Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Remember Descent:

The highest form of patriotic.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

Not just that, but you wrote that sentence without any sense of irony. Like that's any different than previous administrations. Our government has been printing it's way out of hard times since, oh, the Civil War. Methinks it's you who has gone full retard; sadly, I'm afraid I must farky you as such.

PC LOAD LETTER: Remember Descent:

The highest form of patriotic.

Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

I'm not sure Obama's plan will work, but I also don't expect results in less than a year.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

FTFPOTUS:
"It was, from the start, a two-year program, and it will steadily save and create jobs as it ramps up over this summer and fall."

Who here honestly thought that sweeping results would start within just a few months? Legislation is written, reviewed (hopefully), voted on, and put into law. Decide how much money to dole out, how much goes where, and make it available. State and local agencies apply for the funding. New projects are worked up, or existing plans are greenlit. Local contractors are hired to facilitate the building/paving/construction etc. They place ads for more workers. They contact the materials suppliers who also need an ad campaign to bring in workers.

After all that, then paychecks can start going out. It's not an overnight process.

dustman81: The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

STFU!!! When a politician says something is going to happen it's going to happen TOMORROW, not years from now.

I don't care if it takes a while for the money to be disbursed to companies and it takes time for the companies to plan a project, hire workers and pay their employees. It has to happen now, NOW, NOW, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!

JESUS CHRIST! YOU ARE KILLING ME!!

Priming the economic pump takes time-- years, even.

That said, I really wish Obama pushed for a lot more in the way of targeted tax increases to help pay for all this spending. Yeah, the cons would pitch a hissy fit, but they're doing that right now even after Obama LOWERED taxes for most of them.

A top tax rate of 70-90% sure didn't hurt economic growth in the postwar 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's. There's no reason why it would hurt economic growth today.

It's not that I LIKE the thought of some having to pay taxes that high. But the fact is we're over 10 TRILLION in debt. That debt is rapidly growing. I can see deficit spending being necessary with the current deep recession, but sooner or later taxes are going to have to go dramatically higher to pay down that tab.

Hell, it's not like the right could jack the rhetoric up against Obama any higher-- at least not without getting a well-justified visit from the SS.


========================================================

ragekage: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

Not just that, but you wrote that sentence without any sense of irony. Like that's any different than previous administrations. Our government has been printing it's way out of hard times since, oh, the Civil War. Methinks it's you who has gone full retard; sadly, I'm afraid I must farky you as such.

You're just getting around to doing that now? Hell, I've had him highlighted with Retard Red for months now.

If Obama's in charge of monetary policy now, who's handling fiscal policy?

dustman81: Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

Oh, that's just crazy talk. Now if you'll excuse me, I must be off to find out the ending to this game I pre-ordered. Also gotta get the strategy guide, because I've penciled myself in to reach 100% by Friday. Oh, how I do love Christmas shopping.

Riche: A top tax rate of 70-90%

And one thing that a lot of people tend to gloss over with these extreme tax rates is the fact that you can create new tax brackets to hold them. We're not going to take all of the current 35%ers and jack them up to 70%. It could be done as 40% for the next $300,000, 55% for the $2,000,000 after that, 65% for the next five million, or whatever combination of new brackets and new rates makes sense.

Everybody who had 'Things will get worse before they get better' in the pool, step forward and pick up your share of the pot.

Okay, that's everybody with an IQ above 100.

Geez, it took Bush 8 years to wreck things this bad, and he was the master at driving businesses/organizations into the ground! Give Obama at least a year to clean things up.

"We're printing money as fast as we can"

...and I'm getting my money OUT of US dollars as fast as I can.

/Canadian Royalty Trusts FTW.
//Still a rather good investment, even with the new tax laws.
///Still researching which are the best long term ones. Anyone have any good advice?

Crosshair: "We're printing money as fast as we can"

...and I'm getting my money OUT of US dollars as fast as I can.

/Canadian Royalty Trusts FTW.
//Still a rather good investment, even with the new tax laws.
///Still researching which are the best long term ones. Anyone have any good advice?

Just to laugh like hell at you. Heh. But heck, that's free market capitalism for you; the firearm and ammo industry is laughing all the way to the bank at the fears Obama is gonna take their guns!!11 Same with people de-investing in the dollar, at least in the currency markets.

Though Canroys aren't too bad, but isn't there still a 15% tax for foreign investors? It'd have to be REAL good for it to be worth it for you, I think.

ragekage: Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

in the last 3 threads i've read where Nemo's Brother has kicked off the thread with idiocy, someone has called him out for writing the headline. i think it's funny that he didn't write any of them. keep the baseless accusations coming, it's almost as ignorant as he is

/not submitter

For the record, I am not a big fan of the stimulus package. Partially because I am a single dude with moderate income, so I get virtually nothing directly (just like the Bush stimulus packages). But also because I'm not sure how much they work.

That said, I think it is silly to be expecting results already. Our economy is where it is now because of at least a decade of poor management, you can't expect it to be all better overnight.

On a side note - I love how people who think we are heading down a socialist path make a big deal of telling everyone they think the dollar is going to tank so they are investing in other currencies. What currencies do they invest in? Those of countries that are even more socialist than Obama could ever hope to make us. You guys crack me up!

Megain, if you know he didn't write the headline despite him never saying so himself... who did?

Gosling: Megain, if you know he didn't write the headline despite him never saying so himself... who did?

that i don't know. and to be fair, he could have written them using an alt. but his number of greenlights has been steady at 5 since before the first of three instances i'm referring to, which precludes him from being the submitter

Megain: Gosling: Megain, if you know he didn't write the headline despite him never saying so himself... who did?

that i don't know. and to be fair, he could have written them using an alt. but his number of greenlights has been steady at 5 since before the first of three instances i'm referring to, which precludes him from being the submitter

That's what I was thinking; that way, he's got plausible deniability. "But, see, I only have the same number of greenlights!" That's why I told him to be a *little* less obvious about it.

ragekage: Megain: Gosling: Megain, if you know he didn't write the headline despite him never saying so himself... who did?

that i don't know. and to be fair, he could have written them using an alt. but his number of greenlights has been steady at 5 since before the first of three instances i'm referring to, which precludes him from being the submitter

That's what I was thinking; that way, he's got plausible deniability. "But, see, I only have the same number of greenlights!" That's why I told him to be a *little* less obvious about it.

so you assume he's the only troll on fark?

I'm not a big fan of ANY politician but it's hard not to kind of like the guy. He inherited a turd and you have to give him some time. Still, he'll be lucky not to come out looking like Carter, who himself inherited a turd and quickly dropped it.

Megain: so you assume he's the only troll on fark?

Hardly, but he's one of the stupider ones with his modus operandi. At least the other ones give it a good go for awhile until they slip. I know TCS is still around, too; I think I've got an eye on at least one of his alts. I think we just finally hurt Nemo's feelings too much in exposing his intellectual dishonesty, and he just snapped- and now he doesn't care. Hence, the hit-and-run submission/comments.

basemetal: I'm not a big fan of ANY politician but it's hard not to kind of like the guy. He inherited a turd and you have to give him some time. Still, he'll be lucky not to come out looking like Carter, who himself inherited a turd and quickly dropped it.

Go drill some teeth, comrade.

tin_man: basemetal: I'm not a big fan of ANY politician but it's hard not to kind of like the guy. He inherited a turd and you have to give him some time. Still, he'll be lucky not to come out looking like Carter, who himself inherited a turd and quickly dropped it.

Go drill some teeth, comrade.

Evil husker.

Anyone familiar with the government contracting process and the distribution of funds from federal to state governments should be amazed at how fast it's gone so far.

Many states have had to change their laws in the time period from the signing of ARRA in February in order to legally accept and spend the money.

The fact that any money at all has been spent in the six months since the stimulus was signed is freaking amazing. And most of it will be put out into the economy in the coming months.

So when you see someone go "OMG why hasn't it WORKED YET!?!", what they're really saying is "hello, I'm afraid I haven't any understanding of either governance or economics. Please put me in a headlock and give me an enlightening noogie."

ragekage: Just to laugh like hell at you. Heh. But heck, that's free market capitalism for you; the firearm and ammo industry is laughing all the way to the bank at the fears Obama is gonna take their guns!!11 Same with people de-investing in the dollar, at least in the currency markets.

Though Canroys aren't too bad, but isn't there still a 15% tax for foreign investors? It'd have to be REAL good for it to be worth it for you, I think.

So you think the rampant money printing and government spending are going to be GOOD for the US dollar? The Chinese have $1 trillion, that's true. Are they going to buy another $3-4 trillion or are they going to cut their loses, float their currency, and let their own consumers start consuming and exporting to markets that can actually pay for their imports.

The 15% tax applies to some foreign investors. Depending on the investor you can get some of that money back. Personally, I see a 10% annual dividend as a good return even with the tax. (With some A rated ones giving as high as 12%.) When the dollar starts to take a real nosedive, probably early next year with the next wave of ARM defaults, the return in terms of US dollars will be much higher. So even with the tax you come out ahead. Sure I missed the lows, but there is still opportunity.

No I'm not going to be taking my investment advice just from people on Fark. I'm looking all over for what I can find. Gold stocks are still down quite a bit as well. More risky than physical gold, but more rewards as well.

Not to mention that I took no part in the recent gun bubble that has yet to quite pop. I was already well stocked up on most items and actually sold quite a bit that i no longer needed for a nice profit. I've been running off my stockpile for the last year.

I'm getting dinky 2-3% returns on my US investments and I don't see much else available. A legitimate 8-12% return is a attractive investment. The treatment of GM creditors also makes one question the safety of US investments if contracts are so easily voided.

People who were saying housing prices would plummet were called fools and laughed at two years ago. Look who was right. Time will tell in this case.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

that's the second Nemo Butthurt thread greenlighted today.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

STFU and be glad he's not pushing for a second stimulus ;)

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.


true, but hours worked per week is a leading economic indicator. and it has hit all time highs the last two months and nobody bothers to report this.

but, yes we need to be patient.

Crosshair: ragekage: Just to laugh like hell at you. Heh. But heck, that's free market capitalism for you; the firearm and ammo industry is laughing all the way to the bank at the fears Obama is gonna take their guns!!11 Same with people de-investing in the dollar, at least in the currency markets.

Though Canroys aren't too bad, but isn't there still a 15% tax for foreign investors? It'd have to be REAL good for it to be worth it for you, I think.

...Cool story, bro!...

People who were saying housing prices would plummet were called fools and laughed at two years ago. Look who was right. Time will tell in this case.

Indeed, I don't claim to be a financial expert in any sense of the word, but neither do I put much stock into the prospects of doom and gloom. Maybe I'm foolish, but I'm putting my faith into the American people and our country for getting back on the right track; and the dollar to continue to remain strong because of it.

Not that it matters much to me, I had to cash in all my investments and retirement savings to pay for my daughter's birth and the complications of it.

WhoIsPurpleGoo: true, but hours worked per week is a leading economic indicator. and it has hit all time highs the last two months and nobody bothers to report this.

but, yes we need to be patient.

This; especially in retail, where you sometimes get multi-hourly updates from HR/District/corporate on how many hours you're allowed to expend for the store per work.

ragekage: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

Not just that, but you wrote that sentence without any sense of irony. Like that's any different than previous administrations. Our government has been printing it's way out of hard times since, oh, the Civil War. Methinks it's you who has gone full retard; sadly, I'm afraid I must farky you as such.

I don't write most of these headlines. I just try to tick enough people off so that they go greenlight. Mission accomplished, you easily manipulated sheep!

Andyr2120: I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

What's the point of even having an ignore list when dumbasses like you continually quote trolls?

Dr. Rosenrosen: Geez, it took Bush 8 years to wreck things this bad, and he was the master at driving businesses/organizations into the ground! Give Obama at least a year to clean things up.

I'm just trying to find the differences between the two parties...seems to me one is just as hell bent on farking us as the other

Bucky Katt: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

that's the second Nemo Butthurt thread greenlighted today.

Not my thread, but let's talk about me instead of Obama. That will be a nice diversion until we can find a way to blame the RepubliKKKans!

Dr. Rosenrosen: Geez, it took Bush 8 years to wreck things this bad, and he was the master at driving businesses/organizations into the ground! Give Obama at least a year to clean things up.

Take a look at who was running Congress the last two years of Bush's term. That's when the economy went bad.

Say thank you to Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that cabal of criminals.

Gunther: Andyr2120: I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

What's the point of even having an ignore list when dumbasses like you continually quote trolls?

What is the use of being on a large forum when you so easily offended by anything that Keith Olbermann doesn't agree with? Such thin-skinned pussies you all are. DIAF for the good of America, please.

Nemo's Brother: I don't write most of these headlines. I just try to tick enough people off so that they go greenlight. Mission accomplished, you easily manipulated sheep!

Cool story, bro!

But hey, that actually works for me- and especially you admitting it. You know, people will associate you and your actions with the Republican part, and I'm all for that.

Tell the guys back at DU you're one helluva effective troll!

Andyr2120: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

I do not think his plan is a great one, But it will take time to find that out. He might need to add to the plan. But I don't understand puting anyone on a ignore list. Will words hurt you. I just laugh at the tarts as they do with me.

As opposed to the oil trusts like Standard Oil, er, ExxonMobil who this time last year were taking as much money as they could out of the general economy and concentrating the wealth. $40 billion dollars in dividends and buybacks.

But business is our hero.

This thread is QUEER!

I tried to warn people last fall but I was called crazy. It ain't gonna work, the expectations are too high, people are learning to save their money (complete turn around in even best of times, the people, they are learning) and the ideology too crazy, like South Chicago. Almost all of the "stimulus" went to 30 years of lib pet projects that would never get done otherwise. I figure the NE cities will implode first, then the west coast.

But hey, let's keep porking trillions upon trillions into the vortex and taking over private industries. Pretty soon this won't even look like America and then all bets are off.

Zombie Apocalypse..:)

/Hopey hope change.

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.



Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.


I would have to say that its not so much the American people saying this but the Repubs and FOX news who are. I dont know of one intelligent person who dosent understand that it will take time for the federal moneys to be dispursed and for the American people to see any difference in their daily lives and job market

elchip: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

STFU and be glad he's not pushing for a second stimulus ;)

Someone is..lol. My money is on Frank and Pelosi.

shotglasss: Take a look at who was running Congress the last two years of Bush's term. That's when the economy went bad.

Yeah because the actions of various institutions like Lehman Brothers, Bank of America etc had nothing at all to do with making a mess of the economy.

GaryPDX: let's keep porking trillions upon trillions into the vortex and taking over private industries.

Funny you never say a bad word about those industries farking over countless people and then refusing to own up to their own stupidity.

WhyteRaven74: shotglasss: Take a look at who was running Congress the last two years of Bush's term. That's when the economy went bad.

Yeah because the actions of various institutions like Lehman Brothers, Bank of America etc had nothing at all to do with making a mess of the economy.

GaryPDX: let's keep porking trillions upon trillions into the vortex and taking over private industries.

Funny you never say a bad word about those industries farking over countless people and then refusing to own up to their own stupidity.

dude, don't start talking about shiat you don't understand...

The United States is heading towards socialism, for good or bad, and it doesn't matter which party is in power. Government, like any coorperation, acts kind of like a living creature in that it seeks to live, grow, and protect itself from external threats. Maybe Republicans are taking us towards greater 'collectivism' slower and more gradually than Democrats, but they sure as hell aren't moving in the other direction. I don't know how it's all going to work out, whether things 20 years from now will be better or worse than they are now.

So, if you agree with me on this, how about we stop with the vitriolic hate in political threads. We get along pretty well when the article is about Paris Hilton or the Large Hadron Collider. Those threads are fun and snarky, and nobody threatens to castrate anyone, it's all just rapier wit and astute observations. But bring politics into it, and we're at each other't throats, even though it doesn't make a hill of beans difference who's in the White House, or who controls congress

/copypasted from another thread, so no you aren't having day-ja-view

/did someone bring butter?

mattyc: dude, don't start talking about shiat you don't understand...

oh I understand it just fine, people like Gary? Not so much.

A top tax rate of 70-90% sure didn't hurt economic growth in the postwar 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's. There's no reason why it would hurt economic growth today.

Money is a lot more mobile these days. Soak the rich, and they'll pull up stakes and move their business interests to China, S. Korea, South America, etc. The rich stayed here after WWII because their weren't a lot of alternatives.

shotglasss: Dr. Rosenrosen: Geez, it took Bush 8 years to wreck things this bad, and he was the master at driving businesses/organizations into the ground! Give Obama at least a year to clean things up.

Take a look at who was running Congress the last two years of Bush's term. That's when the economy went bad.

Say thank you to Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of that cabal of criminals.

B B B B But Bush!!!

Still waiting on Pelosi's 100 days of change.

\goes well with Obama's change that I can believe in.
\\I have to wonder if he meant that the only change you can believe in is the change you'll have left in your pocket after he's done raping the treasury.

mark12A: The rich stayed here after WWII because their weren't a lot of alternatives.

Also very few actually paid the top rates. They were almost to the point of being purely symbolic.

