TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Workers of the world, wake up!
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Let me tell you something I don't personally care who is the one pushing the economic policies in the Bush team, but I can tell you this they are listening exactly what Milton Friedman(the man who literally built the libertarian party/econ Einstein), is saying they should do. Health Care Savings Accounts exactly Friedmans suggestion. Private Accounts for social security same. Tax cuts same. If you don't want to believe me when it comes to what I tell you regarding deficit spending take a look at what he says about it. Keep in mind you liberals(come to realize that Trancer might not be one) that if you try to paint Friedman as anything that is the equivalent of calling Einstein stupid. I listen to the pros, seems like I am the only one around here.

Also you are pointing out only the federal government. Why don't you throw into the equation spending on state and local levels. Just find out how much you guys are spending on education in this country. I think you would be a little astonished considering I am currently attending one of the best public schools in wisconsin and I am surrounded by fucking retard teachers. I mean seriously they don't move there ass on anything and there literally is no motivation to do so. I actually had a teacher that was supposed to teach German and he spent his days talking about his experiences in the Vietnam war. I mean the class actually would just be forgetting the German they learned the year before while attending his class because he wouldn't advance the learning at all. I had a Middle East and Far East History teacher(ultra liberal) who based his class from the CIA world factbook LOL. I have an English teacher that seemed intent on spending an entire week looking at if the rest of the world wasted as much as we do how many Earths we would need. NYC has something like a 15 thousand dollar per child funding for their kids and they can't even fucking read, they than have the tenasity to go get a court not a legislature but a court to ask for an additional 14 thousand per child which includes building repairs as part. Just to let you know our school is one of the best in Wisconsin and operates on less than 8 grand per child. Sorry to get off track, but for the money you spend on education they don't teach you shit, and that should be included in a comprehensive budget analysis of the country.

By the way my suggestion, education vouchers. Students get basically a gift certificate that they can take to any school they want to. The schools than have to compete with eachother. Competition always helps the consumer--the student. Yet again sorry to get off subject if somebody wants to get into this shit start new thread, okay. I needed to blow off some steam.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Alright, Opus. I'm gonna show you what a evil, cold-hearted capitalist I can be...This was such a heartwarming response. Really great stuff. The rich are evil, blah blah blah. Pity the poor. Dammit, we need more of these programs. We need to dictate charity on society. We will get government to wield its mighty monopoly on force and force those evil rich to fork over a larger dollar amount than we ask the average man to fork over, to help out someone less fortunate than he. Charity is great, but it's not something you can govern.

Well I guess one could try to throw me into the extreme fire like you continue to do, Shakka, and unfortunately paint us all Lefties with one, broad Communist brush. I really thought you'd know better by now.

If you are for some reason attempting to call New Deal government programs a form of charity, then by all means please attempt to defend our government and it's policies prior to 1937.

You can start by telling me how great it was to have over 40% of the elderly in poverty.

quote:

Yeah, you mean C-l-i-n-t-o-n, right? Shhhh, don't say it out loud three times. Clinton closed his eyes and rode the wreckless train that hit a wall in 2000. It didn't happen overnight.

Oh, this is a good one - so now the tech-bust is a result of Clinton? Fucking please, man. You're going to have a pretty difficult time defending that one.

I think the argument would be much more enhanced if you perhaps would target Greenspan, if you're going to target any one person in particular.

Otherwise I think it would be more prudent to simply state that the market folks were being completely idiotic buying tech and internet stocks that had no real value whatsoever, that technology had already caught up to the times and that supply went way too far ahead of demand, etc. etc.

Don't give me this shit about Clinton being fucking responsible for all problems that occurred now and then. This fucking gremlin tool of Republicans is getting old.

quote:

On the positive side, the 90's showed what kind of growth a smoothly running, competitive, capitalist economy can generate with the right inputs in place. The tech boom of the 90's was probably a generational event for those on this board that are over the age of 13. But on the downside, the 90's show what can go wrong when the cargo is carried on speculation, hype, excessive greed; all with an irreponsible driver holding the wheel.

Agree completely. So what the hell did Clinton have to do with this?

quote:

The recession that came afterwards has actually probably been weaker than it should have, given the excess of the 90's. It was brought on by a "perfect storm" and some big negative overtones. In all honesty, I do not for one believe that we have seen how bad things will get, as there are still large excesses and overcapacity, interest rates are going up, consumers are still tapped out in credit, there are no more tax cuts to go around, the dollar could very easily head sharply lower--this economy is skating on thin ice. But I digress. We were talking about taxes and I was busy being insensitive...

You're good at it.

I don't really disagree with you much here either. But I do think you're tending to overlook the economic problems we are facing at present as a result of a massive deficit that our president CHOSE to directly put us in (as well as gas prices, etc. etc.), rather than attempting to blame that on a tech boom/bust period. I'm really not seeing much of a correlation between today's and the near future's woes and the tech boom/bust.

quote:

Not that I hate poor people, but your opinion on me seems to be that I resent them, and that I don't care about them because I am not one of them myself. Therefore, government should use it's monopoly on force to make me hand over even more of my money to someone who didn't earn it. As if that will stop that person from pissing my money down the drain on crack cocaine and some new bling. As if money is what makes us equals. Typical liberal mind trick.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, and again I think you're reaching at extremes here.

But I will say this - as a part of our society, we have an obligation TO that society, and to do our part as individuals to make this society great. What is that old line - you are only as good as your weakest link. Well what could be a society's weakest link? Obviously I believe the ones who are in poverty could be argued to be our weakest link in both on a moral AND economic
manner. Think about it a second - how great is a capitalistic society if the gap between the affluent and the poor is huge? How great is a capitalistic society, which we clearly are, if more people from the middle class continue to fall below the poverty line? Considering that analysts from any side of the aisle firmly agree that a strong middle class greatly enhances our economy, does it not follow that as a society we need to make sure that we KEEP our middle class as strong as possible?

Now does that entail bringing down the upper class into the middle class? Does it entail that this is a necessity, as you are seemingly painting my argument as here? God, of course not. But even more so, name me one time in our U.S. history in which we�ve succeeded in doing just that. I cannot think of any time, with either a Democratic president OR Democratic majority in House/Senate, can you?

