinion on topics on which I'm ill informed. If I voice a strong opinion on something, it's because I've done my fucking homework and know the facts. Does this mean I'm always right? Of course not, but goddamnit, I've at least done my best to be well informed. Why are people telling me what the tax/spending ratio should be when they have never seen the numbers? Why are people who don't understand evolution preaching to me about how ID merits anywhere near the same level of respect? Why are some of you so fucking stupid? I don't care if you disagree with me on any topic, no matter how inane, but for fuck's sake, give me facts and reason, not emotionally charged hearsay.

I didn't say that I didn't understand or believe in evolution. While I am not a bio major I have taken classes in genetics and evolution. (For what reason, I don't know lol- certainly not my degree) I honestly hadn't read the third page of comments when I wrote this and one of the last ones on that page was awm saying how we are making America's kids stupider by mentioning ID. I don't see how anyone can believe that everything in the universe arose from nothing and became as it is from randomness. Even so the mention of ID by a teacher doesn't lend anywhere near as much weight as evolution. Hell courses in college, semesters in college are spent on evolution and genetics. I am pretty much in the boat that if you believe in God you believe in some kind of ID. If you can't accept that I really don't care.

I believe your belief in god (lowercase) causes you to believe whatever you want, logic and reason be damned (I'll respond to your powerpoint next). Ordinarily, I wouldn't care, except for the fact that you actually think it's worthwhile for someone else's kids to be taught some incorrect bullshit just because you're (whether willfully or not) ignorant. I don't see how anyone can believe that there's an old guy in the clouds. That to me is much more ridiculous than believing in evolution or any other scientifically observed REALITY. (look up what "theory" means in the scientific realm...it's much, much, much stricter definition and colloquial usage of the word is misleading...there's tons of observed, and peer reviewed evidence for evolution across a variety of scientific disciplines) Religion does not belong in schools, plain and simple.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

7/25/11
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

7/25/11
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

I think that it is because of who is in office. I like many constituents, see this as the best bargaining chip for the Republicans with Obama in office. The Democrats see it as the difference between a deal and an economic downturn/blaming Obama/loss of the Presidency. I have no qualms that in the opposite situation (Republican President/Democrat congress) Democrats would be pushing for high taxes and minimal spending cuts and screwing the President in every way possible on the way. the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of the debt and the Republicans who were elected on the basis of cutting spending. The Democrats only care about spending when Republicans are in office. These Tea Party republicans will hopefully care beyond the Democrat President, or we'll be back here in a few years- but much worse off.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
MMBinNC:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

I think that it is because of who is in office. I like many constituents, see this as the best bargaining chip for the Republicans with Obama in office. The Democrats see it as the difference between a deal and an economic downturn/blaming Obama/loss of the Presidency. I have no qualms that in the opposite situation (Republican President/Democrat congress) Democrats would be pushing for high taxes and minimal spending cuts and screwing the President in every way possible on the way. the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of the debt and the Republicans who were elected on the basis of cutting spending. The Democrats only care about spending when Republicans are in office. These Tea Party republicans will hopefully care beyond the Democrat President, or we'll be back here in a few years- but much worse off.

Republicans only care about spending when a democrat is in office.

7/25/11
awm55:
MMBinNC:
awm55:
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

I agree, its all political postering. The difference is back then the US was not at threat of sending shockwaves throughout the world's financial system potentially throwing off a fragile recovery. Its much different this time around and that is blatently obvious.

I think that it is because of who is in office. I like many constituents, see this as the best bargaining chip for the Republicans with Obama in office. The Democrats see it as the difference between a deal and an economic downturn/blaming Obama/loss of the Presidency. I have no qualms that in the opposite situation (Republican President/Democrat congress) Democrats would be pushing for high taxes and minimal spending cuts and screwing the President in every way possible on the way. the reason the debt ceiling is a problem is because of the debt and the Republicans who were elected on the basis of cutting spending. The Democrats only care about spending when Republicans are in office. These Tea Party republicans will hopefully care beyond the Democrat President, or we'll be back here in a few years- but much worse off.

Republicans only care about spending when a democrat is in office.