LOL...I just want you people for a minute who blame Republicans and Fox news to ask yourself..DO you actually listen,research,and investigate what CNN and Democrats are telling you. Or do you just go with it and blame the other side all the time. I ask because I as a poltical orphan was just like some of you. Waaaahhh FOX newssss WAHHHHHH Bush's fault...Then I realized that both sides are playing the same freaking game just in a different way. Right now both sides suck. But this play ground behavior of Republicans and Fox blah blah blah.. Has gone on long enough. Don't you want to know the truth at all?

WhyteRaven74: Funny you never say a bad word about those industries farking over countless people and then refusing to own up to their own stupidity.

I was always taught, let the buyer beware. The ultimate responsibility falls on the person who signs up for stupid shiat. There are reams of consumer laws already. Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

Just wait until you see what a corrupt government can do. Buckle in.

Mr. Breeze: \\I have to wonder if he meant that the only change you can believe in is the change you'll have left in your pocket after he's done raping the treasury.

So Lehman Brothers, WaMu etc all are totally blameless in all this?

Andyr2120 [TotalFark] 2009-07-12 12:26:55 PM
Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

The moon-bat is strong with this one. Nine years of reading/seeing bush called everything from a child molester, to Hitler reincarnate and it's all giggles.

One very tepid critique of "The One" and he's hiding under his bed covers.

elchip: Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...

I guess I should clarify what the "alternative" rate is.

It's the official rate + marginally attached workers ("persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past" -- so-called discouraged workers are a subset of this) + those prevented from working as much as they would like to because of the economy.

mark12A: Money is a lot more mobile these days. Soak the rich, and they'll pull up stakes and move their business interests to China, S. Korea, South America, etc. The rich stayed here after WWII because their weren't a lot of alternatives.

tariffs :)

Mr. Breeze: Still waiting on Pelosi's 100 days of change.

\goes well with Obama's change that I can believe in.
\\I have to wonder if he meant that the only change you can believe in is the change you'll have left in your pocket after he's done raping the treasury.

Get it? Get it? He promised change, and I don't agree with the kind of change!
See what I did there?

Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth

David C Korten

a good read, even if you don't like his proposed solution, he does plenty to address what's wrong with the system.

Torque420: I would have to say that its not so much the American people saying this but the Repubs and FOX news who are. I dont know of one intelligent person who dosent understand that it will take time for the federal moneys to be dispursed and for the American people to see any difference in their daily lives and job market

The GOP and FauxNews is trying like hell to blame the economy on Obama, because according to them, it was just fine on January 19th, 2009 and fell though it's ass on January 20th.

Mr. Breeze: B B B B But Bush!!!

Still waiting on Pelosi's 100 days of change.

\goes well with Obama's change that I can believe in.
\\I have to wonder if he meant that the only change you can believe in is the change you'll have left in your pocket after he's done raping the treasury.

As opposed to when Bush raped the Treasury with his upper class tax cuts and spending trillions in that oily hole in the desert called "Iraq"?

ragekage: Nemo's Brother: I don't write most of these headlines. I just try to tick enough people off so that they go greenlight. Mission accomplished, you easily manipulated sheep!

Cool story, bro!

But hey, that actually works for me- and especially you admitting it. You know, people will associate you and your actions with the Republican part, and I'm all for that.

Tell the guys back at DU you're one helluva effective troll!

Sounds like he's admitting that he works for Fark. I do believe we found his TF sponsor, and he goes by the name of Drew.

GaryPDX: Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

It's ludicrous except for being factually true. They knew what they were doing and knew it would end up as a clusterfark eventually, but they kept doing it. Interestingly, those banks and investment houses who didn't do the same things, are doing much better now. All those collapsed banks and investment houses brought it on themselves. Yet somehow it's not their fault things are seriously messed up according to some people.

GaryPDX: Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

This is actually a true statement in GaryPDX's Bizarro World.

GaryPDX: WhyteRaven74: Funny you never say a bad word about those industries farking over countless people and then refusing to own up to their own stupidity.

I was always taught, let the buyer beware. The ultimate responsibility falls on the person who signs up for stupid shiat. There are reams of consumer laws already. Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

Just wait until you see what a corrupt government can do. Buckle in.

This wasn't a simple case of a company making or selling a bad product or service, it was a case of whole industries becoming toxic to the entire economy via the greed and stupidity of a handful of incredibly wealthy people. Caveat emptor doesn't really apply.

"Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers."

Yeah. Sadly, Obama sees no difference between creating "jobs" and creating "work."

Full retard would be to say the first $5 trillion stimulus (11t ish world wide) didn't work and reach the conclusion that we need a fourth stimulus.


/this is not the second stimulus, maybe for Obama but not for the country.

WhyteRaven74: GaryPDX: Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

It's ludicrous except for being factually true. They knew what they were doing and knew it would end up as a clusterfark eventually, but they kept doing it. Interestingly, those banks and investment houses who didn't do the same things, are doing much better now. All those collapsed banks and investment houses brought it on themselves. Yet somehow it's not their fault things are seriously messed up according to some people.

Have you ever shopped for a used car? The buyer/consumer holds the ultimate control. Greed is with everyone, including Liberals. Like I said, some unscrupulous businesses are nothing compared to what a corrupt government can do.

Follow the money. Make better buying decisions.

FDR tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Truman didn't know how to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Eisenhower didn't try to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Kennedy cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
LBJ tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Nixon tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Carter tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush I wanted to manage the economy through taxation. Dismal economy.
Clinton did almost nothing to change the Reagan model after the failure of Hillary Care. Successful economy.
Bush II let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush II after 2006 tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.

See the pattern yet?

Obama is trying to manage the economy. He will fail.

The most sucessful ecomomies reward the commen people who have better things to do than produce. You do this by taxing and regulating people who desire to build things. Prime movers are so greedy that when punished they produce more and take care of those with other things to do.
Many countries have had great success by just printing the money they need.
When you have kids always encourage and reward the artistic child who wipes the wall with feces.
If a child shows any self-motivation or accountibility punish them severely.
This will create children prepaired for success in the times ahead.

elchip: tariffs :)

I wish. It would do a lot to bring manufacturing home, but business/government seem to worship this "Global Commerce" thingy.

SingletonFactory: This wasn't a simple case of a company making or selling a bad product or service, it was a case of whole industries becoming toxic to the entire economy via the greed and stupidity of a handful of incredibly wealthy people. Caveat emptor doesn't really apply.

Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

dustman81: Torque420: I would have to say that its not so much the American people saying this but the Repubs and FOX news who are. I dont know of one intelligent person who dosent understand that it will take time for the federal moneys to be dispursed and for the American people to see any difference in their daily lives and job market

The GOP and FauxNews is trying like hell to blame the economy on Obama, because according to them, it was just fine on January 19th, 2009 and fell though it's ass on January 20th.

Mr. Breeze: B B B B But Bush!!!

Still waiting on Pelosi's 100 days of change.

\goes well with Obama's change that I can believe in.
\\I have to wonder if he meant that the only change you can believe in is the change you'll have left in your pocket after he's done raping the treasury.

As opposed to when Bush raped the Treasury with his upper class tax cuts and spending trillions in that oily hole in the desert called "Iraq"?

Trillions huh?
Link

Looks to be less than 1 trillion, which is not as much as the big O has spent so far 6 months into his presidency.

Andyr2120 [TotalFark] 2009-07-12 12:26:55 PM
Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

Coward....

I HAVE IT ON GOOD THORITY THAT THERE NEGRO SOL HIS SOWE TO THE DEBIL!!!

this thread already makes my brain hurt. i just get back from a two week vacation to this shiat?fark my life.
log off now markoff, save your soul.

mark12A: elchip: tariffs :)

I wish. It would do a lot to bring manufacturing home, but business/government seem to worship this "Global Commerce" thingy.

Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business. The greatest thing the government could do to improve the manufacturing climate in this country would be to ease up on the onerous regulations that inhibit every facet of business.

As one of those contractors, I will support arguments that there simply hasn't been time for these jobs to begin (and thus, for the cash to flow). However, workers aren't being hired. Period. We are still working the same number of guys as before -- just taking advantage of the fact that the jobs are coming out so slow. It isn't direct fraud, but management is definitely taking advantage of the situation to make sure the guys at the top get their profits before they worry about silly things like hiring more workers.

/Never supported the stimulus.
//Doesn't give a damn about stockholders, personally.
///Job's a job.

Mr. Right:
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.

lulz:

One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

Mr. Right: Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business. The greatest thing the government could do to improve the manufacturing climate in this country would be to ease up on the onerous regulations that inhibit every facet of business.

Our great nation was founded on tariffs and protectionism.

elchip: Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...

Ain't gonna happen this year. Will probably increase and stay in the 20% range (if not more) throughout 2011 and then who the hell knows what's in store for 2012.

It'll be interesting to watch how the government changes the definition of "unemployment" in order to keep the actual numbers within a more acceptable falsified range.

WhyteRaven74: GaryPDX: Claiming that evil businesses screwed over millions of people is ludicrous.

It's ludicrous except for being factually true. They knew what they were doing and knew it would end up as a clusterfark eventually, but they kept doing it. Interestingly, those banks and investment houses who didn't do the same things, are doing much better now. All those collapsed banks and investment houses brought it on themselves. Yet somehow it's not their fault things are seriously messed up according to some people.

People who bought houses with no money are the ones most likely to default & re-default (there was an article in the NYT or WSJ a little while ago about 0% down/LTV ratio being far more correlated with default rates than "subprime" in general... don't have the link with me)... but of course, they are losing their homes, and they can't be blamed, or something.

And it's more complicated than irresponsible lending. For instance, the direct cause of IndyMac's failure was the liquidity crisis, which was certainly aided by non-performance in their loan portfolio... but it was not simply a factor of dhey maed badd loans & tuuk mah house frum meh!

Blaming banks for the EXTREME levels of liquidity in the market due to the rush into loan securitization internationally (not just us, but money came from EVERYWHERE)... there was so much cheap money coming in, it really helped stupid corp-serfs give it out to loser deadbeats.

BUT... it's easy to say that the banks were bad, and to write stupid shiat into law like limiting executive management from flying in private jets (look up some of the legislation from the time if you want to see those clauses. It's in the original TARP, along with a couple other bills I've read through).

It was just a complicated failure with a lot of moving parts that broke horribly & spectacularly. Don't take others off the hook by blaming dumbass bankster middlemen in this clusterfrak.

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right:
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.



He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

The economy was successful. If deficits are a bad thing, your boy Obama is evil incarnate.

Yes, he's printing money as fast as he can... he just wants to spend, spend, spend which is why at this same conference he turned down the idea of second stimulus. That's right, idiots, he's so OBVIOUSLY in love with the idea of simply spending our way to recovery that he called Krugmans plan out on its stupid face.

Megain: Gosling: Megain, if you know he didn't write the headline despite him never saying so himself... who did?

that i don't know. and to be fair, he could have written them using an alt. but his number of greenlights has been steady at 5 since before the first of three instances i'm referring to, which precludes him from being the submitter

People never have alts on Fark.

Mr. Right: Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business.

Hoover, Smoot, and Hawley: Republicans, all.

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: elchip: Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...

Ain't gonna happen this year. Will probably increase and stay in the 20% range (if not more) throughout 2011 and then who the hell knows what's in store for 2012.

It'll be interesting to watch how the government changes the definition of "unemployment" in order to keep the actual numbers within a more acceptable falsified range.

I have a reasonably good guess..lol.

the liberal idiotness is strong in this thread.

"Obama will save us!"

Asshats.

It took Bush eight years to take the largest and wealthiest economy on the whole farking planet and basically send us on a downward spiral into third world nationhood. Give Obama a break people.

GaryPDX: Have you ever shopped for a used car? The buyer/consumer holds the ultimate control. Greed is with everyone, including Liberals. Like I said, some unscrupulous businesses are nothing compared to what a corrupt government can do.

Follow the money. Make better buying decisions.

That's good advice and all but no one in America would be rich without the continuing presence of suckers. It's like 80% of people now. That's why the used car lots are still in business.

Thunderpipes: the liberal idiotness is strong in this thread.

"Obama will save us!"

Asshats.

Nobody is saying that. Asshat.

GaryPDX: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: elchip: Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...

Ain't gonna happen this year. Will probably increase and stay in the 20% range (if not more) throughout 2011 and then who the hell knows what's in store for 2012.

It'll be interesting to watch how the government changes the definition of "unemployment" in order to keep the actual numbers within a more acceptable falsified range.

I have a reasonably good guess..lol.

What's that? I seem to be missing the joke (nothing new there).

Riche: Priming the economic pump takes time-- years, even.

How to be a Keynsian Economist: 101:

Scenario 1: Things get worse.
Statement: "Government spending has successfully slowed the decline. Businesses are beginning to feel safe again but it takes time. Unemployment is getting worse, but it is a lagging indicator. Without intervention, the market would have completely fallen out and the country would have plunged into chaos. There is no telling how bad things would be today."

Scenario 2: Things stay the same.
Statement: "The government has successfully halted the recession by filling market gaps and priming the economic pumps. Now investors have a safe foothold upon which to build again."

Scenario 3: Things get better.
Statement: "Proof positive that our policies are working. Without government aid the recession would have carried on indefinitely."

Note: May be repeated continuously for a decade or more (see Depression I). Apply as necessary.

See also: Religion

elchip: Mr. Right: Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business. The greatest thing the government could do to improve the manufacturing climate in this country would be to ease up on the onerous regulations that inhibit every facet of business.

Our great nation was founded on tariffs and protectionism.

Economies based on tariffs and protectionism always fail. Free economies thrive. Singapore, anyone?

GaryPDX: Like I said, some unscrupulous businesses are nothing compared to what a corrupt government can do.

The government hasn't ever managed to wipe out billions in wealth in the blink of an eye. To say nothing of misrepresenting billions more. But I suppose you think it's worse for the government to tax someone then for a brokerage to cause billions in pension fund money to go poof due to their own stupidity.

Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh?

Irrelevant point, it's about who made the mess that matters.

legion_of_doo: it's easy to say that the banks were bad

The banks, and others, were knowingly derelict in their duties and responsibilities. They stick to how they're supposed to do things, and we don't have have such a big mess.

legion_of_doo: People who bought houses with no money are the ones most likely to default & re-default (there was an article in the NYT or WSJ a little while ago about 0% down/LTV ratio being far more correlated with default rates than "subprime" in general... don't have the link with me)... but of course, they are losing their homes, and they can't be blamed, or something.

And it's more complicated than irresponsible lending. For instance, the direct cause of IndyMac's failure was the liquidity crisis, which was certainly aided by non-performance in their loan portfolio... but it was not simply a factor of dhey maed badd loans & tuuk mah house frum meh!

Blaming banks for the EXTREME levels of liquidity in the market due to the rush into loan securitization internationally (not just us, but money came from EVERYWHERE)... there was so much cheap money coming in, it really helped stupid corp-serfs give it out to loser deadbeats.

BUT... it's easy to say that the banks were bad, and to write stupid shiat into law like limiting executive management from flying in private jets (look up some of the legislation from the time if you want to see those clauses. It's in the original TARP, along with a couple other bills I've read through).

It was just a complicated failure with a lot of moving parts that broke horribly & spectacularly. Don't take others off the hook by blaming dumbass bankster middlemen in this clusterfrak.

This is not a chicken-or-the-egg scenario.
Banks and real estate brokers would not have offered mortgages at insane rates and/or lied about the buyer's finances if mortgages had not first been pooled and sold as commodities on Wall Street.

PC LOAD LETTER: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Remember Descent:

The highest form of patriotic.

This brings up an interesting question. Why should we have to wait for things to get better? Nobody wanted to wait for any war to get better. They wanted it all fixed, right now.

FIX IT NOW OH FEARLESS LEADER!

/gonna go drink kool aid to drown my sorrows
//beer isn't working anymore

Thunderpipes: "Obama will save us!"

I'd offer some solutions, but you'd cry about those too, even though it would only involve going after people who farked things up. Granted perhaps a bit harshly, but they earned it.

Andyr2120: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

coward

Mr. Right: FDR tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Truman didn't know how to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Eisenhower didn't try to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Kennedy cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
LBJ tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Nixon tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Carter tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush I wanted to manage the economy through taxation. Dismal economy.
Clinton did almost nothing to change the Reagan model after the failure of Hillary Care. Successful economy.
Bush II let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush II after 2006 tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.

See the pattern yet?

Obama is trying to manage the economy. He will fail.

And how the U.S. economy did during those presidencies was solely due to the president at the time either "managing" the economy or "letting the economy go"? The oversimplification meter just asploded, Tsar Bomba-style.

Here's a good one for ya:

Herbert Hoover. Let the economy do its thing. Disastrous economy.

/Hey, this is fun!

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.


YOU. CANT. FLOOD. THE. MARKET. WITH. FIAT. CURRENCY. and expect things to get better.

It might look like things are getting better for your 24-hour news cycle, but over a period of years its just not going to happen.


Seriously, I don't know. It it Full Retard or brilliant and wants American to fall.