The point being is that I�m not worried about the affluent getting their money. And even if they don�t get a fair share of their money due as a result of a progressive taxation, that is a part of our society, and rightly so. Or what�s more � suppose that they give a little bit more to help our economy out of a hole � am I suppose to cry about this? Suppose that a repeal of Bush�s tax cut for the top 1% occurs � something like $600 billion, right? Can you imagine what that extra money with interest could go towards � like our deficit? Our Medicare program? Or how about (gasp!) our Social Security program? Yes, with that $600 billion or so with interest, we could actually keep SS solvent for the next 75 years. What a concept, huh?

How on earth is this necessarily a bad thing? Keeping the safety net for EVERYONE solvent? Keeping the elderly, the disabled, and the widowed with their children out of poverty? I cannot think of a descent argument against such a thing, can you?

quote:

How am I fucking them over exactly? By not being generous enough? According to your standards? What these people need is better job training, not another unemployment check. You cannot manipulate the bell curve for a sustained period of time.

And how the hell do you plan on giving them better job training, especially when your President continues to cut those programs while giving them lipservice during his SOTU addresses? I don�t disagree with you on that, again, but honestly there�s a great deal more on what the poverty-stricken need than merely better job training.

People are going into debt and falling below the poverty line, as well as staying there for a variety of reasons � job training is merely one of them. You must address the other issues at hand in order for this problem to become any better.

quote:

Call me selfish, but I live for me first, and then worry about my charity afterwards, and I'm sure there will be some because it's tax deductible, as it should be. If you want to incentivize people to be more generous, then let them deduct the generosity from their taxes, however you want to calculate the number. What's good for this goose is good for the gander. Yeah, fuck the poor. Make sure you pull the knife out of my back on your way out. Wanna kick my dog while you're here?

Okay, you�re selfish, but at least you�re honest.

And it�s not that I don�t share at least a part of your sentiments. I sure don�t want my money to go to someone else�s crack habit. But I do want the gap between the rich and poor to be shrunk, and I do want a stronger middle class. As a capitalist, surely you would want the same, considering a strong middle class does bolster our economy the best.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. You don't get it wages don't mean shit unless you compare prices to wages. Okay first before you can even compare the wages between Europe and U.S. you have to use AFTER TAX INCOME. Then I want you to add up how much you guys spend on gas , a flat, food, a piece of shit car, etc. then see how much you guys got. Keeping that all in mind there is one way to best figure out what country has better standards of living. Whos middle class spends the most on luxurys after that spending.

Jesus fucking Christ, what's with all the fucking ad hominem attacks? Do you not think that a descent level of discourse could be achieved here without all your bullshit labelling?

Fucking get over yourself buddy.

Opus,

If I paint the extremes, it makes it easier to have a black/white argument with you, even if you and I do not argue from diametrically opposing positions!


I will concede that Greenspan is probably more to blame than Clinton, though I guess my bigger point was that the attitude of our culture as a whole during that time period was pretty reflective of the attitude in the Oval Office. Sort of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, which ignored the fact that there were major underlying flaws with the explosive growth that we witnessed. Hey, as long as people were making money hand-over-fist, why ask questions? Greenspan called it irrational exuberance in 1996, and he was right, though he did not take proactive measures to prevent the pop. Instead, a confluence of events ended up providing even easier access to capital, lower borrowing rates, etc. Now, here we are 5 years later and there are still industries that are plagued with overcapacity. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for that fact, but the facts are still what they are. I blame our culture for crossing the thin line and letting greed take control, leaving rational decision making in the back seat.

Believe it or not, I honsetly believe that the President is a role model who must strive to hold himself to a higher standard than most. People tend to emulate the behavior that they see from their leaders. If years from now, we have droves of people acting on what proves to be "flawed intelligence", I'll join hands with you and say it's probably somewhat of a legacy of the Bush administration.

quote:

I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.

Well it seems you continue to do so regardless. Typical conservative � always a lying fuck, aren�t you?

I had forgotten how fun it is to label!

quote:

Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation.

And rightfully so. I welcome this turf war as do many liberals because it is long overdue. I�ll explain more below.

quote:

You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.

Why are they a �kook� base? They raised a shitload more money and have proven to be highly affective.

In contrast, what has clearly proven to be a detriment to the Democratic Party is the DLC and the same-old Washington consultants that they continue to hire over and over again, only to lose over and over again. They point to the days of Clinton as their success, yet they refuse to acknowledge that Clinton never received a majority vote. Aside of Clinton, they have helped the Democrats fall by the wayside in both Presidential, Congressional, AND Senatorial races.

The only gains that have occurred with the Democrats are on the state level � which we gained a good number of State Congressional seats. These were all performed on the grassroot levels with no assistance from the Washington good-ol� boy losers and the DLC.
And this is why there is an uprising in the party. The grassroots demand reform, and they want to take it back to the local level. This is something they have reasonably learned from the Conservatives � the local level is what matters. And this is Dean�s central message as chair of the DNC.

And this is what gets you Conservatives panties all in bunches � the fact that Dean does have it right, and the fact that we are going to take it to the local level.

quote:

Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.

Interesting stuff � you have a reference for this so I could examine it further?

quote:

Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side.

How many is �many�? A few? More than 100? Who are these people, and why did they not examine the actual reasons why the Dems. were firmly against Condi Rice and Gonzalez getting their promotions? Why would such prominent black and latino democratic politicians not see past that ridiculous race argument?

Furthermore, if you agree with such a notion, why have you not seen past such a ridiculous argument either?

quote:

My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.

Well surely I would hope you think African-Americans are a little smarter than to merely vote for someone based on their color.
Surely you don�t think African-Americans are that stupid, do you?

quote:

Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you.

If Rush was honestly sincere in any way, he would know that most liberals consider the media pretty fucking lame and even with a conservative bend as it is. But I can�t imagine Rush being doped up all the time would know anything about reality really.

quote:

Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all.

You�re right � it didn�t help that NONE of the media addressed the beginning part of Rathergate, which has not been answered in any fucking way, shape, or form by this President, and instead focused on Rather and CBS�s sloppiness in double-checking their sources.
But who says that darn liberal media is good at investigating anything nowadays?

quote:

Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.