I don't disagree. That was alluded to in the last sentence of my response. The amount of people trying to gain political capital with this is amazing. But like I said, hopefully the tea party Republicans are responsible enough to their base to say the same to a Republican who wants to start an errant war or double the DoD's budget.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
happypantsmcgee:

Here's a fun fact. For all the bitching thats coming from the left about the republicans 'not wanting to raise the debt ceiling as a political move to make Obama look bad' (the basis of that argument being that its been raised 91 + times previously). In 2006, 44 of 45 Democrats voted against raising the debt ceiling.

Equally as ironic, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who bashed a balanced budget amendment was for one just a few years ago. I haven't checked all of these but here are some of the others who have done likewise but now say a balanced budget amendment is out of the question:

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): "Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I'm for... a balanced budget amendment." (Rep. Brown, "Where I Stand," YouTube, 11/1/06)

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): "I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party." (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): "It's time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing - balance the budget." (Sen. Begich, "Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote," Press Release, 4/15/11)

SEN. BILL NELSON (D-FL): "Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment..." (Sen. Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): "[T]he balanced budget amendment's very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also." (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): "I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters." (Sen. Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SEN. MARK UDALL (D-CO): "I've long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole." (Sen. Udall, "Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment," Press Release, 2/1/11)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): "U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week... pledging support for the idea." ("Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget," Denver Post, 3/6/11)

SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): "I think they should. ...It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it's a goal we've got to work toward..." "...responding to a question of why the federal government can't have a balanced budget amendment..." SEN. CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): "I think they should. ...It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it's a goal we've got to work toward..." ("McCaskill For 'Responsible' Balanced Budget Amendment," PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): "New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard." (Rep. Gillibrand, "Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget," The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SEN. TOM CARPER (D-DE): "As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution..." (Sen. Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "...I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that." (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): "I believe deeply in the need to balance the Federal budget... I would support an amendment to the Constitution." (Sen. Conrad, Congressional Record, S.1147, 2/10/97)

SEN. HERB KOHL (D-WI): "The balanced budget amendment does, in my opinion, embody a principle simple and vital enough to deserve inclusion in the Constitution." (Sen. Kohl, Congressional Record, S.1609, 2/26/97)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): "I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment..." (Sen. Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): "The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment." (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-IA): "Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again..." (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): "It is time to get our priorities straight. I've been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment..." (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): "I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget." (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): "...we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment." (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

SEN. JON TESTER (D-MT): "It's absolutely critical." "My folks did not teach me to not have a fiscal balanced budget. It's absolutely critical... Because I am of the belief that you take care of your own self and you don't pass your debts on to your kids... Let's be fiscally responsible. Let's have a fiscally balanced budget." (Montana Senate Debate, 6/25/06)

"Jon Tester will lead efforts to balance the federal budget..." ("Real Change, Real Vision For Montana Plan," Jon Tester Website, Accessed 7/14/11)

Tester Spokesman: "Of course Jon supports a balanced budget..." ("Rehberg Chides Tester Over Budget-Balancing Vote," Billings Gazette, 3/3/11)

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-PA): "I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business." MR. RUSSERT: "Let me find out how you would implement something that you're promising the voters of Pennsylvania. Here's a Casey campaign ad about our budget." (Videotape, Bob Casey campaign ad): MR. CASEY: "I believe in a balanced budget. Government should live within its means, like any small business." MR. RUSSERT: "How would you get a balanced budget?" MR. CASEY: "It's not easy, Tim, but here are the steps we should take. First of all, when it comes to the budget, what's missing principally is a lack of fiscal responsibility, you know that. We've gone from about two, 236 of, of surplus down to 296 in deficit. We need some fiscal discipline." (Pennsylvania Senate Debate, "Meet The Press," 9/3/06)

7/25/11

Also if you feel like it...
http://www.drtimdallas.com/files/Arguments_for_ID.pdf

I realize that he is not a biologist, but still raises some well formed arguments

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
MMBinNC:

Also if you feel like it...
http://www.drtimdallas.com/files/Arguments_for_ID.pdf

I realize that he is not a biologist, but still raises some well formed arguments

I know for a fact that some of the arguments have been refuted quite clearly. We are actually relatively close to recreating the chain of events that leads from chemicals to simple lifeforms (i.e. the earliest steps going from chemicals to lifeforms). There was a TED talk about very, very simple human-made lifeforms (remember seeing it a couple years ago). Much, much fewer bases than his example which had 4 million.