If I had to pick. It would be Full Retard and wants America to fail.

Doctor Funkenstein:

Someone should really 'shop palin in place of the baby. That'd be hilarious..

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business.

Hoover, Smoot, and Hawley: Republicans, all.

What's your point? FDR and the Dems supported it - Dems were clamoring for it! Stupidity is not a party thing. It's a politician thing. Both Dems and Reps have screwed up the economy when they tried to manage it. Both Dems and Reps have had successful economies when they let it go and let the people run it in their own self-interest. The economy is not a party thing. It's a people vs. government thing. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and watch us go. Right now, they have jackboots on our necks.

elchip: Mr. Right: Hoover signing the Smoot-Hawley act (tariffs) were the single most devastting act leading to the Great Depression. I'm not all hot about Global Commerce but excessive tariffs invite retaliation which stops all trade and all business. The greatest thing the government could do to improve the manufacturing climate in this country would be to ease up on the onerous regulations that inhibit every facet of business.

Our great nation was founded on tariffs and protectionism.

Hey, elchip! Good to see you here!

(waves)

Klingon Penis:
This is not a chicken-or-the-egg scenario.
Banks and real estate brokers would not have offered mortgages at insane rates and/or lied about the buyer's finances if mortgages had not first been pooled and sold as commodities on Wall Street the loans had not had implicit backing from the Federal Government.


FTFY.

Terryg999: dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.


YOU. CANT. FLOOD. THE. MARKET. WITH. FIAT. CURRENCY. and expect things to get better.

It might look like things are getting better for your 24-hour news cycle, but over a period of years its just not going to happen.


Seriously, I don't know. It it Full Retard or brilliant and wants American to fall.

If I had to pick. It would be Full Retard and wants America to fail.

Ah yes,,, a currency flood. That would explain the massive inflation we're having... oh wait, we're deflating/neutral

WhyteRaven74: Irrelevant point, it's about who made the mess that matters.

Wrong. The relevant point is you can't eliminate greed. Some greed in businesses is far better than widespread greed in corrupt government. To believe these clowns in DC are benevolent and only looking out for the little guy is pure fantasy.

Mr. Right: What's your point? FDR and the Dems supported it - Dems were clamoring for it! Stupidity is not a party thing. It's a politician thing. Both Dems and Reps have screwed up the economy when they tried to manage it. Both Dems and Reps have had successful economies when they let it go and let the people run it in their own self-interest. The economy is not a party thing. It's a people vs. government thing. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and watch us go. Right now, they have jackboots on our necks.

"Everybody has asked the question, what shall we do...? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!" - Frederick Douglas

The man was ahead of his time.

"The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man[...]"

/I think Davie Crockett understood.

I can't afford to be patient when I have no job and no money.

Klingon Penis: Banks and real estate brokers would not have offered mortgages at insane rates and/or lied about the buyer's finances if mortgages had not first been pooled and sold as commodities on Wall Street.

And there's the tiny issue of getting the ratings agencies to issue favorable ratings. Ratings that no sane person would ever offer to the securities in question.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Mr. Right: What's your point? FDR and the Dems supported it - Dems were clamoring for it! Stupidity is not a party thing. It's a politician thing. Both Dems and Reps have screwed up the economy when they tried to manage it. Both Dems and Reps have had successful economies when they let it go and let the people run it in their own self-interest. The economy is not a party thing. It's a people vs. government thing. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and watch us go. Right now, they have jackboots on our necks.

"Everybody has asked the question, what shall we do...? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!" - Frederick Douglas

The man was ahead of his time.

Said a man whose people we're kept in chains for an economic incentive.

yelmrog:
Here's a good one for ya:

Herbert Hoover. Let the economy do its thing. Disastrous economy.

/Hey, this is fun!

Wrong. Hoover had a chance to let the economy fix itself. He failed. See Smoot-Hawley. That is what is called managing the economy. It failed.

One similarity though. Through his third election, FDR was blaming Hoover for the economy. Just like Obama and his minions blame Bush for every thing now and will likely continue to through his 2nd term, if we are so misfortunate as to have to endure that.

WhyteRaven74: GaryPDX: Like I said, some unscrupulous businesses are nothing compared to what a corrupt government can do.

The government hasn't ever managed to wipe out billions in wealth in the blink of an eye.

The government was absolutely complicit in allowing it to happen. Many checks and balances were in place to prevent the meltdown and the government decided the banks / stock market didn't need any checks/balances and could basically oversee their own banking/stock trading practices.

Read up on Chris Cox if you're bored.

Once upon a time there was a country having hard times.With a new leader, the government created jobs and took over banking and industry.Sound familiar?

communistsarestupid: FTFY.

A lot of mortgages have no government backing at all.

GaryPDX: Some greed in businesses is far better than widespread greed in corrupt government

So greed that wipes out tens of billions in wealth is acceptable? Really?

elchip
Unfortunately I think it's a little late to start thinking about tariffs. It would probably provoke a trade war with China and they would dump all the government bonds they hold. Unless you're considering that to be an acceptable outcome.

i warned you what would happen if the US did not convert to the metric system



but did u listen?

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

StickyBunBandit: Once upon a time there was a country having hard times.With a new leader, the government created jobs and took over banking and industry.Sound familiar?

Sweden?
Japan?
Ghana?

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: The government was absolutely complicit in allowing it to happen

It didn't help the relevant offices were basically told to do nothing. The SEC barely had enough people to keep track of regular filings, forget trying to chase after people.

StickyBunBandit: Once upon a time there was a country having hard times.With a new leader, the government created jobs and took over banking and industry.Sound familiar?

Sweden?

clgrin: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Mr. Right:
"Everybody has asked the question, what shall we do...? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!" - Frederick Douglas

The man was ahead of his time.

Said a man whose people we're kept in chains for an economic incentive.

The problem is that the economic incentive didn't work. The slave economy in the South was in abysmal shape at the time of the Civil War. The economy of the North was booming. Free enterprise and all that. But Douglass was a brilliant man. Up from slavery, yet he did indeed hit the nail on the head. Leave us alone and we succeed. Help us and do us the more mischief.

/I love the turn of phrase that Douglass was capable of. Apparently even the uneducated had more grammar skills in those days.

Deacon Blue: The United States is heading towards socialism, for good or bad, and it doesn't matter which party is in power. Government, like any coorperation, acts kind of like a living creature in that it seeks to live, grow, and protect itself from external threats. Maybe Republicans are taking us towards greater 'collectivism' slower and more gradually than Democrats, but they sure as hell aren't moving in the other direction. I don't know how it's all going to work out, whether things 20 years from now will be better or worse than they are now.

So, if you agree with me on this, how about we stop with the vitriolic hate in political threads. We get along pretty well when the article is about Paris Hilton or the Large Hadron Collider. Those threads are fun and snarky, and nobody threatens to castrate anyone, it's all just rapier wit and astute observations. But bring politics into it, and we're at each other't throats, even though it doesn't make a hill of beans difference who's in the White House, or who controls congress

People get a little touchy when it comes to their individual liberties and property, who knew?

There is an alternative. Everyone who values liberty and personal responsibility can move to New Hampshire for the Free State Project. Everybody else can stay in the other states and keep circling the drain with failed policies and leviathan government that is intent on redistributing wealth and running every minute aspect of their lives. That will make both sides happy. Or at least it will make one side happy, and the other side scared and angry about what's happening to them but unwilling to do anything to actually change it.

GaryPDX: WhyteRaven74: Irrelevant point, it's about who made the mess that matters.

Wrong. The relevant point is you can't eliminate greed. Some greed in businesses is far better than widespread greed in corrupt government. To believe these clowns in DC are benevolent and only looking out for the little guy is pure fantasy.

I can only speak for our family. when gas prices sky rocketed and intrest rates went just as high ..we went from a 6% intrest rate to 15% in one month.. We are not spending one dime on anything we don't need . we are dumping all our extra cash into paying off our debt.while will take a year. I am sure we aren't the only one doing this.And we are holding our breathes to see how bad our congress is going to screw us more. taxing cigs..sodas..gas. like we really need this now.
I don't understand how dumping money into government jobs..who are just a select few contractors is going to the greater good.
all I see are mom and pop getting screwed.

Mr. Right: yelmrog:
Here's a good one for ya:

Herbert Hoover. Let the economy do its thing. Disastrous economy.

/Hey, this is fun!

Wrong. Hoover had a chance to let the economy fix itself. He failed. See Smoot-Hawley. That is what is called managing the economy. It failed.

One similarity though. Through his third election, FDR was blaming Hoover for the economy. Just like Obama and his minions blame Bush for every thing now and will likely continue to through his 2nd term, if we are so misfortunate as to have to endure that.

Smoot Hawley didn't pass into law until 1930. By then, the stock market had been in shambles for 9 months and the Dust Bowl (has nothing to do with "managing" or "not managing" the economy, imagine that!) had begun putting the final nails in the coffin of the small family-owned American farm.

The run-up to the Stock Market crash was a direct result of everyone thinking "hey, lets just ride this pony as far as it'll go" with no thought given to regulating the ridiculous margin buying that was going on.

Smoot-Hawley prolonged the Depression, but the reasons behind everything being screwed up had more to do with "letting the economy go" than "managing" the economy.

Whatsleft: StickyBunBandit: Once upon a time there was a country having hard times.With a new leader, the government created jobs and took over banking and industry.Sound familiar?

Sweden?

jinx!

Somaticasual: Doctor Funkenstein:

Someone should really 'shop palin in place of the baby. That'd be hilarious..

ZOMG! That would be ha-larious! It's not like we haven't already seen 100 more Palin photoshops than we needed to see in the first place, right? And who wants to laugh at a photoshop where Obama is the only one to laugh at? That's blasphemy!

oh god, quit your farking biatching already. at least obama isn't taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the country that he was elected to lead was circling the drain economically. at least he WAS elected, and he didn't start a war with another country based on outright lies and faulty intelligence. you farking idiots sit here and biatch about the man, while simultaneously fellating the man who did all these things, and left the next guy to clean up his mess.

/man up and admit you were wrong, instead of hurling these outright idiotic statements around like so much miasma.

Terryg999: YOU. CANT. FLOOD. THE. MARKET. WITH. FIAT. CURRENCY. and expect things to get better.

It might look like things are getting better for your 24-hour news cycle, but over a period of years its just not going to happen.

Disagree.
One of our most prosperous periods was immediately after WWII.
The primary reason for this was the number of jobs and companies that were created during wartime industry.

War can be said to be something like a huge social program; the government wants something done (war) and spends lots of money it may or may not have in order to do it. Building tanks, planes, guns, whatever, the government wants it, they hand out money for it, somebody finds a way to capitalize and build it, creating long-term jobs and revenue in the process.

This stimulus package aims to do the same thing, but instead of guns and bombs, we start building a new energy infrastructure; wind power, solar technology, carbon-capture, and more. In the process we stop spending hundreds of billions buying oil off the market, energy becomes cheaper and cleaner, and the long-term jobs associated with building and maintaining the infrastructure are created.

Yet people seem to think this is a terrible, irresponsible idea. Why? Is it because the end product is useful? Apparently the government spending money to destroy things is fine, but god help us if we spend money to do something constructive.

pascoffee: I don't understand how dumping money into government jobs.

Fear is no excuse for not knowing what's going on.

Mr. Right: clgrin: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Mr. Right:
"Everybody has asked the question, what shall we do...? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!" - Frederick Douglas

The man was ahead of his time.

Said a man whose people we're kept in chains for an economic incentive.

The problem is that the economic incentive didn't work. The slave economy in the South was in abysmal shape at the time of the Civil War. The economy of the North was booming. Free enterprise and all that. But Douglass was a brilliant man. Up from slavery, yet he did indeed hit the nail on the head. Leave us alone and we succeed. Help us and do us the more mischief.

/I love the turn of phrase that Douglass was capable of. Apparently even the uneducated had more grammar skills in those days.

That's the point though. You're correct, the slave economy was a money loser on the whole and had been for some time. Yet slavery persisted and was alleviated, for better or worse, through government action. No large scale attempt was made inside the community to buy the slaves out, as was the case in Britain. Douglas (a great man to be sure) would have been a fool not the see an outmoded economy drifting along of its own inertia and the participation of those involved in it. Such economies that existed in other places in the world were either ended by outside (gov't) intervention or by slave revolts... and I know Douglas was not a proponent of an uprising.

Um, yeah... keep waiting on that sheeple.

Everytime you print money out of nothing, a pygmy marmoset dies.

please think of pygmy marmosets.

ok in all seriousness the bailouts and stimulus was a BUSH IDEA and now obama has become Bailout and stimulus happy. whats the deal man obama wasn't supposed to be this. you guys voted for him.

/you get what you payed for hehehehee

xaveth: Um, yeah... keep waiting on that sheeple.

If you have any better ideas, offer them up, or STFU.

Mr. Right: clgrin: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Mr. Right:
"Everybody has asked the question, what shall we do...? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!" - Frederick Douglas

The man was ahead of his time.

Said a man whose people we're kept in chains for an economic incentive.

The problem is that the economic incentive didn't work. The slave economy in the South was in abysmal shape at the time of the Civil War. The economy of the North was booming. Free enterprise and all that. But Douglass was a brilliant man. Up from slavery, yet he did indeed hit the nail on the head. Leave us alone and we succeed. Help us and do us the more mischief.

/I love the turn of phrase that Douglass was capable of. Apparently even the uneducated had more grammar skills in those days.

Douglass was self-educated. Big difference.

/he also happened to very smart, which never hurts.

mark12A: A top tax rate of 70-90% sure didn't hurt economic growth in the postwar 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and part of the 80's. There's no reason why it would hurt economic growth today.

Money is a lot more mobile these days. Soak the rich, and they'll pull up stakes and move their business interests to China, S. Korea, South America, etc. The rich stayed here after WWII because their weren't a lot of alternatives.

Not only that, but back then we still had tax havens. The Caribbean, swiss bank accounts, art galleries, all sorts of crazy and (more or less) legal (at the time) schemes to keep the IRS at bay. During the 1980s most of those tax havens went away, but so did the high taxes.

If you level a really high tax rate on the rich, they will probably just leave the country (look at the Beatles, John Lennon moved to NYC due to the UK's ultra high tax bracket). If the rich leave, chances are you are going to see even more jobs outsourced, which raises unemployment, which leaves us in the same situation we have now.

yelmrog:
Smoot Hawley didn't pass into law until 1930. By then, the stock market had been in shambles for 9 months and the Dust Bowl (has nothing to do with "managing" or "not managing" the economy, imagine that!) had begun putting the final nails in the coffin of the small family-owned American farm.

The run-up to the Stock Market crash was a direct result of everyone thinking "hey, lets just ride this pony as far as it'll go" with no thought given to regulating the ridiculous margin buying that was going on.

Smoot-Hawley prolonged the Depression, but the reasons behind everything being screwed up had more to do with "letting the economy go" than "managing" the economy.

You need to study economis with somebody who isn't a left-wing anti-capitalist. You might get a better picture of history.

Whether an administration tries to manage the economy or not is not the only factor in economic prosperity or the lack thereof. But it is true that every government, globally, that has tried to manage the economy has failed or kept its populace impoverished. When the economy is free and people are left to pursue their own interests and the government serves to protect their property rights instead of trample them, the economy succeeds.

When your leftist professors pointed out all of the little factors that contributed to the Depression that were not directly the result of government meddling, they were desperately trying to make the case that government meddling isn't bad. It is. Always. Well-thought out regulations that follow the basic premises of "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" are needed, just as we have laws against assault and murder. But trying to direct the economy will always fail. Which gets back to my original point. Obama will fail.

I might listen to the opinions of Obama's detractors if they hadn't started criticizing his performance weeks before he was even sworn in.

That, and the idea that he is also somehow responsible for damage to the economy that happened before he was even elected.

I'm waiting to hear about how he caused the recession during the Carter Administration.

And how he initiated the Pelopponesian War.

And fed Eve that damned apple.

Surprise, Republicans! The water doesn't run hot the second you turn it on. Now come on... don't get mad.... No tears now.

someahole: John Lennon moved to NYC due

And John Lydon, Eric Clapton etc etc either moved to the US outright or got places here to spend enough time each year out of the UK to avoid the taxes there.

Terryg999:
YOU. CANT. FLOOD. THE. MARKET. WITH. FIAT. CURRENCY.



Paultards are QUEER!

allegedman: Everytime you print money out of nothing, a pygmy marmoset dies.

please think of pygmy marmosets.

ok in all seriousness the bailouts and stimulus was a BUSH IDEA and now obama has become Bailout and stimulus happy. whats the deal man obama wasn't supposed to be this. you guys voted for him.

/you get what you payed for hehehehee

Why do people keep saying he's stimulus happy... goddammitsomuch. I'll say this nice and big with a damn link:
Obama dismissed the idea of a second stimulus
Link (new window)

Mr. Right: When the economy is free and people are left to pursue their own interests and the government serves to protect their property rights instead of trample them, the economy succeeds.