If Rush really believes such bullshit, why are a number of Republicans sweating about losing House seats in the �06 midterms, especially with Delay as a fucking anchor?

quote:

Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time.

Boy I�m sure glad you say so. It must therefore be true, right?

quote:

The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party.

Anti-war because we were ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY right about no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda?

Anti-protectionists? Who wanted to keep the fucking steel tariffs? Go ahead, sir � you can say it.

quote:

harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc.

OK, do you have any fucking concept of YOUR Republican party, sir? Everything you mentioned here describes the modern day Republican party with the Social Conservatives in charge.

Who the fuck was harsh on Janet Jackson? Who puts in over 90% of complaints to the FCC about TV sex and violence? I�ll give you a small hint � it�s NOT a democratic group. And who exactly is continuing to cozy up to such extremist conservative groups like this? Another hint for you � NOT the fucking Democrats.
And who�s going after porn?:

quote:

Gonzales: I'll Prosecute Obscenity Cases The Associated Press Monday 28 February 2005 Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Monday he would move aggressively to prosecute obscenity cases, and he laid out a broader agenda much like that of his predecessor, John Ashcroft. In his first lengthy address since becoming attorney general in early February, Gonzales said people who distribute obscene materials do not enjoy constitutional guarantees of free speech. "I am committed to prosecuting these crimes aggressively," he said to a Washington meeting of the California-based Hoover Institution. The Justice Department is appealing the dismissal of an obscenity case in Pittsburgh in which a federal judge said prosecutors went too far in trying to block the sale of pornographic movies over the Internet and through the mail. The case initially was prosecuted under Ashcroft. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nat...P-Gonzales.html

quote:

This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.

What Hillary said about abortion is that the Democratic party has a wide net, and that pro-life folks can come in under that net. She is firmly for abortion rights, however, no matter how you attempt to spin it.

Your assessment is not only a bit wild, but pretty fucking unsupported so far. Again, why am I not surprised?

quote:

Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.

Well there certainly is a fight between Dean and the Clintons, but the Clintons have done their fair share too. They endorsed a Dean rival for DNC chair, only to see that their endorsement was getting his ASS handed to him by Dean as more and more states voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Dean.

And then the tables turned � the Clintons are now looking to Dean for favors and answers, because they saw how much of an overwhelming winner he was. They also are beginning to understand Dean�s grassroots message more, and realize that Hillary is likely going to have to rely on more than the DLC and the typical Washington loser consultants to win any primaries.

Personally I�d rather not see her run � I don�t think our country is going to vote in a woman as President, not that I personally care really. I just don�t see our country going that way, at least not just yet.

quote:

This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.

Yea for Faux News. This doesn�t excuse their extreme Right bend, nor does it excuse their consistent � truths, distortions, and flat-out lying either.

quote:

So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.

With all due respect � actually fuck that. You have neither earned nor deserved any respect here yet. So kindly take your suggestion and shove it up your fucking pompous ass, sir.

I will do whatever I can as a U.S. Citizen to make my country better. It is both my right and my moral obligation to do so. The fact that you do not want people like me to try this, and would rather have us move out is extremely telling about your own character and will. Any dissenters just move out, right? Go fuck a duck, pal. Dissent and disagreement is part of our society. It�s extremist, self-righteous fucks like you that do not appreciate or even slightly comprehend dissent.

Again, why am I not fucking surprised?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Opus, If I paint the extremes, it makes it easier to have a black/white argument with you, even if you and I do not argue from diametrically opposing positions!

Yeah I know, it�s more fun that way, but I personally do try to avoid arguing in extremes, as well as paint everyone on one particular side with one brush.

quote:

I will concede that Greenspan is probably more to blame than Clinton, though I guess my bigger point was that the attitude of our culture as a whole during that time period was pretty reflective of the attitude in the Oval Office. Sort of an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude, which ignored the fact that there were major underlying flaws with the explosive growth that we witnessed. Hey, as long as people were making money hand-over-fist, why ask questions? Greenspan called it irrational exuberance in 1996, and he was right, though he did not take proactive measures to prevent the pop. Instead, a confluence of events ended up providing even easier access to capital, lower borrowing rates, etc. Now, here we are 5 years later and there are still industries that are plagued with overcapacity. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for that fact, but the facts are still what they are. I blame our culture for crossing the thin line and letting greed take control, leaving rational decision making in the back seat. Believe it or not, I honsetly believe that the President is a role model who must strive to hold himself to a higher standard than most. People tend to emulate the behavior that they see from their leaders. If years from now, we have droves of people acting on what proves to be "flawed intelligence", I'll join hands with you and say it's probably somewhat of a legacy of the Bush administration.

Okay, you have two points here which seemingly point towards the fault of Clinton:

1. The irrational exuberance care-free attitude of folks and stock buyers then point towards the Clinton Administration

2. Because of Clinton�s blowjob and infidelity, our society was hurt somehow (i.e. deteriorated) because he wasn�t a good role-model


Now here�s what I would like to see � please verify these two assertions somehow. Where are the statistics? How on earth can we claim either of these sociological attitudes are the result of Clinton�s public or PRIVATE actions? I certainly share the sentiment that what Clinton did was wrong, and that he of all fucking people should have used better judgement. And I also freely admit that I myself was a bit ashamed of my President for doing what he did.

But to make the leap from that sentiment to saying that he was the social AND economic downfall to our society at that time isn�t just a mere leap, that�s a cliff.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This doesn�t excuse their extreme Right bend, nor does it excuse their consistent � truths, distortions, and flat-out lying either.

Hey--when did you get a "�" button on your keyboard? But seriously though...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. You don't get it wages don't mean shit unless you compare prices to wages... This whole argument is given for one reason, wages don't mean shit if you don't give a comprehensive analysis of living costs. Yeah you can have an average wages of $200,000 but if a loaf of bread is $100 that don't mean shit.