He seems to cite all of these nano-engineered structures as if to say, well humans made these, so obviously some intelligent being made the nano structures of life. There's a huge logical fallacy in saying that (in fact, this logical fallacy is what allows for his entire argument). I don't see him arguing anything else other than this one point. First off, art imitates life. This analogy holds at all scales. For example, a computer is similar to a human brain. Non-living things also have structure/order. Look at a map of our universe and compare to neurons in the brain (there was a great picture put out recently comparing the two). Just because things look similar does not mean they have the same origin or designer (or that the designers shared any characteristics).

There used to be all these people that said "well of course there is ID, look at our fucking eyes...please explain to me how the fuck something so complex could have possibly evolved?" And then the evolutionists figured out everything, even going so far back as to find ultra primitive proto-eyes (literally a single cell), becoming ever more sophisticated as time went by. But no, obviously not evolution at work, despite the overwhelming evidence. Do we know how every single tiny thing evolved? No, but we find out more and more, and in time, when we have even more data on very early biogenisis (i.e. the progression from an abiotic soup to full-blown DNA), we'll be able to fully refute this concept. Note how I could say that we humans designed cameras, so god obviously designed eyes (but I'd argue that's not the case, given the clear evidence of how eyes evolved, and all the variety, difference across species, all of which are explainable via natural selection). I don't see that counteargument (which is but one of the many examples which highlight his logical fallacy) in his powerpoint. Maybe it's because he wants to spin the facts?

Lastly, what about the argument that not everything in nature is done in the most efficient manner (he implicitly assumes this)? For example, when scientists discovered how bees fly, they figured out from their engineering analysis that the way bees regulate flight speed is not the most optimal method. (They adjust amplitude of wingflap, rather than flapping rate, or something like that, look it up). Why did god screw over the bees? Surely an all knowing, supremely powerful intelligent designer would have done it the right way, right? Or maybe, it has to do with the fact the bees flying mechanism evolved from something else that had a different purpose? Why do other insects have flight mechanisms that are more ideal (for example, flies?). Despite looking similar, from an engineering perspective, the difference is substantial. The fact they belong to different branches of evolution explains the difference. This is damning evidence against intelligent design because we can see how similar functions are achieved in different ways exactly as evolution would prescribe - i.e. by random processes enhanced via natural selection (strictly counter to the notion of ID, which implicitly states - shit, this stuff is so complicated so chance/random processes obviously had nothing to do with it).

And yes, he is clearly not a biologist. At the very least, if you insist on believing in god, then evolution is his toolkit. Much like how we use our computers to get our work done, god uses evolution to create life. (Actually if anything, the most intelligent designer would set up an efficient algorithm and just press "run", that's essentially what evolution is, if you ultra simplify it). Happy now? Or do I need to go whole hog fundamentalist and believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago?

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11
alexpasch:
MMBinNC:

Also if you feel like it...
http://www.drtimdallas.com/files/Arguments_for_ID.pdf

I realize that he is not a biologist, but still raises some well formed arguments

I know for a fact that some of the arguments have been refuted quite clearly. We are actually relatively close to recreating the chain of events that leads from chemicals to simple lifeforms (i.e. the earliest steps going from chemicals to lifeforms). There was a TED talk about very, very simple human-made lifeforms (remember seeing it a couple years ago). Much, much fewer bases than his example which had 4 million.

He seems to cite all of these nano-engineered structures as if to say, well humans made these, so obviously some intelligent being made the nano structures of life. There's a huge logical fallacy in saying that (in fact, this logical fallacy is what allows for his entire argument). I don't see him arguing anything else other than this one point. First off, art imitates life. This analogy holds at all scales. For example, a computer is similar to a human brain. Non-living things also have structure/order. Look at a map of our universe and compare to neurons in the brain (there was a great picture put out recently comparing the two). Just because things look similar does not mean they have the same origin or designer (or that the designers shared any characteristics).