The people of 19th century England might want to have a word with you.

Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

yesanded: I might listen to the opinions of Obama's detractors if they hadn't started criticizing his performance weeks before he was even sworn in.

That, and the idea that he is also somehow responsible for damage to the economy that happened before he was even elected.

I'm waiting to hear about how he caused the recession during the Carter Administration.

And how he initiated the Pelopponesian War.

And fed Eve that damned apple.

Surprise, Republicans! The water doesn't run hot the second you turn it on. Now come on... don't get mad.... No tears now.

Right before Clinton left office, he had a press conference about the coming recession not being his fault, but the fault of a man about to be sworn in.

I've been told unemployment is great!

Quit taxing our industries so hard that they take their jobs over seas. Or start taxing the product brought here so that companies can be competitive. My city was once booming. Three years later, 20,000 of our jobs were in China. No, the void was never filled, but I find it funny because the whole country is experiencing what my city went through around 13/14 years ago. Make it fair trade not free trade, problem solved. You wouldn't have to throw one single dime at it much less a trillion dollars that was printed out of thin air. If you want real change quit voting for the same ol two burned out parties.

Andyr2120: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

You will be missed.

Another year or 3 to suck up, dudes.

Deregulate the banks and the economy tanks. And the conservative answer is more deregulation?

Seriously? Seriously?

thermodie: Quit taxing our industries so hard that they take their jobs over seas

Taxes are just the excuse offered up, it in reality has little if anything to ever do with it.

YodaTuna: Deregulate the banks and the economy tanks. And the conservative answer is more deregulation?

I would love to see some read Adam Smith, the father of the idea of a self-regulating free market. Their heads would explode when they see what Smith thought.

Gawdzila: Disagree.
One of our most prosperous periods was immediately after WWII.
The primary reason for this was the number of jobs and companies that were created during wartime industry.

War can be said to be something like a huge social program; the government wants something done (war) and spends lots of money it may or may not have in order to do it. Building tanks, planes, guns, whatever, the government wants it, they hand out money for it, somebody finds a way to capitalize and build it, creating long-term jobs and revenue in the process.

I could not disagree with your assessment more, and frankly this kind of grossly oversimplified and misguided explanation seems juvenile from an economics standpoint.

Please explain how hiring somebody to build an instrument of war (which presumably sinks the the bottom of the ocean or sees 10 years of service and then rusts in a lot somewhere) makes the country better off economically. Be specific as to whose money goes where, how, why, and what tangible economic benefit it gives.

This stimulus package aims to do the same thing, but instead of guns and bombs, we start building a new energy infrastructure; wind power, solar technology, carbon-capture, and more. In the process we stop spending hundreds of billions buying oil off the market, energy becomes cheaper and cleaner, and the long-term jobs associated with building and maintaining the infrastructure are created.

A few things here. First, of course it is better to spend money on energy infrastructure than bombs, but that doesn't prove that money should be spent on energy infrastructure, it just proves that money should not be spent on bombs. Second, wind and solar power a total waste of time and resources and are grossly inefficient, unsalvageably so. They are just feel-good do-nothing projects that enrich a select few giant corporations. Nuclear is the future. It's efficient, safe, and clean. There is no reason to invest in anything else right now. The argument that building infrastructure will create jobs to maintain that infrastructure is just more broken window fallacy.

Yet people seem to think this is a terrible, irresponsible idea. Why? Is it because the end product is useful? Apparently the government spending money to destroy things is fine, but god help us if we spend money to do something constructive.

There is essentially nothing the government does well. It is debatable as to whether it is necessary to provide things such as roads, but even that it makes a horrible mess of. Interventionism into the market is inefficient and usually does more damage than good. If something needs to be done, people will pay to have it done.

I thought trolling was against the FArQ? If so, why don't these pieces of shiat do something about that Nemo farkwad?

clgrin: That's the point though. You're correct, the slave economy was a money loser on the whole and had been for some time. Yet slavery persisted and was alleviated, for better or worse, through government action. No large scale attempt was made inside the community to buy the slaves out, as was the case in Britain. Douglas (a great man to be sure) would have been a fool not the see an outmoded economy drifting along of its own inertia and the participation of those involved in it. Such economies that existed in other places in the world were either ended by outside (gov't) intervention or by slave revolts... and I know Douglas was not a proponent of an uprising.

And yet every other country in the Western world managed to end slavery through economic/social means. Do you really think we'd still have slavery today without the atrocious, brutal government-caused civil war? Really?

Clearly the answer is to give me a billion dollars.

clgrin: Why do people keep saying he's stimulus happy... goddammitsomuch. I'll say this nice and big with a damn link:
Obama dismissed the idea of a second stimulus
Link (new window)

That's the funny thing about conservative Obama memes:
their need to believe them far outdistances the meme's existence in reality.

Mr. Right: Whether an administration tries to manage the economy or not is not the only factor in economic prosperity or the lack thereof. But it is true that every government, globally, that has tried to manage the economy has failed or kept its populace impoverished. When the economy is free and people are left to pursue their own interests and the government serves to protect their property rights instead of trample them, the economy succeeds.

Before you go making generalizations about "every government that has tried managing their economy has failed", you're going to need to define "managing the economy". Where is the line drawn between well-thought-out regulation and too much regulation? There has to be one, right? Or maybe the way you think of it as "well, whenever an economy is doing well, it's because of well-thought-out regulation. Whenever it's doing poorly, it must be a result of too much 'managing' of the economy that's going on". And the shoehorning begins.

When your leftist professors pointed out all of the little factors that contributed to the Depression that were not directly the result of government meddling, they were desperately trying to make the case that government meddling isn't bad. It is. Always. Well-thought out regulations that follow the basic premises of "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not covet" are needed, just as we have laws against assault and murder. But trying to direct the economy will always fail. Which gets back to my original point. Obama will fail.

You make assumptions that I had "leftist professors". In fact, you're making assumptions that I had professors at all. What a nice little straw man you're constructing there! So basically, what I'm hearing here is that the Dust Bowl is overstated as a contributing factor to the Depression, as well as the lack of regulation in the stock market that created the margin buying disasters.

As long as we're making straw men here, I'll do a little of my own. I'm assuming that your favorite period of American history is the Gilded Age? Seems like the perfect scenario for you.

WhyteRaven74: pascoffee: I don't understand how dumping money into government jobs.

Fear is no excuse for not knowing what's going on.
I know whats going on.government is fixing it rads bridges.hell the AFbase I work at just got 5.2 million of them dollars for it upkeep.
thats what I mean by just a few will make money on the projects.
It just sustains those families.
Will mom and pop store is closing its doors because they are putting there money to those business.

I have talked to some of the contracers. they are trying to rebuild all the money they lost in stocks.401 k. they aren't spending their money either.

I think I should get it over with and replace him with myself so we can legalize all drugs, have gays farking each other in the streets while destroying the sacrament of marriage, abolish all religion, and mandatory abortions to support the massive amounts of baby-killing stem cell research I will fund.

Just imagine the possibilities! I think I'll run on that ticket in 2012.

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

Mr. Right: lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

And if you're killed by a moronic right-wing psychopath who decides to shoot some church, office building, or store up because he finally listened to enough right-wing radio to make him snap, I'll giggle a little, too.

Obama admitted that he misunderestemated the economy despite his Promises that if we ( and when I say " we" I mean the 1/2 of the country that pays most of the taxes but didn't vote for him ) these trillions plus interest on a " stimulus " plan unemployment wouldn't go over 8%..

As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume that he hasn't misunderestemated the cost of his healthcare plan or the huge money you will pay in energy bills if his Global Warming plan goes into affect?

" Hope and Change " really means " after all of his useless spending all I have left is Change and I Hope he doesn't take that from me too.."


/but hey at least we're protecting turtles, toads and rats

Mr. Right: His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

I love how you are so certain he will fail. After you accuse people of flawed learning.

Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle

Yeah cause health care works that way anywhere in the industrialized world *facepalm* also I don't own a home, never had any interest in that really. No need for a house, and condos aren't all that great. I mean if I find myself with enough money to buy something outright without a mortgage, I might do that. Maybe.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: clgrin: That's the point though. You're correct, the slave economy was a money loser on the whole and had been for some time. Yet slavery persisted and was alleviated, for better or worse, through government action. No large scale attempt was made inside the community to buy the slaves out, as was the case in Britain. Douglas (a great man to be sure) would have been a fool not the see an outmoded economy drifting along of its own inertia and the participation of those involved in it. Such economies that existed in other places in the world were either ended by outside (gov't) intervention or by slave revolts... and I know Douglas was not a proponent of an uprising.

And yet every other country in the Western world managed to end slavery through economic/social means. Do you really think we'd still have slavery today without the atrocious, brutal government-caused civil war? Really?

Every other country? Really? Haiti? The Lesser Antilles? Pretty much the entirety of the South America got rid of slavery only after massive anti-colonial wars of independence... and even then not immediately. Bolivar only cared about the imported slaves... indigenous slaves were OK by. him. Most of these glorious Western countries that outlawed slavery at home had no practicing it in their colonies. The French? The Dutch? Dear God, the Belgians man? All of these abuses were only stopped via internal revolt or an external invasion. About the only country that actually did it the way you pretend they all did was Britain, (which is to their credit) and that was only because they didn't have that many in the first place.

libbynomore2:

/but hey at least we're protecting turtles, toads and rats

You forgot unicorns.

libbynomore2: As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume

Here's a fun bit of info, almost no one anywhere any either side of the aisle thought the economy was as bad as it has turned out. And how is Obama to blame for the effects of actions that occurred before he was in office exactly?

libbynomore2: Obama admitted that he misunderestemated the economy despite his Promises that if we ( and when I say " we" I mean the 1/2 of the country that pays most of the taxes but didn't vote for him ) these trillions plus interest on a " stimulus " plan unemployment wouldn't go over 8%..

As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume that he hasn't misunderestemated the cost of his healthcare plan or the huge money you will pay in energy bills if his Global Warming plan goes into affect?

My favorite part of your uneducated rant is how you used a word that Bush made up... twice.

Just got my quarterly statement from my investments. Went up by 1/6. I'm placated for the time being.

Am I hearing people in this thread telling me to wait for the good economy to "trickle down". It wont happen overnight.

HAHAHAAHAHAAHAHA

Good one.

joethebastard: libbynomore2: Obama admitted that he misunderestemated the economy despite his Promises that if we ( and when I say " we" I mean the 1/2 of the country that pays most of the taxes but didn't vote for him ) these trillions plus interest on a " stimulus " plan unemployment wouldn't go over 8%..

As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume that he hasn't misunderestemated the cost of his healthcare plan or the huge money you will pay in energy bills if his Global Warming plan goes into affect?

My favorite part of your uneducated rant is how you used a word that Bush made up... twice.

I LOL'd

Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

clgrin: Ah yes,,, a currency flood. That would explain the massive inflation we're having... oh wait, we're deflating/neutral

If someone eats a high carb diet, but exercises a lot, they don't gain weight. If they just eat a high carb diet, they will get fat.

The deflationary pressures are temporary. Once they run their course, get ready to hear your ears pop. Though we are already seeing inflation. I see it manifesting locally in food prices.

Not to mention the Core CPI is horrifically manipulated. Just look at how it is calculated and how it is published in the media.

What do you trust more? The weatherman who says the sun is shining or the view out your window that shows it is raining. The government has a strong vested interest in under reporting inflation.

WhyteRaven74: libbynomore2: As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume

Here's a fun bit of info, almost no one anywhere any either side of the aisle thought the economy was as bad as it has turned out. And how is Obama to blame for the effects of actions that occurred before he was in office exactly?

On that same note. I didn't realize how out of touch congress was until I heard Hilary Cliton not know what Teeter is.It was as bad as knowing the internet were tubes

Stimulus II: Double Down or All In?

Our governemnt failed us when they allowed this crap to start back in the Clinton days, Bush failed us when he made it worse, our government failed us again when they let Bush make it worse, the voters failed us when they elected Obama. The only one who hasn't failed us is Obama since there is no way in hell he could do anything about it anyway. Reminds me of a song "Put another bankroll on the fire, I'll bribe you with some bacon and some beans, I will give billions to all the rich folks, While you poor folks can just patch those old blue jeans..."..or something like that.

WhyteRaven74 [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-12 05:17:19 PM
libbynomore2: As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume

Here's a fun bit of info, almost no one anywhere any either side of the aisle thought the economy was as bad as it has turned out. And how is Obama to blame for the effects of actions that occurred before he was in office exactly?


No, actually during the campaign, Obama himself said our economy was the worst since the great depression.........maybe so, maybe not, but he claimed it was that bad and made decisions based on his belief ( unless he was lying of course )........the fact is, his left wing Big Government " fix " was totally wrong........and yet all he can do and say is what YOU say " hey, it's someone elses fault "

such pussies you people are....

Take responsibility for your actions for once!


IF he was this wrong about how to fix the economy, he certainly cannot be trusted to fix health care or energy policy......dude knows as little about those issues as he does about economic issues and we've seen his FAIL there already.

How about we give Obama the same amount of time to fix the economy that you all gave Bush to "fix" Iraq. Sound fair

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

I think it can only get worse for them. Once the cognitive dissonance level reaches critical, the GOP will blow up. Hopefully, a fringe party will form that everyone can laugh at equally, and we'll all be better off for it.

"Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class." -- Al Capone

pascoffee: WhyteRaven74: libbynomore2: As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume

Here's a fun bit of info, almost no one anywhere any either side of the aisle thought the economy was as bad as it has turned out. And how is Obama to blame for the effects of actions that occurred before he was in office exactly?

On that same note. I didn't realize how out of touch congress was until I heard Hilary Cliton not know what Teeter is.It was as bad as knowing the internet were tubes
TWEETER

drinkhomebrew Quote 2009-07-12 05:22:16 PM
joethebastard: libbynomore2: Obama admitted that he misunderestemated the economy despite his Promises that if we ( and when I say " we" I mean the 1/2 of the country that pays most of the taxes but didn't vote for him ) these trillions plus interest on a " stimulus " plan unemployment wouldn't go over 8%..

As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume that he hasn't misunderestemated the cost of his healthcare plan or the huge money you will pay in energy bills if his Global Warming plan goes into affect?

My favorite part of your uneducated rant is how you used a word that Bush made up... twice.


Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

dumbass....


Let me guess.....Obama voter right?

His plan worked.

We didn't have a farking meltdown during the swaps panic. Yet.

James F. Campbell: I thought trolling was against the FArQ? If so, why don't these pieces of shiat do something about that Nemo farkwad?

Because disagreeing with your fragile little views isn't trolling. Name-calling may be though.

libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

I know that your opinion isn't swayed by actual facts, but I'm posting this anyway for comedic effect.

Let me guess.....Obama voter right?

I'm educated and pay my taxes; you figure it out.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I chose B)

WhyteRaven74: libbynomore2: As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume

Here's a fun bit of info, almost no one anywhere any either side of the aisle thought the economy was as bad as it has turned out. And how is Obama to blame for the effects of actions that occurred before he was in office exactly?

Real simple, he ran on a platform of the criminalization of profit and the redistribution of wealth. Once it was obvious that the American electorate was buying this crap, the institutional investors saw the writing on the wall and bailed out of the U.S. debt and equity markets. The banks and insurance companies crashed immediately, followed by big manufacturing.

Watch the markets tumble in late 2007 as Barry O becomes the presumptive nominee. We lost half the value of the DJIA and it never recovered. The big market investors live or die on predicting the future of the American economy. Once Barry proclaimed its death sentence with this rehash of Robert Mugabe's failed economic policies, they got out and got out fast.

Your little socialist president isn't to blame, as much as the American idiots who supported his nonsense.

Nemo's Brother: Because disagreeing with your fragile little views isn't trolling. Name-calling may be though.

If it is, then you should have been banned months ago, you vile, pathetic excuse for a human being:

Nemo's Brother: What is the use of being on a large forum when you so easily offended by anything that Keith Olbermann doesn't agree with? Such thin-skinned pussies you all are. DIAF for the good of America, please.

Is Fark really so desperate for pagehits?

libbynomore2:
drinkhomebrew Quote 2009-07-12 05:22:16 PM
joethebastard: libbynomore2: Obama admitted that he misunderestemated the economy despite his Promises that if we ( and when I say " we" I mean the 1/2 of the country that pays most of the taxes but didn't vote for him ) these trillions plus interest on a " stimulus " plan unemployment wouldn't go over 8%..

As we head to 10% and see 11% soon to come how the hell can ANYONE assume that he hasn't misunderestemated the cost of his healthcare plan or the huge money you will pay in energy bills if his Global Warming plan goes into affect?

My favorite part of your uneducated rant is how you used a word that Bush made up... twice.


Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

dumbass....


Let me guess.....Obama voter right?


For the record:

"They misunderestimated me." - George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., November 6, 2000

Nemo's Brother: James F. Campbell: I thought trolling was against the FArQ? If so, why don't these pieces of shiat do something about that Nemo farkwad?

Because disagreeing with your fragile little views isn't trolling. Name-calling may be though.