So then back to the U.S., do you see why the "liberals" might be concerned when healthcare, education and housing cost rise faster than people's incomes at the lower end? For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up. The reality is that there are different causes of poverty, hence there are different circumstances for those at the lower end. Rural, urban and mixed neighborhood poverty are quite different in themselves, let alone the personal reasons such as job loss, lack of education, drug/alcohol abuse, illness, injury/disability, family death, divorce, lack of neighborhood economic development, etc. If you think all those people will do better because of implementing a flat tax, you're very wrong. I get Shakka's ideology that he feels it's fundamentally wrong to tax progressively regardless of its effects, but I don't understand this view, where supposedly all poor people have a great apartment, car and several TVs and seemingly no worries and they'll all do much better by simply providing as much capital as possible to those with higher incomes. I work at a foreclosure & bankruptcy law firm and the neighborhoods where most people lose are in the worst ones in the state and based on the answers they file to our complaints, I don't think most of these thousands of people fit your stereotypes at all.

If you want to keep claiming your numbers are used incorrectly, well you should keep in mind that it goes both ways, because you seem to not consider that money for food stamps, for example, helps adults & their children eat AND provides payment to local businesses for that food, so that money is reinvested and helps provide jobs as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey--when did you get a "�" button on your keyboard? But seriously though...

Hey how did you get it?? Lemme try:

1/2

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now here�s what I would like to see � please verify these two assertions somehow. Where are the statistics? How on earth can we claim either of these sociological attitudes are the result of Clinton�s public or PRIVATE actions? I certainly share the sentiment that what Clinton did was wrong, and that he of all fucking people should have used better judgement. And I also freely admit that I myself was a bit ashamed of my President for doing what he did. But to make the leap from that sentiment to saying that he was the social AND economic downfall to our society at that time isn�t just a mere leap, that�s a cliff.

Well, it is a subjective matter, so I concede that it would be pretty difficult to make a factual claim that Bubba's behavior directly resulted in the stock market blow-up and recession that followed. Heck, that's pretty silly anyway.

What I will say is that looking back over the last 10-20 years, our society(you could probably argue it globally) has clearly devolved a bit as far as violence, sexual depravity, business ethics, etc. Maybe a lot of that blame goes to the Internet, as it made a wealth of questionable content available to impressionable people. I don't think it's right to censor that material from consenting adults, but it's obviously a little more pervasive than that. And since Al Gore invented the Internet, can't we allocate some blame there?(I'm just kidding--I just thought it was a cheap/funny jab)

So with all of these things going on, I don't think it helped when the most powerful man in the free world was engaging in a lot of the same activities, displaying questionable morals, and the like. I may not be able to blame him, but I don't think he was part of the solution by a long shot.

I'll admit that this is probabaly a silly argument for either of us to pursue. But again, I don't think Clinton was the cause of a lot of the problems, but he very well may have put some grease on the slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Um well okay, deficit spending. Well in measuring deficit spending you have to first measure it as a percentage of gdp not as an overall dollar amount because growth and inflation make every fiscal year different from the proceeding so when you compare deficits in this administration to deficits in previous administrations you have to measure it as percent of gdp. Bush's deficit never surpassed 30 percent of gdp and that is a gdp during a recession a much lower gdp than a prosperous time. In the last century I believe that there have been 5 or so presidents that have had more than 30 percent of gdp deficits.

I personally don�t argue that, and if anyone does I agree the argument is fallacious.. I�m well aware that federal spending as a share of GDP is around average over the last 20 or so years. However, the federal revenue as a share of GDP is what is worrisome �we haven�t seen such low levels since the 1950�s. Both the personal income and corporate taxes combined as a share of GDP are at their lowest levels since the early �40�s, whereas the payroll tax is very close to near record levels.

Now as a self-ascribed economist, you tell me which class gets affected most by

1. Income and corporate taxes
2. Payroll taxes

Also, we cannot merely use the deficit % of our GDP as a sole indicator of where we stand, though this does help historically. We must also consider our PERCEPTION in paying off that debt to the rest of the world as well as our creditors like China and Japan, whom are beginning to believe we will not pay off our debts anytime soon. As a consequence, the dollar continues to fall (which is good for us on imports, granted), and our creditors are starting to take up other currencies like the Euro as a result.

So if we continue to have this perception that we could care less about our deficit and trade debt, that also plays a serious role as well. Unlike the other past Republican presidents of Bush I and Reagan whom both increased taxes as a result of falling revenue, this Republican president won't have anything to do with fiscal responsibility whatsoever.

quote:

Also you have to understand that the deficit was not caused by tax cuts or Bush spending. The deficit was caused because during the recession less money was coming in to fund government programs than before during good times.

Bullshit. While true the lost revenue is the primary culprit, Bush�s tax cuts have played the monumental role in this. In 2000, revenues were 20.9% of GDP, and it�s projected they�ll decline to 16.8% this year. But according to CBO back in January, only 15% of the cost of legislation enacted since 2001 was attributed to discretionary and mandatory spending, while 48% of the cost of legislation was attributed to tax cuts:

http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=0

While it is true that lost revenue did occur as a result of the tech bust and following recession, the overriding factor was the tax cuts.

And besides, when you have the White House and Bush's Aides admitting that the tax cuts were definitely a part of the deficit, well Christ, what else need be said?:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078115
http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9153&fcategory_desc=Legislation%20and%20Policy

quote:

Spending didn't increase that much during the Bush years at all.

Spending shouldn�t have increased, period. This is a fiscal conservative, right? Why is it that Clinton�s government was actually smaller than any of the last 3 Republican presidents?

quote:

Don't point to the war either because war spending was only a few hundred billion in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget.

Well, 300 billion, right? And that�s what, 8%? I could be far off on this, but I do think it is interesting that our President decided NOT to include the cost of war in his annual budget. Now why do you suppose he would do such a thing?

quote:

You see liberals don't understand the above and they also don't understand that if you lower taxes, more transactions occur which than send more money back to the government.

More transactions haven�t been occurring � at least nothing close to what was projected. And the job outlook also isn�t near as close as what you Conservatives had predicted. Bush�s Council of Economic Advisors have continually had to back off their projections of job growth as a result of his tax cuts. Hell, they�re not even close to the projections WITHOUT the tax cut, as I�ve argued here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=tax+cuts+job

quote:

They make statements like that the Bush tax cuts removed x amount of money from the government which they cannot claim.