There used to be all these people that said "well of course there is ID, look at our fucking eyes...please explain to me how the fuck something so complex could have possibly evolved?" And then the evolutionists figured out everything, even going so far back as to find ultra primitive proto-eyes (literally a single cell), becoming ever more sophisticated as time went by. But no, obviously not evolution at work, despite the overwhelming evidence. Do we know how every single tiny thing evolved? No, but we find out more and more, and in time, when we have even more data on very early biogenisis (i.e. the progression from an abiotic soup to full-blown DNA), we'll be able to fully refute this concept. Note how I could say that we humans designed cameras, so god obviously designed eyes (but I'd argue that's not the case, given the clear evidence of how eyes evolved, and all the variety, difference across species, all of which are explainable via natural selection). I don't see that counteargument (which is but one of the many examples which highlight his logical fallacy) in his powerpoint. Maybe it's because he wants to spin the facts?

Lastly, what about the argument that not everything in nature is done in the most efficient manner (he implicitly assumes this)? For example, when scientists discovered how bees fly, they figured out from their engineering analysis that the way bees regulate flight speed is not the most optimal method. (They adjust amplitude of wingflap, rather than flapping rate, or something like that, look it up). Why did god screw over the bees? Surely an all knowing, supremely powerful intelligent designer would have done it the right way, right? Or maybe, it has to do with the fact the bees flying mechanism evolved from something else that had a different purpose? Why do other insects have flight mechanisms that are more ideal (for example, flies?). Despite looking similar, from an engineering perspective, the difference is substantial. The fact they belong to different branches of evolution explains the difference. This is damning evidence against intelligent design because we can see how similar functions are achieved in different ways exactly as evolution would prescribe - i.e. by random processes enhanced via natural selection (strictly counter to the notion of ID, which implicitly states - shit, this stuff is so complicated so chance/random processes obviously had nothing to do with it).

And yes, he is clearly not a biologist. At the very least, if you insist on believing in god, then evolution is his toolkit. Much like how we use our computers to get our work done, god uses evolution to create life. (Actually if anything, the most intelligent designer would set up an efficient algorithm and just press "run", that's essentially what evolution is, if you ultra simplify it). Happy now? Or do I need to go whole hog fundamentalist and believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago?

I don't want to further this debate because it is insignificant to the topic at hand and I am highly ignorant on the whole issue, but the flaw seems to be the assumption that both evolution and ID can't co-exist (though you addressed this toward the end of your post). I grew up going to church and do, admittedly, have a difficult time looking around and convincing myself that there isn't a supreme creator that orchestrated all of this. One the flip side, there are so many terrible things that occur in this world that one must, at some point, question whether there is a God or not. I realize that some people will think that is blasphemy but the bottom line is, if a god or God exists and I was created by it, or in His image, then my ability to question his existence only exists because he bestowed upon me the capability...so I can't be at fault, lol.

Anyways, my point about evolution that you will always run into, especially with those that are religious is the question, "Where did X come from"...where X is the latest scientific discovery that further explains or gives credence to the theory of evolution. So for some, being able to recreate the chain of events that leads chemicals to become simple lifeforms is only going to beg the question, "Where did the chemicals come from?" and so on and so forth.

Ultimately I don't think reverse engineering something will ever disprove ID for many people, especially those that want to believe in something greater than ourselves. Ironically, in either case, one has to suspend disbelief otherwise it will never stop (i.e. if God exists, where did he come from or who created him...and who created the guy that created him, etc. and the same holds true for evolution).

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/25/11

Hahahahaha...one of these things is NOT like the other...

awm55:

I used to do charity work in Camden New Jersey, you would find comparable living conditions in a war torn country and I am being very serious.

awm55:

Seriously, stop comparing third world countries to the wealthiest country in the world, it does not make any sense.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/25/11

alex, let's agree after you shit all over the ppt we end it. I don't truly care enough to respond and the internet in this hospital is dead slow. I'd rather get back to the topic at hand, I hate it when discussions get sidetracked and am embarrassed to say that I (somewhat unwittingly) did that to this thread.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

7/25/11
MMBinNC:

alex, let's agree after you shit all over the ppt we end it. I don't truly care enough to respond and the internet in this hospital is dead slow. I'd rather get back to the topic at hand, I hate it when discussions get sidetracked and am embarrassed to say that I (somewhat unwittingly) did that to this thread.