Nemo has a point, James: it's only trolling if they're pretending to be stupid.

Andyr2120: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I've been reading Fark for years, and I have been a TF member for the last 2-3 years. This is the first dipshiat I've ever added to my ignore list.

Yea, keep to only those who think like you. DEATH TO OPPOSING VIEWS!

libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

No, "Strategery" is the word made up by Will Ferrell.

"They misunderestimated me," - G.W. Bush Nov 6, 2000, Bentonville, Arkansas, in response to peoples' surprise that he had beaten out John McCain for the nomination

From Time magazine.

Obama dismissed the idea of a second stimulus

He also was going to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, close Gitmo, give the Gitmo internees US trials, stop using signing statements, post Bills on the Internet so they can be seen by the public before he signed them and so on and so forth... none of which has happened.

He's a nice guy, but an empty suit.

To his credit, The Obamessiah has realized that the anti-terror machinery/policies Bush-Cheney put into place aren't so bad after all. He's like Clinton and both Bushes. Just wanted to be president. Doesn't have any real goals/plan. Reagan had goals.

Bush I was a caretaker, and reacted very professionally when Gulf war I happened. We were lucky to have him at the time.

Clinton had no real plans, just wanted to be prez. The republican congress keep him under control, and he had to be dragged kicking/screaming into doing something about Bosnia.

Bush II had no real plans, other than to be "The Education President", whatever that was. At least Bush II stepped up and got busy after 9/11.

I am a college grant proposal writer so this stimulus money has has had a direct impact on my job at school, both as it's filtered down through the feds and the state. From where I sit it seems like the equivalent of flying over in a helicopter and throwing money out. Some of the people who pick the money up are going to spend it wisely and on necessaries, and some are going to squander it and come whining for more when it's gone. In my state, there seems to have been several large block grants made to various entities. These entities are now figuring out, rather haphazardly, how to spend the money. We were just given a $300,000 grant by our local workforce investment board. We asked the funder when we got the grant, how they would like us to report results back to them, they said they didn't know. And if you look at the funding document, sure enough, under "reporting," it says, in so many words, we haven't read the bill yet, we don't
what requirements there are, if any, so we'll get back to you. It's the first time I've seen the phrase "unknown at this time" in a government funding document regarding accountability. These people aren't going to check to see if we did what we said we would. We are, but no one's really checking. And it all has to be spent by mid-August. We had 6 weeks to spend the money. It's not as easy as you might think to spend that kind of money without going to jail. It's all very rushed, mostly very half-assed, and much of it is of questionable use. The emphasis is on "green" jobs almost to the exclusion of all else, even though this is not a high-growth sector in my area right now. Thus, the people we are training with all this money...still won't have jobs when they're done. Most of the green stuff is mandated, so there's no choice to use the money to bolster the workforce in whatever sector is hiring locally. There's the opportunity for great good to be done...but it's like the program shot itself in the foot right off the bat. Some people will end up being helped by this, which is good, but there's not nearly enough bang for the buck here, at least from the experiences I've had with it so far.

fark. You people drink a lot of kool-aid.

Crosshair: clgrin: Ah yes,,, a currency flood. That would explain the massive inflation we're having... oh wait, we're deflating/neutral

If someone eats a high carb diet, but exercises a lot, they don't gain weight. If they just eat a high carb diet, they will get fat.

The deflationary pressures are temporary. Once they run their course, get ready to hear your ears pop. Though we are already seeing inflation. I see it manifesting locally in food prices.

Not to mention the Core CPI is horrifically manipulated. Just look at how it is calculated and how it is published in the media.

What do you trust more? The weatherman who says the sun is shining or the view out your window that shows it is raining. The government has a strong vested interest in under reporting inflation.

Yes... this would be true if you actually thought we were trying to print large amounts of money for a long time. So true in fact that the President turned down calls for second stimulus for that reason (among others). So true that it's preventing some banks from returning their TARP money at a discount rather than the nominal value. So true, in fact, that the FED has begun to shunt its purchasing of Treasury bonds, which is about the only aspect of the stimulus that could actuallyb e considered printing money

joethebastard: Nemo's Brother: James F. Campbell: I thought trolling was against the FArQ? If so, why don't these pieces of shiat do something about that Nemo farkwad?

Because disagreeing with your fragile little views isn't trolling. Name-calling may be though.

Nemo has a point, James: it's only trolling if they're pretending to be stupid.

Considering all of the personal attacks I am getting you would think that I was insulting somone's religion. Maybe I am. Maybe a lot of Total Farkers consider me an apostate or blasphemer for criticizing their guy.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

You are criticizing Obama's policies, and are therefore trolling.

Nemo's Brother: joethebastard: Nemo's Brother: James F. Campbell: I thought trolling was against the FArQ? If so, why don't these pieces of shiat do something about that Nemo farkwad?

Because disagreeing with your fragile little views isn't trolling. Name-calling may be though.

Nemo has a point, James: it's only trolling if they're pretending to be stupid.

Considering all of the personal attacks I am getting you would think that I was insulting somone's religion. Maybe I am. Maybe a lot of Total Farkers consider me an apostate or blasphemer for criticizing their guy.

No, you have every right to criticize anyone you want to. Hell, everyone will be criticizing him before his 4 are up, except some of those who voted for him and will never admit they farqued up.

IonBeam2: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

You are criticizing Obama's policies, and are therefore trolling.

My bad.

came for the Metalocalypse quotes/pictures, leaving disappointed that I'm the first.

"And I promise every Floridian that you will all be rich! Because we're going to print more money; why didn't anybody ever think of this before?!"

/"I feel we should go to Purple Alert."

Nemo's Brother: Considering all of the personal attacks I am getting you would think that I was insulting somone's religion. Maybe I am. Maybe a lot of Total Farkers consider me an apostate or blasphemer for criticizing their guy.

A blasphemer? Wow.

An alternative hypothesis would be that we welcome intellectual criticism because we realize that economics is complicated and that Obama has been far from perfect. The personal attacks directed at you, then, are just because you're an idiot.

elchip: dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.



Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...



How many of those are government jobs? If you realize that there is no such thing as infinite resources, how can you think that spending money on things we don't need and lowering efficiency will help in the long run?

joethebastard Quote 2009-07-12 05:32:21 PM
libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

I know that your opinion isn't swayed by actual facts, but I'm posting this anyway for comedic effect.

Let me guess.....Obama voter right?

I'm educated and pay my taxes; you figure it out.


I stand corrected ( although an actual audio citation would help...I mean BBC? they got busted for ficticious reports on the Iraq war... )....that said...wish Obama would do the same.....he claims he misunderestimated an economy that he claimed was the worst since the Great Depression......how do you misunderestimate that?

His plan has been a colossal failure and will leave us in debt for generations and yet wants to spend trillions upon trillions more on health care and energy not to mention his budget......

apparently YOU'RE willing to trust him on all of that........people who actually foot the bill don't.......and the pennies you pay in taxes don't really count....but hey, I have no problem with the messiah's disciples paying for his folly....

WhyteRaven74: xaveth: Um, yeah... keep waiting on that sheeple.

If you have any better ideas, offer them up, or STFU.

Riiiiight... because Obama and his cute apologists have all the right ideas, huh? Yeh, good luck with that one sparky. Just keep chanting, "Hope and change."

ZippyChippy: I am a college grant proposal writer so this stimulus money has has had a direct impact on my job at school, both as it's filtered down through the feds and the state. From where I sit it seems like the equivalent of flying over in a helicopter and throwing money out. Some of the people who pick the money up are going to spend it wisely and on necessaries, and some are going to squander it and come whining for more when it's gone. In my state, there seems to have been several large block grants made to various entities. These entities are now figuring out, rather haphazardly, how to spend the money. We were just given a $300,000 grant by our local workforce investment board. We asked the funder when we got the grant, how they would like us to report results back to them, they said they didn't know. And if you look at the funding document, sure enough, under "reporting," it says, in so many words, we haven't read the bill yet, we don't
what requirements there are, if any, so we'll get back to you. It's the first time I've seen the phrase "unknown at this time" in a government funding document regarding accountability. These people aren't going to check to see if we did what we said we would. We are, but no one's really checking. And it all has to be spent by mid-August. We had 6 weeks to spend the money. It's not as easy as you might think to spend that kind of money without going to jail. It's all very rushed, mostly very half-assed, and much of it is of questionable use. The emphasis is on "green" jobs almost to the exclusion of all else, even though this is not a high-growth sector in my area right now. Thus, the people we are training with all this money...still won't have jobs when they're done. Most of the green stuff is mandated, so there's no choice to use the money to bolster the workforce in whatever sector is hiring locally. There's the opportunity for great good to be done...but it's like the program shot itself in the foot right off the bat. Some people will end up being helped by this, which is good, but there's not nearly enough bang for the buck here, at least from the experiences I've had with it so far.

Not to dispute your account, but you do realize the vast majority of the stimulus money has yet to be paid out. The delay was to specifically prevent the frivolous waste you describe. In addition, only a couple of billion was specifically set aside for "green" jobs/effects. The whole reason there has yet to be "bridge to nowhere" type reports of stimulus spending is that was disbursed was either directly to the unemployment rolls or pre-targeted projects (which tend to be the green ones) Most states are still waiting for the general construction funds to come in (at least thats the case here in Virginia)

PC LOAD LETTER: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Remember Descent:

The highest form of patriotic.



The highest form of patriotic.

xaveth: WhyteRaven74: xaveth: Um, yeah... keep waiting on that sheeple.

If you have any better ideas, offer them up, or STFU.

Riiiiight... because Obama and his cute apologists have all the right ideas, huh? Yeh, good luck with that one sparky. Just keep chanting, "Hope and change."

ACtually, if you read the words he wrote and not the whatever the impotent rage put before your eyes... he was in fact asking for ideas, not saying he has the correct ones. In fact, I'm sure if you had actually listed something rather than calling him a cultist, a good discussion may have been had by all.

yelmrog Quote 2009-07-12 05:34:09 PM
libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

No, "Strategery" is the word made up by Will Ferrell.


YES....you'd absolutely right...that was the word.....again....I stand corrected.....

and again......wish Obama would do the same on his money grab disguised as a stimulus plan...which has not, and will not work.

That's why so many have already lost faith in him

Klingon Penis: It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party

Yep it does. To the point you don't even need to address how while they claim to be for the people, if a corporate lobbyist shows up they'll do whatever that one person wants no matter what the people want. Or their lovely trend to never putting people ahead of business or money.

libbynomore2: I stand corrected ( although an actual audio citation would help...I mean BBC? they got busted for ficticious reports on the Iraq war... )

Yeah, I'm sure they made it up. American news is so much more reliable.

His plan has been a colossal failure and will leave us in debt for generations and yet wants to spend trillions upon trillions more on health care and energy not to mention his budget......

No one that understood economics, at all, would have expected his plan to work yet. He hasn't even spent all the money in the stimulus package. So by what metric are you determining that the plan has already failed?

apparently YOU'RE willing to trust him on all of that........people who actually foot the bill don't.......

I never said that I trust Obama. I don't even necessarily trust Keynesian economics- but it's the only systematic approach to the problem that anyone suggested.

and the pennies you pay in taxes don't really count....

It's hard to tell- when you're just making crap up to fit what you already believe, do you realize that you're just making crap up?

libbynomore2: joethebastard Quote 2009-07-12 05:32:21 PM
libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

I know that your opinion isn't swayed by actual facts, but I'm posting this anyway for comedic effect.

Let me guess.....Obama voter right?

I'm educated and pay my taxes; you figure it out.


I stand corrected ( although an actual audio citation would help...I mean BBC? they got busted for ficticious reports on the Iraq war... )....that said...wish Obama would do the same.....he claims he misunderestimated an economy that he claimed was the worst since the Great Depression......how do you misunderestimate that?

His plan has been a colossal failure and will leave us in debt for generations and yet wants to spend trillions upon trillions more on health care and energy not to mention his budget......

apparently YOU'RE willing to trust him on all of that........people who actually foot the bill don't.......and the pennies you pay in taxes don't really count....but hey, I have no problem with the messiah's disciples paying for his folly....

You might as well leave the thread. No one is going to take you seriously (they never did anyway) after we've proved you're outright lying and obviously not checking any of your cute little facts.

IonBeam2: elchip: dustman81:



Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...



How many of those are government jobs? If you realize that there is no such thing as infinite resources, how can you think that spending money on things we don't need and lowering efficiency will help in the long run?

Not to many, I would imagine. Despite what you may have heard, the government (feds included, but especially state and local) have been shedding jobs with the rest of them. US mail is down. DHS is down (well, stagnant) HHS is down. State law enforcement is way down. About the only gov't sectors that got any serious cash during the last year or so have been in R&D/tech, and it takes a while for money there to uptick a large # of jobs

libbynomore2: yelmrog Quote 2009-07-12 05:34:09 PM
libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

No, "Strategery" is the word made up by Will Ferrell.


YES....you'd absolutely right...that was the word.....again....I stand corrected.....

and again......wish Obama would do the same on his money grab disguised as a stimulus plan...which has not, and will not work.

That's why so many have already lost faith in him

What was really strange about the whole thing is how Obama decided that he'd rather give the money to failing corporations rather than welfare moms.

Obama, seekrit reepublikim?

libbynomore2: I stand corrected ( although an actual audio citation would help...I mean BBC?

OK

Klingon Penis: There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

When immature minds run out of argument, they descend to name calling. I have absolutely no desire for political power. That would be Obama - track his career. Politicians in general these days are much more interested in the acquisition and maintenance of power than in any intelligent governance. I not only am not interested, I wish no one else was.

I don't need to prove an ideology. Free market capitalism, limited government interference, a government that works for the governed instead of the other way around, individual liberty and security - those were proven long before I was around and they will be valid ideas long after I'm gone - whether they still exist in this country or not. And I'm all for those. I am against a government that arrogates to itself the power to take those things away. And our government has been working on that for decades now. Both parties. There have been a few shining moments but it has generally been a long, down-hill slide.

I have absolutely no patience or tolerance for people who allow themselves to be enslaved by the government in search of some greater good. From seatbelt laws to smoking restrictions to EPA regulations to the onerous regulations on businesses, to the incredible amount of regulation regarding how one can transport a young child in a motor vehicle, the government has decided that it knows best and must take care of us. And we have let it. When I lose my patience is when people actually argue in favor of more government control under the guise of taking care of us.

I'm amused by your view of the Republican Party. Understand that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of any political party. But the same was said about the Democrats in 1994. It was said they were out of touch. They were and they are. The Republicans are now out of power in addition to being out of touch. That will change. What seems to be constant is that our politicians will serve themselves and we, the people, will be screwed. So keep supporting Obama's economic policies. Because they are rooted in government control, they will fail. It will not be amusing.

And now I have to go bury the woodchuck that just encroached on my deck. And I'll have to clean the deck. Single shot, .22 LR hollowpoint, just behind the right ear. Bastard then had the temerity to bleed all over my deck.

So have a nice day. Bye.

libbynomore2: Take responsibility for your actions for once!

Yeah how about getting the people on your side of the aisle to take responsibility for what they've wrought? And if you honestly think the economy can be fixed, by any means, in a few months, you really need to study economics. Even the profs at the U of Chicago, the people that produced the thinking beloved by the GOP, don't think it's possible to turn the economy in a few months.

lefande: he ran on a platform of the criminalization of profit and the redistribution of wealt

Reality called, it misses you.

xaveth: Riiiiight... because Obama and his cute apologists have all the right ideas, huh? Yeh, good luck with that one sparky. Just keep chanting, "Hope and change."

If you are unwilling to help, you have no place in trying to blame others for not succeeding or criticizing them for trying.

clgrin: IonBeam2: elchip: dustman81:



Republicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...



How many of those are government jobs? If you realize that there is no such thing as infinite resources, how can you think that spending money on things we don't need and lowering efficiency will help in the long run?

Not to many, I would imagine. Despite what you may have heard, the government (feds included, but especially state and local) have been shedding jobs with the rest of them. US mail is down. DHS is down (well, stagnant) HHS is down. State law enforcement is way down. About the only gov't sectors that got any serious cash during the last year or so have been in R&D/tech, and it takes a while for money there to uptick a large # of jobs

Correcting my self, state law enforcement also got a lot in the stimulus, it's only now starting to come in

Mr. Right: Free market capitalism

Adam Smith wants a word with you about your idea of that. What you call a free market Smith would call an abomination.

the government has decided that it knows best and must take care of us

A great many of those regulations arose only after it became clear those who should be doing things properly had no interest in doing so.

Mr. Right: And now I have to go bury the woodchuck that just encroached on my deck. And I'll have to clean the deck. Single shot, .22 LR hollowpoint, just behind the right ear. Bastard then had the temerity to bleed all over my deck.

You see? He's a tough rugged individualist. Those damn woodchucks encroach on his proper-tie, they'd better start prayin'. In fact, just the other day, some wild Indians showed up to rape his wife and kidnap his children, but he beat them off single-handed.