I believe I did, as did the CBO.

quote:

First of all those tax cuts mean more transactions. There is no way they can know that amount because national wealth is always changing at one month it could be x the next it could have change to be x plus or minus 20 percent, etc.

Well yeah, I guess that�s why we and even your president relies on estimates and forecasts. Your point?

Okay I have to get to some other shit here in a second so I don't have much time.

Yeah I know I said I was have given up on you guys, but I was a little board before and got drawn in again. I basically have given up and will eventually stop doing this shit soon. Pretty stupid basis to call me a liar on though. Don't impugn my integrity. And don't give me this shit that I am labeling you and shit. YOU GUYS ARE LIBERALS that isn't labeling. An asshole is a label.

Okay as far as providing specific resources or whatever yeah I am not going to go around and dig up every damn place I have gotten info from. I watch, read, etc. to much shit for me to go and spend a couple hours to dig all the shit up again. If you guys say something I have the belief that you have gotten it from sources, etc., but to make you guys happy any of these that I remember off the top of my head I'll point out.

Entitlement argument conservative talk radio don't remember which one.

The turf war was reported from multiple sources. I think 3 different broadcasts on fox news, conservative talk radio, and I think Drudge too.

The population thing was commented on, on Fox News Hannity and Colmes where Allan Colmes("King of Liberal Media") was talking to democratic stategist(don't rem name) this was like 3 months ago I think.

The many black and latino leaders spiel was broadcast on Fox News. I don't quite remember how it went down, but I think yet again a democrat strategist mad at his parties actions towards Rice and Gonzalez quoted a prominant (undisclosed)black leader on his comments where he(that leader) used the word many. This black leader being also a liberal was mad that so many of his constituants(including other black leaders) were mad about the treatment of Condi. And this strategist said that he recieved many comments regarding the treatment of Gonzalez too.

I find it strange that all the cabinet appointings are evil diabolical wizards that are in it for themselves, but the black chick gets an appointment and she's just dumb according to liberals when the woman was the president of Stanford for crying out loud. It seems I'm not the one accusing of blacks being dumb. Now blacks aren't dumb for wanting a black to be vp because shes black. Since minority advancement is held dearly by many minorities, they want to see people of their race to be "first ofs" all the time.

A couple of highly esteemed democrats(don't remember the names) have written pieces for newspapers and maybe magazines(idk)saying that their party is going down the tubes. The talk of that has even shifted to what the democrat party will reamerge as down the road. Heck Carville just came out a little bit ago and said that the party is done also.

Just to clarify the anti Janet Jackson stuff is what that REAMERGED DEM PARTY IS PROJECTED to look like. That is what they will become to WIN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS. That is why Hillary makes the statements against all this porn, etc. there is out there.

"For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up." You see this shit is what is starting to piss me off. DON'T PUT FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I DIDN'T SAY(the same thing with the above paragraph). I was pointing out that the most destatute make up only a small, small percentage of the people below the poverty line. I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards, is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument. You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hey how did you get it?? Lemme try: 1/2

�

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay I have to get to some other shit here in a second so I don't have much time. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Dude, are you still talking?

Well you asked me to talk about Phillips Curve and shit are you going to answer back?

..

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I will do whatever I can as a U.S. Citizen to make my country better. It is both my right and my moral obligation to do so.

Great...Just try to do it without oppressing me with your authoritarian economic policies, ok?

Well, it's a good thing Opus knows where I stand on the issue of Moral/Categorical imperatives.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah I know I said I was have given up on you guys, but I was a little board before and got drawn in again. I basically have given up and will eventually stop doing this shit soon.

Do you trolls have the same playbook or manual or something?

quote:

Pretty stupid basis to call me a liar on though. Don't impugn my integrity.

Well when you decide to show some, I�ll try my best not to impugn it, deal?

quote:

And don't give me this shit that I am labeling you and shit. YOU GUYS ARE LIBERALS that isn't labeling. An asshole is a label.

You succumb all liberal ideas as either wrong or stupid, and nearly every one of your posts demean liberals in some way or another. You�ve specifically called liberals �stupid� in an earlier post here.

That is the very definition of labeling � painting everyone who disagrees with you with a broad stroke, and effectively calling them stupid for doing so.

quote:

Okay as far as providing specific resources or whatever yeah I am not going to go around and dig up every damn place I have gotten info from. I watch, read, etc. to much shit for me to go and spend a couple hours to dig all the shit up again. If you guys say something I have the belief that you have gotten it from sources, etc., but to make you guys happy any of these that I remember off the top of my head I'll point out.

Any day now would be nice.

quote:

Entitlement argument conservative talk radio don't remember which one.

Which, of course, always means the argument is valid. Sorry for doubting, kind sir.: rolleyes:

quote:

The turf war was reported from multiple sources. I think 3 different broadcasts on fox news, conservative talk radio, and I think Drudge too.

Ahh yes, my 3 favorite places too. And once again, of course all 3 sources are always valid. How silly of me.

A thousand pardons, dear sir.

quote:

The population thing was commented on, on Fox News Hannity and Colmes where Allan Colmes("King of Liberal Media") was talking to democratic stategist(don't rem name) this was like 3 months ago I think.

1. If you think pissant little Alan Colmes is the �King of Liberal Media�, you�ve got very little understanding of that darn �liberal� media.

2. Again I think you need to verify your claims a bit more. More than � of their so-called Democratic liberal strategists are often times centrists and do not speak very well for the Democratic party in general.

quote:

The many black and latino leaders spiel was broadcast on Fox News. I don't quite remember how it went down, but I think yet again a democrat strategist mad at his parties actions towards Rice and Gonzalez quoted a prominant (undisclosed)black leader on his comments where he(that leader) used the word many. This black leader being also a liberal was mad that so many of his constituants(including other black leaders) were mad about the treatment of Condi. And this strategist said that he recieved many comments regarding the treatment of Gonzalez too.