Fair enough, but please read my response even if you don't wish to reply to it.

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11

I don't want to further this debate but .....

[just kidding, please read the next 4 paragraphs furthering this debate]

Regards

7/25/11
djfiii:

I don't want to further this debate but .....

[just kidding, please read the next 4 paragraphs furthering this debate]

Regards

Clearly I wasn't debating one side or the other...just providing a perspective of why it is probably a pointless debate for most.

Thanks for trying though!

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/25/11
djfiii:

I don't want to further this debate but .....

[just kidding, please read the next 4 paragraphs furthering this debate]

Regards

Thanks for the helpful post.

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

7/25/11
D M:
djfiii:

I don't want to further this debate but .....

[just kidding, please read the next 4 paragraphs furthering this debate]

Regards

Thanks for the helpful post.

I could successfully argue that my post was as helpful as 99% of the others in this thread.

7/25/11

I'm getting the feeling that some people in here don't actually understand the heart of the issue. The Congress passed a budget and already made commitments. This budget necessitated a debt ceiling increase. And now the House Republicans are refusing to raise it despite already passing a budget that made it a reality.

This basically degenerated into an Ayn Rand / Milton Friedman circle jerk with a few dissenters (in the form of moderates) being shouted down as "stoopid libruls."

In other words:

"POOR PEOPLE HAVE IT 2 GOOD IN THIS KUNTRY! THEY HAVE TVS AND REFRIGERATORS TO KEEP THERE FOOD FRESH! THEY SHUD EAT ROTTING MEAT -- JUST PUT EXTRA SPICES ON IT!"

7/25/11
TheKing:

I'm getting the feeling that some people in here don't actually understand the heart of the issue. The Congress passed a budget and already made commitments. This budget necessitated a debt ceiling increase. And now the House Republicans are refusing to raise it despite already passing a budget that made it a reality.

Are you suggesting that we do nothing, despite knowing that it could jeopardize America's future?

TheKing:

"POOR PEOPLE HAVE IT 2 GOOD IN THIS KUNTRY! THEY HAVE TVS AND REFRIGERATORS TO KEEP THERE FOOD FRESH! THEY SHUD EAT ROTTING MEAT -- JUST PUT EXTRA SPICES ON IT!"

Finally, a liberal with a worthwhile plan!!

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/25/11
cphbravo96:
TheKing:

I'm getting the feeling that some people in here don't actually understand the heart of the issue. The Congress passed a budget and already made commitments. This budget necessitated a debt ceiling increase. And now the House Republicans are refusing to raise it despite already passing a budget that made it a reality.

Are you suggesting that we do nothing, despite knowing that it could jeopardize America's future?

TheKing:

"POOR PEOPLE HAVE IT 2 GOOD IN THIS KUNTRY! THEY HAVE TVS AND REFRIGERATORS TO KEEP THERE FOOD FRESH! THEY SHUD EAT ROTTING MEAT -- JUST PUT EXTRA SPICES ON IT!"

Finally, a liberal with a worthwhile plan!!

Regards

1.) I would recommend that Congress doesn't pass a budget that would require raising the debt ceiling in the first place if they are opposed to raising it generally.

2.) I am not a liberal or a conservative. I'm a moderate who thinks adhering to dogmatic views is moronic. If pushing for a plan that is 75% spending cuts (including smart reforms to Medicare / Medicaid) and 25% tax increases (via closing tax loopholes and simplifying the tax code, not raising marginal rates) makes me a "liberal," then I don't even know what to say.

7/25/11
TheKing:

I'm getting the feeling that some people in here don't actually understand the heart of the issue. The Congress passed a budget and already made commitments. This budget necessitated a debt ceiling increase. And now the House Republicans are refusing to raise it despite already passing a budget that made it a reality.