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Free market capitalism

Adam Smith wants a word with you about your idea of that. What you call a free market Smith would call an abomination.

the government has decided that it knows best and must take care of us

A great many of those regulations arose only after it became clear those who should be doing things properly had no interest in doing so.

How in the hell do you presume to know what I call a free market?

Who gets to decide how things are "properly" done?

One of the ways we know the left is out of touch is that they actually believe they get to come up with all the definitions. You don't.

clgrin: Not to dispute your account, but you do realize the vast majority of the stimulus money has yet to be paid out. The delay was to specifically prevent the frivolous waste you describe. In addition, only a couple of billion was specifically set aside for "green" jobs/effects. The whole reason there has yet to be "bridge to nowhere" type reports of stimulus spending is that was disbursed was either directly to the unemployment rolls or pre-targeted projects (which tend to be the green ones) Most states are still waiting for the general construction funds to come in (at least thats the case here in Virginia)

Yes, I do. That's why I am only talking about something that I know first-hand. The way education will experience this crazy stimulus thing will be different than other sectors, I'm sure. The money certainly seems to be flowing more quickly to us than other areas. From what I can see both from my own experience, and from perusing all of the available funding out there that is springing from this, there is a hell of a lot of money being put up, an incredible surge in funding opportunities at all levels of education, much of it, so far, on green initiatives. Personally, I think the emphasis on the green sector is overdone right now, but I don't get paid to write proposals for projects I agree with. I'll do what I need to do. My only real concern is the uncharacteristic lack of accountability and reporting in many of the guidelines I've seen so far. I think the rush has something to do with the approaching end of the federal fiscal year Sept. 29. Traditionally, all federal funds must be encumbered by that time. Maybe that accounts for the rush. I have no idea if the other stimulus money has that same stipulation or not. If so, they won't be able to spend much more than they've spent now. But I suspect they have more leeway than that.

WhyteRaven74: Klingon Penis: It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party

Yep it does. To the point you don't even need to address how while they claim to be for the people, if a corporate lobbyist shows up they'll do whatever that one person wants no matter what the people want. Or their lovely trend to never putting people ahead of business or money.

And the Democrats will do the same for the unions. Repugnicans give it to us from the front, Democrats give it to us from the rear.

Mr. Right: How in the hell do you presume to know what I call a free market?

By virtue of what you say about government regulation and other things.

Who gets to decide how things are "properly" done?

In some cases it's rather simple, when you have the means to do things better and don't and as a result harm people or increase the likelihood harm will come to them, yeah you've failed. In other cases, not so easy.

ZippyChippy: clgrin: Not to dispute your account, but you do realize the vast majority of the stimulus money has yet to be paid out. The delay was to specifically prevent the frivolous waste you describe. In addition, only a couple of billion was specifically set aside for "green" jobs/effects. The whole reason there has yet to be "bridge to nowhere" type reports of stimulus spending is that was disbursed was either directly to the unemployment rolls or pre-targeted projects (which tend to be the green ones) Most states are still waiting for the general construction funds to come in (at least thats the case here in Virginia)

Yes, I do. That's why I am only talking about something that I know first-hand. The way education will experience this crazy stimulus thing will be different than other sectors, I'm sure. The money certainly seems to be flowing more quickly to us than other areas. From what I can see both from my own experience, and from perusing all of the available funding out there that is springing from this, there is a hell of a lot of money being put up, an incredible surge in funding opportunities at all levels of education, much of it, so far, on green initiatives. Personally, I think the emphasis on the green sector is overdone right now, but I don't get paid to write proposals for projects I agree with. I'll do what I need to do. My only real concern is the uncharacteristic lack of accountability and reporting in many of the guidelines I've seen so far. I think the rush has something to do with the approaching end of the federal fiscal year Sept. 29. Traditionally, all federal funds must be encumbered by that time. Maybe that accounts for the rush. I have no idea if the other stimulus money has that same stipulation or not. If so, they won't be able to spend much more than they've spent now. But I suspect they have more leeway than that.

If I might ask, do you primarily get grant requests for a certain business sector or is more by whoever is in the area. My brother used to do a lot a grant writing himself, but he pretty much only did stuff with think-tanks.

RadicalArcher: came for the Metalocalypse quotes/pictures, leaving disappointed that I'm the first.

"And I promise every Floridian that you will all be rich! Because we're going to print more money; why didn't anybody ever think of this before?!"

/"I feel we should go to Purple Alert."

Well just because it was a rerun the other night..I let it go..But I did fall off my sofa laughing..

Didn't Obama himself give a completely unrealistic timeline for his stimulus plan to start affecting the job market?

The stimulus plan is a great way boost oil speculation and keep fuel prices up. I don't know that it helps anyone else.

libbynomore2: Wow, you're really dumb......Bush never said....." misunderestimated "...... it was a word " made up " by Will Ferrell on SNL

No, "Strategery" is the word made up by Will Ferrell.

"They misunderestimated me," - G.W. Bush Nov 6, 2000, Bentonville, Arkansas, in response to peoples' surprise that he had beaten out John McCain for the nomination

From Time magazine.
libbynomore2,

As they say on That Seventies Show....


Buuuuuuuurrrrn.

Good research yelmrog and joethebastard.

My take is that they are all politicians and therefore all bad. Obama's going to be bad for the economy too. The economy can rectify itself if we let capitalism work as another farker mentioned in his reference to Adam Smith's "The Invisible Hand." Now if we could just keep the politicians' hands out of it.

Oh and if the economy does recover (in spite of Obama), he'll be first in line to take credit.

Mr. Right: Free market capitalism

Hasn't existed since the Sherman Act. That's 1890, if you have no idea what I am talking about.


limited government interference

What's "limited"?

What's "interference"?

Completely variably-definable buzzword crap.

Also, the Government has demonstrated it's right to "interfere" with things ever since the Whiskey Rebellion. That's 1794 if you don't know what I am talking about.

a government that works for the governed instead of the other way around

More buzzword undefinable crap. Lobbyists are a great source of lack of democracy in legislation. Get rid of them. Obama's admin has the lowest number of lobbyists in recent history (though he missed on his "none" bit). You should be applauding. I don't hear you.

individual liberty and security

More undefinable GOP buzzword bullshiat.

The problem with buzzwords is at some point, they have to represent something uniformly real. The Democrats made that mistake in the 80s and again with Kerry. Buzzwords get ignored at some point.

GaryPDX: SingletonFactory: This wasn't a simple case of a company making or selling a bad product or service, it was a case of whole industries becoming toxic to the entire economy via the greed and stupidity of a handful of incredibly wealthy people. Caveat emptor doesn't really apply.

Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

Good point, but that wasn't your original argument.

Anyway, the economy has been crapping out because it was built on a crappy foundation for so many years. You can't pin it on one group of people, one party, or one administration. As much as I hate Bush, I can't even give him full credit for the mess we are in.

As you pointed out earlier, people are starting to learn a little bit and are starting to save money, live within their means a little more, and we are getting to a point where we can try to rebuild a more sustainable economy.

To that end, the current stimulus package and anything else trying to "fix" everything in the short term is not really useful. My idea of an ideal stimulus package (which I realize you probably won't agree with) would be enhancements to unemployment insurance (since more people will be out of work, and for longer - this helps mitigate some of the pain), investments in making education (especially in sciences and engineering) more attainable for people, and more investment in alternate energy (forget the environment, I'm more concerned about the economic implications).

We are in for a bit of pain in the short term, but our long term challenges are pretty daunting.

Partisan arguments never seem to change anyone's mind, do they?

PC LOAD LETTER: individual liberty and security

More undefinable GOP buzzword bullshiat.

Wow, just wow.

We know what these words mean, and they mean a great deal to us.

I'm very sorry you and your President apparently don't.

lefande: We know what these words mean, and they mean a great deal to us.

I'm very sorry you and your President apparently don't.

you know nothing.

5 people in room can't define this consistently.

I think it's a point of liberty to ensure abortion is legal.

Go for it folks. Come to a consensus.

Cagey B: So when you see someone go "OMG why hasn't it WORKED YET!?!"

You mean like Obama and his crew who are saying that because the first one didn't work, we need another round?


You people and your double-talk.

"OMG! We NEED to pass this stimulus bill NOW NOW NOW! There's NO time to waste! No! There's NO time to READ it! Just pass it because the country will disintegrate if you don't DO...IT...NOW!"

A few months later...

"OMG! You people are morans! What? Do you think the government can spin on a dime?"

A little while later...

"Yeah, only a few percent of the stimulus package has been spent. And yeah, most of the spending in the stimulus package isn't even slated for spending until the out-years but we didn't know that the economy was THIS bad when we had to pass it in that very expeditious manner where nobody read it where we put in that the spending was to take place in the out-years. We just figured that if we PASSED THE BILL that the economy would be scared into recovering. We didn't think that the spending actually had to occur now which was why we scheduled it for the out-years. So now we think we need another stimulus package as the first one isn't working because the spending mostly in the out-years so that we can maybe spend some money now. We don't want to rescind the spending in the out-years of the first package even though they haven't been spent yet because we think that it may still help..blahbity-blah-blah-blah

Nakito: Partisan arguments never seem to change anyone's mind, do they?

Ye olde "Us vs. Them".

PC LOAD LETTER: I think it's a point of liberty to ensure abortion is legal.

Agreed.

If you realize that conservatism does not equal religious fundamentalism, you wouldn't make a stupid comment like that.

GaryPDX: Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

The biggest ponzi scheme in American history is the Social Security retirement program and it was done by Progressives.

Benjimin_Dover: GaryPDX: Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

The biggest ponzi scheme in American history is the Social Security retirement program and it was done by Progressives.

Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

elchipRepublicans are gonna be so pissed when the unemployment rate starts going down...
===================

I'll be pretty happy.

Your comment was stupid.

/republican.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER: I think it's a point of liberty to ensure abortion is legal.

Agreed.

If you realize that conservatism does not equal religious fundamentalism, you wouldn't make a stupid comment like that.

I said consensus, fool.

If I think a part of liberty is legal abortion and others do not, then we all want "liberty" but the phrase is retarded when you claim WE do not support liberty and that only YOU do when reality is that we think liberty means different things and indeed America cannot agree on the term either. So shut up with the "I'm for Liberty". It's a useless phrase. We all are for it.

YodaTuna: Benjimin_Dover: GaryPDX: Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

The biggest ponzi scheme in American history is the Social Security retirement program and it was done by Progressives.

Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

We should "LET" people do whatever they want.

WhyteRaven74: thermodie: Quit taxing our industries so hard that they take their jobs over seas

Taxes are just the excuse offered up, it in reality has little if anything to ever do with it.

Idiot.

Farking pathetic. America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Codyl: YodaTuna: Benjimin_Dover: GaryPDX: Who's all tied up with Wall Street now..eh? And the biggest ponzi scheme in American history was done by a Democrat.

The biggest ponzi scheme in American history is the Social Security retirement program and it was done by Progressives.

Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

We should "LET" people do whatever they want.

I don't see how social security infringes upon anybody's rights. Unless you think being taxed is an affront to liberty.

nostudme: Farking pathetic. America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Leaves? Hell, the guy hasn't even become President yet.

After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

Obama still has a couple of months to go.

PC LOAD LETTER: liberty

Just put any law to the test, does this law give more power to the government and take away from the liberty of the people? If it does, we have a problem.

Laws which are malium per se, e.g. murder and robbery, preserve the liberty of the people, to be free from taking of their life or property by others without justification. We can't disagree on that point.

Laws which take money from the people and give it to others, seem to violate this test. It isn't my responsiblity to support you. It isn't my responsibility to financially support Barry Obama's cronies at Acorn. It isn't my responsiblity to support a failing auto industry and its unions. If you tax away my income and give it to someone else, you violate this test. If you use the law to further your religious agenda at the expense of my freedom, you also violate the test. Keep the government out of the economy and religion out of government and we don't violate the test.

The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the government from doing these things. Anyone who wants the government to act outside these limitations does so to the derogation of our entire form of democracy.

Tell me how that is foolish.

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: nostudme: Farking pathetic. America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Leaves? Hell, the guy hasn't even become President yet.

After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

Obama still has a couple of months to go.

I recommend not pointing out hypocrisy. It doesn't breach their wharrgarbl barrier.

Cagey B: Anyone familiar with the government contracting process and the distribution of funds from federal to state governments should be amazed at how fast it's gone so far.

Many states have had to change their laws in the time period from the signing of ARRA in February in order to legally accept and spend the money.

The fact that any money at all has been spent in the six months since the stimulus was signed is freaking amazing. And most of it will be put out into the economy in the coming months.

So when you see someone go "OMG why hasn't it WORKED YET!?!", what they're really saying is "hello, I'm afraid I haven't any understanding of either governance or economics. Please put me in a headlock and give me an enlightening noogie."

At least lock these fools away in reeducation camps. Some hard labor and proper education will shape them up nicely. They can learn or they can die.

lefande: Just put any law to the test, does this law give more power to the government and take away from the liberty of the people? If it does, we have a problem.

Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

To wit:

YodaTuna: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: nostudme: Farking pathetic. America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Leaves? Hell, the guy hasn't even become President yet.

After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

Obama still has a couple of months to go.

I recommend not pointing out hypocrisy. It doesn't breach their wharrgarbl barrier.

Good point. It is easier just to sit back and watch the butt hurt. And just as enjoyable as well.

Thunderpipes: Idiot.

What an astounding retort.

nostudme: America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Yes because one of the best law schools in the country hires empty heads to be professors.

lefande: our entire form of democracy.

I'm perfectly sure you would've been just fine with GM totally imploding.

Mr. Right: I don't need to prove an ideology. Free market capitalism, limited government interference, a government that works for the governed instead of the other way around, individual liberty and security - those were proven long before I was around and they will be valid ideas long after I'm gone - whether they still exist in this country or not. And I'm all for those. I am against a government that arrogates to itself the power to take those things away. And our government has been working on that for decades now. Both parties. There have been a few shining moments but it has generally been a long, down-hill slide.

I have absolutely no patience or tolerance for people who allow themselves to be enslaved by the government in search of some greater good. From seatbelt laws to smoking restrictions to EPA regulations to the onerous regulations on businesses, to the incredible amount of regulation regarding how one can transport a young child in a motor vehicle, the government has decided that it knows best and must take care of us. And we have let it. When I lose my patience is when people actually argue in favor of more government control under the guise of taking care of us.



/Approves

lefande:

Laws which take money from the people and give it to others, seem to violate this test. It isn't my responsiblity to support you. It isn't my responsibility to financially support Barry Obama's cronies at Acorn. It isn't my responsiblity to support a failing auto industry and its unions. If you tax away my income and give it to someone else, you violate this test.

Except by doing some of these things, we are actually creating a more stable society for you to prosper in. In the long term it is more beneficial to you and to society as a whole. If society is unable, you won't really have to worry about taxes a whole lot.

Your idea of freedom is so intertwined with how much money you have, I think it pollutes the idea of freedom. So my idea of freedom varies greatly from yours. You don't have a monopoly on liberty, just a different idea.

Thunderpipes: WhyteRaven74: thermodie: Quit taxing our industries so hard that they take their jobs over seas

Taxes are just the excuse offered up, it in reality has little if anything to ever do with it.

Idiot.

Not sure what you think is idiotic about his statement. I employ people in three regions; two in the US and one in India. Per-employee costs (aka "run rate") are the least in India. I can hire two people in India for what one in NYC costs me. Companies made a conscious decision long ago to shift jobs to where labor is cheapest. Haven't you noticed how many cars are built elsewhere? I own a Volkswagen that was built in Mexico for crying out loud! This is nothing new, sir... it's been happening for the last 20 years, but economic pressures mean it is happening in earnest now.

technofiend: Thunderpipes: WhyteRaven74: thermodie: Quit taxing our industries so hard that they take their jobs over seas

Taxes are just the excuse offered up, it in reality has little if anything to ever do with it.

Idiot.

Not sure what you think is idiotic about his statement. I employ people in three regions; two in the US and one in India. Per-employee costs (aka "run rate") are the least in India. I can hire two people in India for what one in NYC costs me. Companies made a conscious decision long ago to shift jobs to where labor is cheapest. Haven't you noticed how many cars are built elsewhere? I own a Volkswagen that was built in Mexico for crying out loud! This is nothing new, sir... it's been happening for the last 20 years, but economic pressures mean it is happening in earnest now.

If only we could have kept the cost/standard of living low enough here for our labor wages to be competitive with the developing world.

We really screwed the pooch on that one.

WhyteRaven74: lefande: our entire form of democracy.

I'm perfectly sure you would've been just fine with GM totally imploding.

Andrew Mellon would have:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.... That will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." Andrew Mellon

Ends will always justify the means for Republicans.

PC LOAD LETTER: lefande: Just put any law to the test, does this law give more power to the government and take away from the liberty of the people? If it does, we have a problem.

Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

To wit:

It would be nice if you read my entire post before commenting. Government and law have a purpose. I described an example. Apparently, these nuances are lost on you.


WhyteRaven74: I'm perfectly sure you would've been just fine with GM totally imploding.