Out of blind curiousity, do you happen to watch or read any sources outside of conservative-leaning media?

quote:

I find it strange that all the cabinet appointings are evil diabolical wizards that are in it for themselves, but the black chick gets an appointment and she's just dumb according to liberals when the woman was the president of Stanford for crying out loud.

Logical fallacy: straw man.

Well I know you�re speaking in generalizations, once again, but this is NOT the central argument that liberals had against Rice. Rather, that she was deliberately deceitful and withheld evidence that did not help bolster the WMD case for going to war with Saddam.

No one argues that she isn�t intelligent. If they do then that is a fallacious argument. Could you please cite such a case for me? Thanks.

quote:

It seems I'm not the one accusing of blacks being dumb. Now blacks aren't dumb for wanting a black to be vp because shes black. Since minority advancement is held dearly by many minorities, they want to see people of their race to be "first ofs" all the time.

So what? What on earth is your point here?

quote:

A couple of highly esteemed democrats(don't remember the names) have written pieces for newspapers and maybe magazines(idk)saying that their party is going down the tubes. The talk of that has even shifted to what the democrat party will reamerge as down the road. Heck Carville just came out a little bit ago and said that the party is done also.

Again, if you take the word of Carville and the individuals you are referring to who write for the New Republic like Jonathon Chait or the leader of the DLC, Marshall Whitmann (BullMooseblog), you do not understand the reformation of the Democratic movement one bit, and neither is Faux News, Hannity, or any other conservative pundit willing to concede it either. And why is that, exactly? Could it be that these conservative pundits like folks like Carville, Chait, Witmann, Liebermann, and so forth who continually go after the Democrats, rather than go after our true adversary � the Republicans? Could it be that Faux News and the conservative mouthpieces like these folks because they have shown time and again through their own miscalculations and hirings of the same fucking Washington consultants how to keep LOSING elections to the Republicans?

Naah, who would think such a thing?

quote:

Just to clarify the anti Janet Jackson stuff is what that REAMERGED DEM PARTY IS PROJECTED to look like. That is what they will become to WIN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS. That is why Hillary makes the statements against all this porn, etc. there is out there.

Red Herrings really do seem to be your choice of logical fallacies, don�t they?

quote:

"For the rest of your arguments, you either generalize about "liberals" and what ideas we have or claim that every poor person fits a certain stereotype you just made up." You see this shit is what is starting to piss me off. DON'T PUT FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I DIDN'T SAY(the same thing with the above paragraph). I was pointing out that the most destatute make up only a small, small percentage of the people below the poverty line. I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards,

By whose standards? Yours? Mine? Do you have any idea what it�s like to live in poverty?

quote:

is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument.

Oh I understand it � the problem is your argument is pretty weak from the getgo. I reiterate, do you have any concept of what it�s like to live in poverty?

quote:

You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

Your arguments were piss-poor and barely cogent to begin with. Don�t blame me for that. So now you handwave away poverty in general by saying, �Oh it�s not that bad really.� Are you fucking serious here? You wouldn�t happen to mind if I just take your money away, as well as any money your mommy and daddy are giving you for that nice college with those idiot professors up in Wisconsin, and see what it would be like for you to live below the poverty level, would you? Would you be willing to participate in such an experiment? I�m just curious after living in such conditions if you will continue to say such trite bullshit.

Re: ..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Great...Just try to do it without oppressing me with your authoritarian economic policies, ok?

Who said I would? And explain how any policies I have ever advocated here are authoritarian in the economic sense in any way, please.

Then contrast those policies with the various labor laws that clearly benefit the business over the worker and his/her health, as well as the worker's pay status.

And then tell me which is more authoritarian, please.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby ...I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards, is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living. Now I hope you can understand this argument. You failed to understand it the first time I put it out there by the comment you made, but what do I expect. Don't call me a black and white simpleton if you can't fucking understand simple arguments.

Because your arguement is TOO simple. Big surprise that all your sources you've mentioned are conservative talk radio, Fox News and the Drudge Report. Using talking points media from either side as an exclusive source of information is highly inaccurate. If you want to say I'm calling you a simpleton, well maybe it seems that way because you made the argument that "the poor" would be better off by cutting all government programs and providing more capital to the highest tax brackets and that the "liberals" are actually hurting future poor people. That's the argument you made. You've used your stereotype of poor people near the poverty line several times, which is what you've used to say that means tested programs should be cut. Well if that's only a certain segment, depending on how many people your stereotype actually fits, why would you suggest that the entire programs should be cut to help people do better? It's just like the "Welfare Queen" image that was used in the 1980s and it could be done the other way too. Are you even aware how the poverty line is calculated? And I say you stereotype "liberals" because you think everyone to the left of you wants to spend tons of money to resolve every problem. There are a lot of progressive people who have hybrid ideologies to resolve such problems, an example being Rebecca Blank's overview of different experimental programs and their results in "From Welfare to Work."

By the way, even Charles Murray, author of "The Bell Curve" wrote in his later work ,"Losing Ground", that to solve the problems of inner city poverty there would have to be far greater investment in public education, which would come from people in higher tax brackets.

(Wolverine)What do I suspect? Keep on plugging away because you have yet to understand WHY I made the comment regarding a segment of the poor of this society. Either you don't want to understand or your not that bright.

(Opus) Your fucking arguments are so fucking piss poor that you actually recite facts that don't pertain. You give me shit from quoting conservative radio, fox news, liberals on fox news, etc., but what do you quote, The New York Times. The New York Times repeatedly lies when paraphrasing what other people say, and spins great news for this country to be the worst ever. "Less people are dying on the Battlefield in Iraq because of medicine, thats horrible they shouldn't live, why they have bad injuries." I read the NYTs several times a month and I can tell you that they are the biggest example of back ass backwards reporting I have ever heard. You don't understand arguments.

Colmes was proclaimed King of Liberal Media by liberals when they saw that he was getting better ratings on liberal talk radio then all the other bastards.

You don't think I can lump democrats, labour, socialists, and marxists as command economy parties. I ask you one question. Are you in support of nationalizing 1/8th of our economy, i.e. healthcare. Anybody want to take bets on his answer? I rest my case.