This basically degenerated into an Ayn Rand / Milton Friedman circle jerk with a few dissenters (in the form of moderates) being shouted down as "stoopid libruls."

In other words:

"POOR PEOPLE HAVE IT 2 GOOD IN THIS KUNTRY! THEY HAVE TVS AND REFRIGERATORS TO KEEP THERE FOOD FRESH! THEY SHUD EAT ROTTING MEAT -- JUST PUT EXTRA SPICES ON IT!"

racist

7/25/11
TheKing:

I'm getting the feeling that some people in here don't actually understand the heart of the issue. The Congress passed a budget and already made commitments. This budget necessitated a debt ceiling increase. And now the House Republicans are refusing to raise it despite already passing a budget that made it a reality.

This basically degenerated into an Ayn Rand / Milton Friedman circle jerk with a few dissenters (in the form of moderates) being shouted down as "stoopid libruls."

In other words:

"POOR PEOPLE HAVE IT 2 GOOD IN THIS KUNTRY! THEY HAVE TVS AND REFRIGERATORS TO KEEP THERE FOOD FRESH! THEY SHUD EAT ROTTING MEAT -- JUST PUT EXTRA SPICES ON IT!"

Yeah, those wily Republicans are using procedure for their political benefit, Democrats never do that. Lol, Republicans have been handed a gift in the form of a lever they can pull, and they're yanking it. Democrats would do the same.

Are you serious? I don't care if we give the poor Ferraris, so long as we can afford it, and everyone else has at least two Ferraris. If the US goes bankrupt, who do you think is going to take it up the ass the hardest? The rich people that have been buying gold left and right? Or the poor person with no real assets? What about the lower middle class elderly person with all their savings in bonds, and reliant on SS for income, and Medicare for healthcare?

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

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

7/25/11
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

7/25/11
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

Who cares what the failed states of Europe consider to be 'right wing extremist'? Last time I checked, half of Europe is going under from there extreme left antics. Oh, did I mention we are in the USA and dealing with policy in the US NOT Europe.

7/25/11
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

By what measures? I'm curious...

7/25/11
txjustin:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

By what measures? I'm curious...

Well right now any tax increase is akin to Marxism. When in the history of this country has a 3% rise in taxes on wealthy people been an issue so hard-left that it is worth defaulting on our debt for? Its absolutely stunning.

In the 2008 election McCain specifically chose Palin as VP because he wasn't considered right wing enough and she could pander to the socially conservative hyper religious base. Romney is doing the same thing right now, to win the ticket you have to take a gigantic step to the right to stand a chance. Look at Michelle Bachmann, she is 2nd behind Romney and is a bat shit insane hard right nut job (even most conservatives I know would agree with me here). These people would have never gotten attention 15 years ago.

7/25/11
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

By what measures? I'm curious...

Well right now any tax increase is akin to Marxism. When in the history of this country has a 3% rise in taxes on wealthy people been an issue so hard-left that it is worth defaulting on our debt for? Its absolutely stunning.

In the 2008 election McCain specifically chose Palin as VP because he wasn't considered right wing enough and she could pander to the socially conservative hyper religious base. Romney is doing the same thing right now, to win the ticket you have to take a gigantic step to the right to stand a chance. Look at Michelle Bachmann, she is 2nd behind Romney and is a bat shit insane hard right nut job (even most conservatives I know would agree with me here). These people would have never gotten attention 15 years ago.

I hate socially conservative people, just throwing that out there haha. I wish Republicans in the US were more like conservatives in Britain, which do not have any ties to social conservatism.

I don't see why it matters where the US stands politically relative to other countries. If every country were communist, should we be as well?

In all honesty, political ideology is secondary to execution. I'd rather have a well implemented socialist government than a shittily implemented right-wing one. I think the likelihood of good government is better the smaller government is, but that's not to say it's impossible to have a successful socialist government. That being said, anyone who's been to northern Europe knows why it works over there, and why it will never work over here...

Consultant to a Fortune 50 Company

7/25/11
alexpasch:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

By what measures? I'm curious...