We have done ourselves, and the U.S. auto industry, a great disservice by not allowing that to happen.

I adopt by reference the Andrew Mellon quote, supra.

YodaTuna: Except by doing some of these things, we are actually creating a more stable society for you to prosper in.

If government was really doing that, Barry Obama's mother wouldn't have been able to perpetrate the immigration fraud that put us in this predicament in the first place.

PC LOAD LETTER: WhyteRaven74: lefande: our entire form of democracy.

I'm perfectly sure you would've been just fine with GM totally imploding.

Andrew Mellon would have:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.... That will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people." Andrew Mellon

Ends will always justify the means for Republicans.

The definition of irony - liquidate them indeed! (new window)

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right:
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.

lulz:

One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.

He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

WTF is your hero doing to the deficit?

dustman81 [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-12 12:11:17 PM
Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

Like Democrats who expected the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to be over in a few weeks?

Tell that to all the towns that have 18% or higher unemployment.

No one is hiring workers, that money is just sustaining the workers they already have.

AIG is planning on giving millions in bonuses next week to it's executives. How is that creating jobs unless they hire more illegals to clean their pools.

GM cut 25% of it's workforce by closing 15 plants permanently. I fail to see how that amounts to hiring workers.

Mortgage loans and Student loans both at an all time low.

500,000 jobs lost every month and not slowing much.

Cap and Trade will make gas/electricity/fuel to skyrocket resulting in higher unemployment.

Every Green Job created results in double that in jobs lost.

A Spending Bill disguised as a stimulus bill with very little of it going towards job creation.

But hey, keep drinking the Obama Kool Aid.

lefande: YodaTuna: Except by doing some of these things, we are actually creating a more stable society for you to prosper in.

If government was really doing that, Barry Obama's mother wouldn't have been able to perpetrate the immigration fraud that put us in this predicament in the first place.

Hmm I see... well I guess I'm done here. If anyone wants to have a reasonable conversation on the idea of liberty and taxation, I'll be here.

lefande: YodaTuna: Except by doing some of these things, we are actually creating a more stable society for you to prosper in.

If government was really doing that, Barry Obama's mother wouldn't have been able to perpetrate the immigration fraud that put us in this predicament in the first place.

And that's why nobody takes you seriously.

Mongo cut wood:
AIG is planning on giving millions in bonuses next week to it's executives. How is that creating jobs unless they hire more illegals to clean their pools.

I'm sorry Mongo, but this is a right wing talking point. You should be thrilled that rich people are getting more money, it means they will create more jobs, right? I mean that's only if you agree with Ronald Reagan's economic policies. If not, then you may be on your way.

yelmrog: Mr. Right: yelmrog:
Here's a good one for ya:

Herbert Hoover. Let the economy do its thing. Disastrous economy.

/Hey, this is fun!

Wrong. Hoover had a chance to let the economy fix itself. He failed. See Smoot-Hawley. That is what is called managing the economy. It failed.

One similarity though. Through his third election, FDR was blaming Hoover for the economy. Just like Obama and his minions blame Bush for every thing now and will likely continue to through his 2nd term, if we are so misfortunate as to have to endure that.

Smoot Hawley didn't pass into law until 1930. By then, the stock market had been in shambles for 9 months and the Dust Bowl (has nothing to do with "managing" or "not managing" the economy, imagine that!) had begun putting the final nails in the coffin of the small family-owned American farm.

The run-up to the Stock Market crash was a direct result of everyone thinking "hey, lets just ride this pony as far as it'll go" with no thought given to regulating the ridiculous margin buying that was going on.

Smoot-Hawley prolonged the Depression, but the reasons behind everything being screwed up had more to do with "letting the economy go" than "managing" the economy.

What small family owned farms? The Dust Bowl (and mechanized tractors) killed the sharecopper model of farming.

technofiend: Not sure what you think is idiotic about his statement

There's a difference between moving jobs to where costs are lower and the talking point that it's all about taxes.

BTW labor costs aren't the only reason VW makes cars in Mexico for the US market. It's transportation costs. Lot cheaper to ship cars from Mexico than from Germany. All the same, not all US market VW's are made in Mexico, many are still made in Germany.

PC LOAD LETTER: Ends will always justify the means for Republicans.

Yep, doesn't matter who gets crushed, just as long as the "right" end is achieved.

lefande: We have done ourselves, and the U.S. auto industry, a great disservice by not allowing that to happen.

You really think putting a few million people out of work is a good idea?

lefande: It would be nice if you read my entire post before commenting. Government and law have a purpose. I described an example. Apparently, these nuances are lost on you.

Oh I read it. It's called cherry picking. You just want the laws that YOU don't like removed from the books.

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power. Perfect examples of governments that didn't support the poor, didn't care if they suffered enough to foment unrest, and when things got bad, scoffed at them: France 1790 and Russia 1917.

The Greeks and Romans developed a very different way to handling the poor: slavery. In Medieval times, it was the Feudal System. Times have evolved, thankfully.

Actual, real, honest to god Socialism and Communism were becoming quite popular until both Roosevelts decided to steal their thunder by actually addressing some of the more tangible things Socialists and Communists were agitating about. First TR with the Square Deal, then FDR with the New Deal. It worked like a charm.

yelmrog: Mr. Right: And now I have to go bury the woodchuck that just encroached on my deck. And I'll have to clean the deck. Single shot, .22 LR hollowpoint, just behind the right ear. Bastard then had the temerity to bleed all over my deck.

You see? He's a tough rugged individualist. Those damn woodchucks encroach on his proper-tie, they'd better start prayin'. In fact, just the other day, some wild Indians showed up to rape his wife and kidnap his children, but he beat them off single-handed.

NTTAWWT

WhyteRaven74: Thunderpipes: Idiot.

What an astounding retort.

nostudme: America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Yes because one of the best law schools in the country hires empty heads to be professors.

lefande: our entire form of democracy.

I'm perfectly sure you would've been just fine with GM totally imploding.

Ever hear of affermative action? Yes, we have an affermative action president.

/He's also a freaking Commie.

PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

locustfajita:

What small family owned farms? The Dust Bowl (and mechanized tractors) killed the sharecopper model of farming.

My bad. Should have used "family farm". If they would have been owners, they probably could have stayed on the land (fat lot of good it would have done them).

At any rate, the traditional method of average people working the land to subsist took it in the shorts. And it wasn't because some bureaucrat in Washington was over-managing the economy.

locustfajita:

Ever hear of affermative action? Yes, we have an affermative action president.

/He's also a freaking Commie.

I'm gonna feed you. Why? Because I want to know how you think. You should feel special.

What law required that we elect an African-American president? That's what AffIrmative Action means. If you could actually give me the reference, that would be neat.

Second, what specific policies has Obama instituted that are communist in nature. Specific links to those laws/policies on a government website would be most appreciated.

charkocu: Somaticasual: Doctor Funkenstein:

Someone should really 'shop palin in place of the baby. That'd be hilarious..

ZOMG! That would be ha-larious! It's not like we haven't already seen 100 more Palin photoshops than we needed to see in the first place, right? And who wants to laugh at a photoshop where Obama is the only one to laugh at? That's blasphemy!

+1 for the mediocre use of sarcasm. But come on', palin is second only to bush for the comedic goldmine. McCain comes in about 3rd for the easy elderly jokes, and limbaugh 4th for the pill/addiction snarks..

PC LOAD LETTER: The Greeks and Romans developed a very different way to handling the poor: slavery.

Romans had plenty of poor people. But by providing free running municipal water, free baths, free gyms etc they kept the poor from suffering various ill effects of poverty, like bad health. Course they didn't do it for the reason of public health, but just because it was the proper thing to do, to provide things for the people.

locustfajita: Ever hear of affermative action? Yes, we have an affermative action president.

You might want to learn to spell affirmative if you're going to use it. Then you may want to learn what affirmative action programs actually do.

Oh and then go learn what communism is.

YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ever hear of affermative action? Yes, we have an affermative action president.

/He's also a freaking Commie.

I'm gonna feed you. Why? Because I want to know how you think. You should feel special.

What law required that we elect an African-American president? That's what AffIrmative Action means. If you could actually give me the reference, that would be neat.

Second, what specific policies has Obama instituted that are communist in nature. Specific links to those laws/policies on a government website would be most appreciated.

It's not worth it. Whenever someone pulls out the "commie" card, it's time to pull up stakes. They have no idea of what a communist or a socialist really is.

/omgz Boosh iz Nazi!
//And Chee-Nee is dubble Nazi!
///Lollerslashies!!!!1

yelmrog:

It's not worth it. Whenever someone pulls out the "commie" card, it's time to pull up stakes. They have no idea of what a communist or a socialist really is.



I guess I just want to know what compels someone to make a statement like that. It's a yearning, deep within my soul. It's one of the great questions of the universe for me. I can't help it.

Thomas Sowell, sweetheart to many in the GOP when it comes to economics, and like Obama a graduate of Columbia and Harvard universities. Though in reverse order, he got his bachelors at Harvard, his masters at Columbia. And he graduated from both in the 50s. When there was no affirmative action in place.

But I'm sure some people will still claim there's no way a negro honestly got into Columbia and Harvard.

YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ever hear of affermative action? Yes, we have an affermative action president.

/He's also a freaking Commie.

I'm gonna feed you. Why? Because I want to know how you think. You should feel special.

What law required that we elect an African-American president? That's what AffIrmative Action means. If you could actually give me the reference, that would be neat.

Second, what specific policies has Obama instituted that are communist in nature. Specific links to those laws/policies on a government website would be most appreciated.

I'm saying that's how he got into Harvard in the first place. The man is an empty suit.

The whole progressive mantra is "productive people need to work more for less, so deadbeats can get stuff for free". Thats communisim. Thats Universal Health Care, thats Cap and Trade (deadbeats get cash vouchers to offset additional costs). If you work, and pay your bills, Obama has nothing to offer you but higher fees and taxes. If you are a societal parasite, life's gonna get a lot better!

Ok. Producers work more for less. Deadbeats get stuff for free. Are we clear on this???

kb7rky: /did someone bring butter?



/cook it in the microwave, and bing, pour on popcorn!
//mmmm... heart attack....

WhyteRaven74: technofiend: Not sure what you think is idiotic about his statement

There's a difference between moving jobs to where costs are lower and the talking point that it's all about taxes.

BTW labor costs aren't the only reason VW makes cars in Mexico for the US market. It's transportation costs. Lot cheaper to ship cars from Mexico than from Germany. All the same, not all US market VW's are made in Mexico, many are still made in Germany.

Right - I agree it isn't about taxes at all - he was calling you an idiot for saying otherwise. Taxes are the reasons US companies shifted their corporate HQ's overseas... if labor costs were an issue they'd just lobby for a bigger write down on labor costs in the US. I'm aware some VWs are still made in Germany - given the prevailing opinions on the quality differences between cars built in Germany versus Mexico and my personal experience in owning a "Mexican" VW my next VW will be German-built. It would be an interesting back-of-the-envelope exercise to compare container ship costs versus long-haul trucking costs. I'm sure container ships enjoy a huge economy of scale no 18-wheeler taking 12-14 cars can match. Of course sending cars from Mexico by train would be competitive, I think? Not sure without finding the actual costs, and assuming what sort of discounts VW may enjoy.

locustfajita: The whole progressive mantra is "productive people need to work more for less, so deadbeats can get stuff for free". Thats communisim. Thats Universal Health Care, thats Cap and Trade (deadbeats get cash vouchers to offset additional costs). If you work, and pay your bills, Obama has nothing to offer you but higher fees and taxes. If you are a societal parasite, life's gonna get a lot better!

Wow. Five sentences, and every single one of them completely wrong.

You have a freakin' talent.

Because the Trillion Bush spent on illegally invading Iraq and passing his own stimulus package is totally cool - but if the opposition party now in power precisely because of those screw ups tries to fix the mess he's left with OH shiat NO YOU DON'T

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: nostudme: Farking pathetic. America will be worse off than Chicago after this empty head leaves.

Leaves? Hell, the guy hasn't even become President yet.

After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

Obama still has a couple of months to go.

And it's guaranteed that things will get worse by then. :)

/gimme fuel!

WhyteRaven74: Thomas Sowell

I occasionally hire economists, and I would hire him in a minute.

Barry Sowerto Obama?

Not so much.

That for me is affirmative action.

joethebastard: locustfajita: The whole progressive mantra is "productive people need to work more for less, so deadbeats can get stuff for free". Thats communisim. Thats Universal Health Care, thats Cap and Trade (deadbeats get cash vouchers to offset additional costs). If you work, and pay your bills, Obama has nothing to offer you but higher fees and taxes. If you are a societal parasite, life's gonna get a lot better!

Wow. Five sentences, and every single one of them completely wrong.

You have a freakin' talent.

Wow, I'm sure glad you set me straight. How am I wrong again? Throw me a bone.

Epoch_Zero: Because the Trillion Bush spent on illegally invading Iraq and passing his own stimulus package is totally cool - but if the opposition party now in power precisely because of those screw ups tries to fix the mess he's left with OH shiat NO YOU DON'T

It's different because he's a socialist. Or something.

Stays Crunchy in Milk: PC LOAD LETTER: Remember Descent:

The highest form of patriotic.

I loved that game.

Descent really was good for its time.

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

sand in your vagina? it's more common than you think.

It`s totally American to ruin our country,,,,,ya,,, Joe Biden said so,,,,

Epoch_Zero: Because the Trillion Bush spent on illegally invading Iraq and passing his own stimulus package is totally cool - but if the opposition party now in power precisely because of those screw ups tries to fix the mess he's left with OH shiat NO YOU DON'T

So how is that closing of Gitmo and repeal of the Patriot Act going? I mean your beloved liberals have control of the Legislature and the Executive now, so where is your CHANGE^tm?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm quite sure that in some third world shiathole, there is some waterboarding going on by American actors upon some swarthy characters with Barry's knowledge and consent.

Sorry for the reality check. Please continue.

Stays Crunchy in Milk: (Descent cover art)

WIN

WhyteRaven74: Romans had plenty of poor people. But by providing free running municipal water, free baths, free gyms etc they kept the poor from suffering various ill effects of poverty, like bad health. Course they didn't do it for the reason of public health, but just because it was the proper thing to do, to provide things for the people.

It's called Noblesse Oblige.

When the upper class has it, the poor don't complain much. When they completely lose sight of it, bad things happen. Like the French Revolution. Or the Bolshevik Revolution. Or Africa.

The last time the American upper class had any of it was probably WW2-era. I realize that many of the internet money guys are trying to bring it back somewhat, but it's been gone for a while.

locustfajita: I'm saying that's how he got into Harvard in the first place.

With a BA from Columbia. Not too hard to get into Harvard Law if you have a BA from Columbia with good grades and LSAT score.

lefande: That for me is affirmative action.

So there's no way Obama could've done what Sowell did? Really?

technofiend: he was calling you an idiot for saying otherwise

The original statement was about moving jobs not HQ's because of taxes.

long-haul trucking costs

the cars are transported by trains to the main distribution point or points

No, I'm saying I have no present need for a semi-retarded populist neo-collectivist with a biatchy, ugly, America-hating wife.

And anyway, if I hired him, he would be required to fill out an I-9 Form and provide the required documentation, which apparently is more than he did to get his present job and public housing.

WhyteRaven74: Thomas Sowell, sweetheart to many in the GOP when it comes to economics, and like Obama a graduate of Columbia and Harvard universities. Though in reverse order, he got his bachelors at Harvard, his masters at Columbia. And he graduated from both in the 50s. When there was no affirmative action in place.

But I'm sure some people will still claim there's no way a negro honestly got into Columbia and Harvard.

Sowell has gone from being a thoughtful conservative economic voice to a partisan hack.

A while ago, I read a Sowell article claiming that if we put limits on executive compensation (any limits, that is), that all of our top business talent would go elsewhere. He used professional sports as an analogy, saying that you need to pay a lot for the top talent in the field, otherwise you'll be a loser.

Nowhere in the article does Sowell mention that our top business talent has royally sucked of late. A better analogy in my opinion would have been a crappy NBA franchise. We've paid WAY too much for guys like Theo Ratliff, Carlos Boozer, Rashard Lewis, Stephon Marbury and Allen Iverson. We are now trying to bring compensation in line with actual talent, but the agents and the players union are crying foul.

Nakito: Partisan arguments never seem to change anyone's mind, do they?

That was either sharply on-target or cement-headed trolling. Let me know which party you belong to so that I can agree or disagree with you accordingly.

lefande: So how is that closing of Gitmo and repeal of the Patriot Act going? I mean your beloved liberals have control of the Legislature and the Executive now, so where is your CHANGEtm?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

I'm quite sure that in some third world shiathole, there is some waterboarding going on by American actors upon some swarthy characters with Barry's knowledge and consent.

Sorry for the reality check. Please continue.

K. I didn't mention any of those things, but whatever. Strawmen welcome here.

If there IS any of that horrendous shiat that the GOP, the party of compassion and family values, is totally OK with going on in Obama's administration, and we find out - there will be incredible anger from the left. See, we are under the impression that people with a moral compass are back at the helm.