You want to take a look at who thinks Condi is dumb, just take one look at the Rice bashing political cartoons, and you will get the idea pretty damn fast.

"Anyday now" shit, you demanded sources so I opened with that statement to tell you my sources. But you are just a retard how would you understand something like that?

I don't think you understand my argument about the specific segments of poverty either because if you did you wouldn't make a stupid statement like the one you did.

No I haven't lived in poverty before, but I have to say all your liberal programs have done so much for them. Gee "Great Society" end poverty as we know it, huh? Yeah sure it increased the number of people in poverty. Medicare increased the amount of money going into healthcare, but decreased the number of beds and such at a faster rate. Since you demand fucking sources for everything here enjoy.http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/ECON...S/Friedman.html this is an article written again by the Einstein of economics. I listen to the pros when it comes to this shit unlike some people who wont even fucking pick up a econ book. Here I'll give you the site of all his articles, you then tell me who is fucking wrong here http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm There so you can eat shit.

Now on to Woverine. Just because something comes from a source like conservative talk radio doesn't make it fallacious. You guys quote from NYTs, liberal wackos on the net, and other organizations that try to maintain the idea that they are unbiased when they are anything but. Gee everybody thought oh we could always count on network news. Hah, Rathergate people. FORGED DOCUMENTS ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, FORGED DOCUMENTS. Gee the last time I checked I didn't see a bunch of people looking into my sources for lying and coming up with anything. Our tract record is better than yours. Go head and spend a month prying over Fox News transcripts, Drudge Reports , and Conservative Talk Radio. You try to find facts or evidence that doesn't exist. Until then leave my fucking sources alone. And as I said in other threads maybe this one, I watch, listen, and read many many different sources. Go and look at the few other top threads right now and you'll see my list.

Then you accuse me of being a simpleton, when you can't even attempt to understand the nuance in something like less government programs to foster more economic growth to help the poor. You are stuck in a frame of mind that will never allow you to appreciate other peoples arguments. And none of you have even attempted to undue my argument that less government programs would help the poor, you just dismiss it because of your warped fucked up brain that can't allow yourselves to comprehend that anything besides government programs can help the poor.

I haven't stereotyped the poor at all that's why you most certainly couldn't have understood the argument. I have described a certain standard of living that would constitute below the poverty line. This is an example not a stereotype. Then using that you know that peoples arguments saying so many people live in poverty are off base. Why? Because the mental picture that goes into so many peoples heads is that these people are living on the street or projects and barely eat, etc. When that is far from the truth. Some of them do. Some of them don't. My argument is that you guys spin the idea of x amount of people living below poverty line when a huge amount of them wouldn't be living in bad conditions by many peoples standards. I use an example of a certain standard of living to show what can constitute poverty. Instead of saying x amount of people live in poverty you should be going around saying y amount of people are homeless, a much smaller number. Its a small argument, but simpletons like wolverine can't understand them so they take it out on me. If I don't understand something you guys are saying I'll ask you guys to elaborate. I don't misrepresent you and bastardize your arguments.

I don't use the example of a particular standard of living as a reason for ending social programs. I use economics as my reason for ending social programs. Go fucking read the pros yourself

^^^^^^Yeah guys shape up......ROFL.......Brilliant.....I love it...

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby (Opus) Your fucking arguments are so fucking piss poor that you actually recite facts that don't pertain. You give me shit from quoting conservative radio, fox news, liberals on fox news, etc., but what do you quote, The New York Times. The New York Times repeatedly lies when paraphrasing what other people say, and spins great news for this country to be the worst ever. "Less people are dying on the Battlefield in Iraq because of medicine, thats horrible they shouldn't live, why they have bad injuries." I read the NYTs several times a month and I can tell you that they are the biggest example of back ass backwards reporting I have ever heard. You don't understand arguments.

What the fuck are you talking about again? Where is this quote you cited, and how the fuck does it pertain to our conversation here?

Jesus you�re fucking all over the place with your argument. Oh sure, the NYTimes has its problems from time to time, but by and large it has a helluva lot more accurate coverage than the Faux News mouthpieces and supposed journalists like Brit Hume who continually give a conservative spin on nearly any and all reporting.

NYTimes may have occasional faulty journalism, but they are faulty from BOTH ends of the spectrum (like Judith Miller�s pieces on Saddam�s supposed WMD arsenal, for example). Faux News just has shoddy journalism from one end of the spectrum.

Now we can quibble about this and open up another thread about shoddy and biased journalism all you like, and I�m more than willing to support my contention on Faux News and their fucking conservative mouthpieces being hellbent on supporting conservative viewpoints at the behest of facts. So if this is where you�re going with this, let�s open up another thread and discuss. Otherwise do us all a fucking favor and stick to the topic of the thread, please.

quote:

Colmes was proclaimed King of Liberal Media by liberals when they saw that he was getting better ratings on liberal talk radio then all the other bastards.

What �liberals�? Who are they? You keep fucking citing liberals saying this and liberals saying that without naming one fucking liberal who says anything. So do us all a favor and cite something with a link for once in your life.

You do know how to do this, right?

quote:

You don't think I can lump democrats, labour, socialists, and marxists as command economy parties. I ask you one question. Are you in support of nationalizing 1/8th of our economy, i.e. healthcare. Anybody want to take bets on his answer? I rest my case.

Rest what case? What the fuck are you talking about again? Who said anything about healthcare? Do I think it would be nice that everyone has universal healthcare? Of course � hell you don�t have to be a �liberal� to state this. We have conservatives here that would agree from an economic standpoint that those without health insurance going to the Emergency Room and not having to pay for their health emergencies (because they can�t afford it), and it thus gets supported by the taxpayer is not necessarily a good thing.

And that�s just one reason why conservatives and liberals may agree � there are others, but once again that would be best served for another thread topic, if you so desire.

Now, do I think it�s fiscally realistic for such a case right now? No fucking way, and I wouldn�t support someone trying to push this through with our current debt and deficit.

Us �liberals� tend to also understand fiscal responsibility at times. Something that seems conspicuously absent from both your comprehension and this Administration�s.

quote:

You want to take a look at who thinks Condi is dumb, just take one look at the Rice bashing political cartoons, and you will get the idea pretty damn fast.