Well right now any tax increase is akin to Marxism. When in the history of this country has a 3% rise in taxes on wealthy people been an issue so hard-left that it is worth defaulting on our debt for? Its absolutely stunning.

In the 2008 election McCain specifically chose Palin as VP because he wasn't considered right wing enough and she could pander to the socially conservative hyper religious base. Romney is doing the same thing right now, to win the ticket you have to take a gigantic step to the right to stand a chance. Look at Michelle Bachmann, she is 2nd behind Romney and is a bat shit insane hard right nut job (even most conservatives I know would agree with me here). These people would have never gotten attention 15 years ago.

I hate socially conservative people, just throwing that out there haha. I wish Republicans in the US were more like conservatives in Britain, which do not have any ties to social conservatism.

I don't see why it matters where the US stands politically relative to other countries. If every country were communist, should we be as well?

In all honesty, political ideology is secondary to execution. I'd rather have a well implemented socialist government than a shittily implemented right-wing one. I think the likelihood of good government is better the smaller government is, but that's not to say it's impossible to have a successful socialist government. That being said, anyone who's been to northern Europe knows why it works over there, and why it will never work over here...

I agree with you. I hope you understand that I am for welfare reform and am actually pretty conservative on issues like this (pro drug testing welfare recipients, anti increasing benefits if a woman on welfare has more kids, etc), but with the current debt situation a shotgun bill that is not well thought out and not well implemented is not going to get us anywhere. I think a 75% cut 25% tax hike (combination of rate increases, closing loopholes, stoping corporate subsidies, etc) is fair in this environment. From my perspective the Republican party is pandering to the fringe amongst them (Tea Party) by refusing to budge on tax issues.

Obama has spent a shit ton of money over the past few years, but we were also in the middle of one of the worst recessions in history. It was unprecedented what had happened.

7/25/11
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

You probably think that because you pay too much attention to the mainstream media. See: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is...

"Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

Care to back up your assertion with a scientific study?

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

7/25/11
D M:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

You probably think that because you pay too much attention to the mainstream media. See: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is...

"Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."

Care to back up your assertion with a scientific study?

That is honestly one of the dumbest things I have ever read, seriously. It is totally 100% subjective.

7/25/11
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

And why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? We are the single greatest nation in the history of the world and the left constantly wants us to mimic the failing policies of other nations. There is a reason we are so great and there is a reason that people dream of one day becoming an American.

What the left always fails to realize about (most of) the right is that we don't base our beliefs on weak opinons that shift as the wind blows. Many folks on the right are guided by personal morals and/or religious beliefs that don't change to cater to popular opinion. Sadly that gets us labeled as stubborn, radical, extreme, fighting progress...none of which is true...but I think most of us are willing to live with those labels rather than sacrifice our beliefs.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

7/25/11
cphbravo96:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I could successfully argue that point as well.

TheKing: I think your definition of moderate is very different than mine.

The litmus test for someone who is conservative has shifted so far to the right in the past 10 years that no republican president in history would be able to live up to it. The democrats by the rest of the world's standards are a center-right party, sorry to burst your bubble but right wing in the US is considered fanatically right wing by most measures.

And why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? We are the single greatest nation in the history of the world and the left constantly wants us to mimic the failing policies of other nations. There is a reason we are so great and there is a reason that people dream of one day becoming an American.

What the left always fails to realize about (most of) the right is that we don't base our beliefs on weak opinons that shift as the wind blows. Many folks on the right are guided by personal morals and/or religious beliefs that don't change to cater to popular opinion. Sadly that gets us labeled as stubborn, radical, extreme, fighting progress...none of which is true...but I think most of us are willing to live with those labels rather than sacrifice our beliefs.

Regards

The modern day Republican party is as far to the right as it has ever been. My uncle was a Republican Senator, my family has always voted Republican, but the pandering to the anti-intellectual social conservative base has turned me off. Now you have the fringe right Tea Party who has your party by the balls and has basically destroyed any hope of a Republican coming out for anything fiscally moderate. When a party is constrained by dogma and is reduced to pandering to a demographic then I am out.

7/25/11
awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
D M:

Sadly, I coul