Your argument that liberals think Condi is �dumb� is based on political cartoons?

Are you fucking serious?

quote:

"Anyday now" shit, you demanded sources so I opened with that statement to tell you my sources. But you are just a retard how would you understand something like that?

Well now that we�re on the name-calling ad-hominems, fucknut, you have continually failed to link any source here to support your arguments. I do not do your fucking homework, shitwipe, nor do I expect you to do mine.

Welcome to fucking debate 101 � support your arguments with evidence or kindly shut the fucking hell up.

quote:

I don't think you understand my argument about the specific segments of poverty either because if you did you wouldn't make a stupid statement like the one you did.

I don�t think anyone here understands any of your arguments, let alone the one on poverty. So please try and explain yourself better.

quote:

No I haven't lived in poverty before, but I have to say all your liberal programs have done so much for them. Gee "Great Society" end poverty as we know it, huh? Yeah sure it increased the number of people in poverty.

Demonstrate where Democratic policies have increased poverty. By my counts, over 4 million have been placed below the poverty line during this current president�s term. Demonstrate that the same occurred under Clinton, if you will.

As for the New Deal policies themselves, yes � some 40% of the elderly were living in poverty prior to the creation of Social Security. And how many of the elderly are in poverty today � something like 7% maybe?

Ooooh, doesn�t it just burn you when those darn Democratic ideas actually work on occasion?

quote:

Medicare increased the amount of money going into healthcare, but decreased the number of beds and such at a faster rate. Since you demand fucking sources for everything here enjoy.http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/ECON...S/Friedman.html this is an article written again by the Einstein of economics.

Well halleluiah, you finally posted a link! Congrats, buddy, how does it feel?

Now, what on earth does this have to do with anything I said? Were you addressing me or Wolverine here?

Besides, I tend to agree with some of Friedman�s overall contentions � we need a drastic increase in doctors, medical schools, and a control of costs. Whether or not I agree with his conclusions that re-privatization and ending Medicare and Medicaid is another matter, one that may be best served in another thread.

And I�m not so sure I would agree with his analysis that the best measure of output is the life expectancy, though as an economist I can understand the difficulty in attempting to measure more subjective terms such as the �quality� of life, but again another thread on this topic would be best suited.

quote:

I listen to the pros when it comes to this shit unlike some people who wont even fucking pick up a econ book. Here I'll give you the site of all his articles, you then tell me who is fucking wrong here http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm There so you can eat shit.

Hey numbnuts, why don�t you stick to our conversation here before you ride off on your straw man high horse. Why the fuck do I want to talk about Friedman right now? Could you at least make a fucking attempt to stick to our discussion at hand?

quote:

FORGED DOCUMENTS ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, FORGED DOCUMENTS. Gee the last time I checked I didn't see a bunch of people looking into my sources for lying and coming up with anything.

Hey dipshit, did you actually read the report on Rather and the documents? If you did, you would have surely known that the COULD NOT VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCUMENTS WERE FORGED, therefore they could not prove the authenticity.

This does not logically entail that the documents were forged, however, get it dipshit?

quote:

Our tract record is better than yours. Go head and spend a month prying over Fox News transcripts, Drudge Reports , and Conservative Talk Radio. You try to find facts or evidence that doesn't exist. Until then leave my fucking sources alone.

Are you fucking kidding me? Here, have a walk through David Brock�s website � you know, the guy who made it his mission to destroy Clinton only to realize how fucked up the Republican spinmeisters are:

www.mediamatters.org

That�s just one of many links out there. Here's another that specifically watches Faux News:

http://www.newshounds.us/

Now I�m not saying that liberal talk show folks are always being truthful � Christ far from it. But this bullshit about the NYTimes and the mainstream media being liberal is fucking tiring and bogus as fuck. You do recall that it was, in fact, the NYTimes reporter, Judith Miller, who reported from Ahmed Chalabi that Iraq had WMD, and that our president and VP cited her investigative reports on this as evidence to support their case for war, right?

Or is that down your fucking memory hole like everything else that�s factually incorrect from the conservative side?

�Our track record is better than yours�

What is this, fucking grade school? My dad can beat up your dad! Grow the fuck up, will you?

Now if you want to open up yet another thread and debate this so-called "liberal" media, then fucking bring it.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 The modern accepted idea of a socialist country is that of a place like Sweden, it's not focused on centralizing the means of production or Marxism. Regardless, you decided to label me as a Marxist, which I am not at all. I still don't think you understand my persepctive at all, especially since you claim that I'm a Marxist for noting that I agreed with some conservative reforms that cut welfare programs. The Hitler quotes are just wonderful. I like how your way of debating is trying to link my views with extremists like Hitler and Marx. Have you ever looked at the lifespans and overall costs between American and Swedish or Canadian systems? The search button has plenty of previous discussions. Also the first article you posted said that Canadiens supported user fees for those who can afford them not cutting access for the poor to healthcare. I'd prefer a mix between private investment and technology and government insurance that everyone is covered, so seemingly Canada is moving toward what I think is a good idea, but the U.S. HMO is riddled with problems and soaring premiums. How about where the U.S. ranks in terms of education standards among other industrialized nations? You can sell your Brooklyn Bridge a lot easier by ignoring those items.

I've never said you're a Marxist. Just that you echo marxist/communist/socialist views.

The quotes are not used as a way to link two different ideologies from different people but rather just the statements themselves speak volumes about many things. Thinking being one of the points I was trying to make rather than link Marx and Hitler.

The Canadian article is trying to state that Canadians would rather pay for their health care if it would be an improvement over their socialized medicine, which has them either waiting for doctors much longer or being turned away. This of course does not have me pretend it is nationwide, but just the tip of the iceberg to coin an old clich�.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Dude, are you still talking?

LOL +1

If I wanted to read I would have picked up a book.

The middle class is going to be a hard animal to find no matter what political affiliation. No economics major or use of economic mumbo jumbo is going to shore up the global economic system. Hemming and hawing is just what we need to be distracted from the imminent collapse.

And no name dropping of round table groups and their members is going to fix the system since they are the same mechanics of the system that will brought down.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.