You think after eight years of regression that we progressives are going to just smile and overlook any failure to get this country back to where it should be?

But, it did take eight years of Bush to get this mess in it's current form - it can't be fixed so quickly.

Also, I was under the impression that Obama signed the bill to close Gitmo. Unless I'm wrong there, your argument is kind of dead. And I thought that Obama already started taking the chisel to the Patriot Act when he signed an economic bill earlier this year that also had the qualities of giving the American people their right to Habeus Corpus back.

Honestly now, if you want to argue about things getting done - which President was on vacation almost the entirety of the time before he let the biggest terrorist attack in American history happen? Sorry, that's a pretty obvious question. Let's try another one.

Which President immediately took action to try to counter the actions of the previous administration? Actually, that's a trick question - they both did. The thing is Obama is trying to fix things, when Bush just left a rubber stamp behind and went to his ranch.

jgm1976: Yeah. Sadly, Obama sees no difference between creating "jobs" and creating "work."

Yeah, I'll remember that he's only "creating 'work'" next time I hit a pothole.

johnny_vegas: Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin: After all, according to the republicans, a person elected POTUS is not responsible for anything until September 12th.

sand in your vagina? it's more common than you think.

Sand? Where? I'm lmao at the republicans who keep moving the goal posts.

And I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, man, but it's the repubs who've been getting their asses kicked for the past few years.

Although, now that you mention it, I am slightly pissed at the cost of popcorn these days. A small price to pay though for the entertainment of watching the republicans implode.

dustman81: Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.

The jobs wouldn't magically appear as soon as Obama finished signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The money is starting to flow, but it does take time. Agencies are starting to get the money and are bidding projects and hiring workers.

Unfortunately, Americans want everything fixed right now and don't understand the concept of patience.

You can't spend your way out of debt. Yes companies need to "spend money to make money" but at the end of the day the company has a product they are selling. And a business plan of how to make money. Whether it's ipods, a new pair of Nike shoes, or hole in the ground where oil might be (whatever)...at the end of the day There is something that will eventually be sold. Spending money on food stamps doesn't create jobs. Studying the migratory pattern of African swallows doesn't create jobs.

No single drop of water will cause a bucket to fill with water, but if it rains long enough we all know what will happen. No one senator or house rep is to blame: THEY ARE ALL TO BLAME.

I agree, jobs will not be created overnight, but they can be lost overnight. It is very easy for a company to see all the spending increases and the tax increases (and all proposed increases from spreading the wealth opportunities) and simply go..."you know what, fark it. I'm heading to china."

You can call it what you want, but just about all of the stuff that Barry Obama campaigned against has been adopted by him once in office. The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy, pay off Acorn and put us several trillion more in debt.

lefande: No, I'm saying I have no present need for a semi-retarded populist neo-collectivist with a biatchy, ugly, America-hating wife.

And he's none of those things, and she's none of those things.

The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy

Cause the economy was not at all crumbling before he even took office.

And in other news... The US Treasury is being moved to the Charmin factory who will fold the printers into their production staff.

Linky thing for the number of days until the next presidential election. Link (new window)Pops like a weasel.

PC LOAD LETTER: Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

That's not necessarily true. Some of the best laws we have are restrictive on government, such as the bill of rights. Also, a law against harming others in some fashion (stealing, murder) isn't really anti-liberty, because liberty includes being free from theft and violence, whether it is a government doing it or another person. A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else. Those kinds of laws are illegitimate, whether you are a libertarian or an anarchist. Of course most people have been indoctrinated into equating anarchy with chaos or "anything goes," which isn't really true at all, but that's a discussion for another day.

locustfajita: Klingon Penis: He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

WTF is your hero doing to the deficit?

What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

lefande: You can call it what you want, but just about all of the stuff that Barry Obama campaigned against has been adopted by him once in office. The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy, pay off Acorn and put us several trillion more in debt.

You are more right than I am comfortable admitting about Obama not reversing some particularly troublesome aspects of Bush's "War on Terror". It has been a little bit disappointing. However, a few things have already started to change in ways that I like:

- Our foreign policy now consists of more than just "Go fark yourself."

- We are starting to see more investment in science and better science and technology policy.

Lastly:


The only thing he has done differently is wreck the economy...

Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election. We could have voted in a Warren Buffet/reincarnation of John D. Rockefeller ticket and the economy would be roughly where it is now. You make a lot of well-thought out arguments in this thread, even if I don't agree with some of them, but this comment is not one of them.

locustfajita: YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ok. Producers work more for less. Deadbeats get stuff for free. Are we clear on this???

Ok I think I get your argument. It's still not communism. In an ideal communist society, there would be zero unemployment because the government would provide as many jobs as needed. So there are no parasites.

Ok now that we're clear that it is not communism. Let's talk about the rest of it. I'm a producer, but yet my payroll taxes went down with the Recovery Act.

I guess I'm wondering what deadbeats you refer too. President Obama has made any sweeping changes to welfare programs that I'm aware of.

Are you afraid of the Bush tax cuts expiring? Because the rate will simply return to what it was before Bush and we certainly weren't living in a communist nation them? Perhaps a possible raise on Capital Gains back to the levels it was in the 90s? Were we communist then?

WhyteRaven74: PC LOAD LETTER: The Greeks and Romans developed a very different way to handling the poor: slavery.

Romans had plenty of poor people. But by providing free running municipal water, free baths, free gyms etc they kept the poor from suffering various ill effects of poverty, like bad health. Course they didn't do it for the reason of public health, but just because it was the proper thing to do, to provide things for the people.

They did it to stay in power. The Romans consistently conquered lands, slaughtering innocents and besieging cities when it suited their purposes. I've never heard anyone claim that the "benevolent" Romans conquered lands just to offer free shiat.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Klingon Penis: What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

Nice made-up doomsday scenario. Could've used a tsunami and some explosions though. I love hearing about how bad things "would have been" if the government hadn't stepped in, like it's anything more than speculation.

The prostitution thread is still my favorite of the day though. Always fun hearing a bunch of statists telling me how the very fabric of society would unravel if prostitution were legalized by the government, as I sit here in a state with legal prostitution which has made no difference whatsoever except that we have less arrests for prostitution.

Do I have to do everything myself?

Mr. Right: FDR tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Truman didn't know how to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Eisenhower didn't try to manage the economy. Successful economy.
Kennedy cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
LBJ tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Nixon tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Carter tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush I wanted to manage the economy through taxation. Dismal economy.
Clinton did almost nothing to change the Reagan model after the failure of Hillary Care. Successful economy.
Bush II let the economy go. Successful economy.
Bush II after 2006 tried to manage the economy. Dismal economy.

See the pattern yet?

Obama is trying to manage the economy. He will fail.

+1
Spot on Mr. Right!
//Everyone should read this again

Ok. Maybe not full on communism, but close enough for me. The whole slippery slope thing and all.

Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Deadbeats are people who chose to live slothful, degenerate lives and then try to pass themselves off as "underpriviledged and disadvantaged". I know a lot of people out the are need some help. I've been one of them. But too many are simply hustlers looking for a housing voucher or food stamps (oops, I mean "nutritional vouchers"). I don't want my tax dollars supporing hustlers.

Oh, and fark Bush. fark his stupid prescription drug benefit, and his stupid bailout.

My premise is more Government interference equals greater economic uncertainty. The uncertainty is slowing down the recovery.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: PC LOAD LETTER: Laws are usually restrictive in nature. You don't have a problem with "big government" (whatever that's supposed to mean), you have a problem with government in general.

That's not necessarily true. Some of the best laws we have are restrictive on government, such as the bill of rights. Also, a law against harming others in some fashion (stealing, murder) isn't really anti-liberty, because liberty includes being free from theft and violence, whether it is a government doing it or another person. A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else. Those kinds of laws are illegitimate, whether you are a libertarian or an anarchist. Of course most people have been indoctrinated into equating anarchy with chaos or "anything goes," which isn't really true at all, but that's a discussion for another day.

Hey, go campaign to remove them. Governments have a keen interest in living voters. They also like lower insurance premiums. Plus, folks in the back seat killing folks in the front seat (or worse, injuring them, causing an insurance burden) is a bad thing. Plus, most folks don't die not wearing a seat belt, they just have massive medical bills they can't afford to pay and go into medical bankruptcy or drive others' insurance rates up or cause a burden on Medicare/Medicaid.

YodaTuna: Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

No. It should have been set up so that it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, moran. Money paid into it stays in it and maybe grows and can be paid out. Not money paid in gets used for roads and bridges and other such "goodies" brought "home" to your district by your anushole representative.

But thanks for playing.

PC LOAD LETTER: LOL WUT

All of that looks a lot better than where we are now.


SingletonFactory: You make a lot of well-thought out arguments in this thread

Thanks.

SingletonFactory: Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election.

Go fark yourself.

Klingon Penis: locustfajita: Klingon Penis: He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

WTF is your hero doing to the deficit?

What is necessary during a crisis.
Money market accounts everywhere would've asploded during the apex of the banking crisis if the government hadn't stepped in.
So STFU. Thanks.

What? Money market accounts are FDIC insured...

YodaTuna Quote 2009-07-12 08:17:36 PM
locustfajita: YodaTuna: locustfajita:

Ok. Producers work more for less. Deadbeats get stuff for free. Are we clear on this???

Ok I think I get your argument. It's still not communism. In an ideal communist society, there would be zero unemployment because the government would provide as many jobs as needed. So there are no parasites.

Ok now that we're clear that it is not communism. Let's talk about the rest of it. I'm a producer, but yet my payroll taxes went down with the Recovery Act.

I guess I'm wondering what deadbeats you refer too. President Obama has made any sweeping changes to welfare programs that I'm aware of.

He repealed all past Welfare Reforms setting us back to the 1970's. This was hidden in the Stimulus Bill.

Link (new window)

lefande: SingletonFactory: Sorry, but this is just absurd. Our economy was wrecked even before the election.

Go fark yourself.

I'm not even sure I understand your response. Are you seriously suggesting that the economy was fine until Obama took office?

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER: LOL WUT

All of that looks a lot better than where we are now.

No no no no no no no. You said "zero real unemployment".



So, when was Obama inaugurated?

Oh, and in case you failed Economics, Employment isn't a real-time indicator. We have been through enough recessions, depressions and panics since inception to know that by now. It takes months to react and years for it to recover.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Obama has not gone full retard. His plans are working great. Link (new window)

locustfajita: Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Instead of that "bum", as you call them, going to the ER for treatment for their undiagnosed illness, racking $10s of thousands in medical expenses then walking out without paying a penny leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill? Which is what is happening in our current system.

Besides, if that "bum" is as poor as you say they are, then they qualify for Medicaid, which is a government-run insurance program.

So either way, the taxpayers are paying for his treatment.

Arrgh wrong graph.


Link (new window)

Theeeere we go...

PC LOAD LETTER: Hey, go campaign to remove them.

So you're saying I should beg all of my government "representatives" to reduce the government's own size and control, not to mention remove one of its most useful tools for raising revenue on the highway and searching its citizens for contraband. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. Besides, the last time I wrote to my Congressman he replied nearly a year later with a form letter. To be fair, he was in and out of substance rehab at the time and struggling with some serious mental health problems.

Governments have a keen interest in living voters.

I can assure you that the government couldn't care less if you personally live or die. It's about control and revenue generation, that's it. I'm sorry if you bought their absolutely laughable press release that it's for your own good.

They also like lower insurance premiums.

No they don't.

Plus, folks in the back seat killing folks in the front seat (or worse, injuring them, causing an insurance burden) is a bad thing.

The horror! Good thing nowhere in this country allows such recklessness and disaster. Oh wait, New Hampshire does, and it's not an issue. At all. In fact, it's consistently rated one of the safest and healthiest states, although I forget whether it was number one or number two this year. What you are describing is highly improbable in the first place, somebody flying over the headrests and injuring somebody in the front seat. Would you like me to dig up all the articles I can find about people dying or being seriously injured because they couldn't get their seatbelt off in time to counter the instances in which it does occur?

Plus, most folks don't die not wearing a seat belt, they just have massive medical bills they can't afford to pay and go into medical bankruptcy or drive others' insurance rates up or cause a burden on Medicare/Medicaid.

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

dustman81: locustfajita: Universal Health Care. I have health care. I work hard for it. Health care is not a right. It. Is. Not. I don't feel like getting rationing and waiting lists so some bum living under a bridge can get a hip replacement that I (and you, if you are a worker) have to pay for.

Instead of that "bum", as you call them, going to the ER for treatment for their undiagnosed illness, racking $10s of thousands in medical expenses then walking out without paying a penny leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill? Which is what is happening in our current system.

Besides, if that "bum" is as poor as you say they are, then they qualify for Medicaid, which is a government-run insurance program.

So either way, the taxpayers are paying for his treatment.

I know there has to be some taxpayer funded public health programs. There are very good public health reasons to pick up the tab for some deadbeats drug resistant tuberculosis treatment. I could think of other examples as well.

Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

Like getting older was something we do by choice. You sound like an 18 yo with no concept of your own mortality.

/PS - been paying into FICA and medicare for many, many years.

GomezAdams: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox

One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

Like getting older was something we do by choice. You sound like an 18 yo with no concept of your own mortality.

/PS - been paying into FICA and medicare for many, many years.

I was talking about seat-belt related injuries, not aging, if you actually go back and read what I wrote in context.

Economics are pawns to social trends.

The American people are a globally potent economic force. If they ever became self-aware and started spending accordingly, the entire financial system would have to bow to their will. Renewable energy spending alone could revamp the world banking system. Too bad our education system fails so mightily.

/was that UFC party awesome or what?

Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

The Republican Party is in the crapper because they became Democrat Light and raced to show the world they could be as fiscally irresponsible as real Democrats. Then they stopped fighting back for fear of being called names.

They got what they deserved.

As far as being there for decades, not likely. Someone will come along and start talking conservative ideas again and they'll start rising again.

PC LOAD LETTER: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Well there is a portion of the population that doesent want || need to work.

There will never be zero because of lazy || financially secure people.

Benjimin_Dover: YodaTuna: Yea we should just work people to death or let old people go homeless!

No. It should have been set up so that it wasn't a Ponzi scheme, moran. Money paid into it stays in it and maybe grows and can be paid out. Not money paid in gets used for roads and bridges and other such "goodies" brought "home" to your district by your anushole representative.

But thanks for playing.

I agree with you. In fact Al Gore agreed with you almost 10 years ago. But the fact that the government keeps dipping into SS does not make it a ponzi scheme. So it doesn't sound like you have a problem with the idea of social security. Just that their are idiots running it right now. I happen to agree.

boobsrgood: Economics are pawns to social trends.

The American people are a globally potent economic force. If they ever became self-aware and started spending accordingly, the entire financial system would have to bow to their will. Renewable energy spending alone could revamp the world banking system. Too bad our education system fails so mightily.

/was that UFC party awesome or what?

A Witch!

shotglasss: Klingon Penis: Mr. Right: WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: Obama will fail.

And it just makes you giggle with glee a the thought he will.

Wrong. Obama's failure will reverbrate throughout the world. His failure will cause untold suffering not only here in the U.S. but globally. There is absolutely no glee in that.

On the other hand, if you, as a rabid Obama supporter, lose your job, exhaust all your benefits, lose your home and then get desperately ill and Obama's health czar decides you're ineligible for treatment because it costs more than you're worth and you end up laying on a cot in a homeless shelter, then I'll giggle. A little.

There's a phrase for morans like Mr. Right: witless contrarian. Opposes everything, right or wrong, for the sake of acquiring/reacquiring political power and/or trying to prove a particular ideology.

It also happens to describe most of the modern-day Republican Party, which is why they're so far in the crapper they won't see daylight for decades.

The Republican Party is in the crapper because they became Democrat Light and raced to show the world they could be as fiscally irresponsible as real Democrats. Then they stopped fighting back for fear of being called names.

They got what they deserved.

As far as being there for decades, not likely. Someone will come along and start talking conservative ideas again and they'll start rising again.

This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

locustfajita: I know there has to be some taxpayer funded public health programs. There are very good public health reasons to pick up the tab for some deadbeats drug resistant tuberculosis treatment. I could think of other examples as well.

Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

The overhead for Medicare - which every person paying payroll taxes in the US already pays into and everyone who is over 65 is eligible for - is ~3%. So 97 cents of every dollar collected by Medicare gets applied to medical treatments.

The overhead for private insurers is >20%, meaning 80 cents of every dollar gets spend on medical treatments. Where does the other 20 cents go? Towards marketing, paperwork, medical reviewers, lawyers, executive bonuses and investor dividends. Here's the kicker. The more money insurance companies spend on claims, the lower their stock goes. They have a financial incentive to deny care.

Besides, when you get more people in the insurance pool, the cost per person goes down. The whole idea of insurance is spreading the risk. You also get economies of scale, which is when a company or organization says "I have this much buying power, I want my price lowered". Medicare Part D would have been great if the law allowed Medicare to use their size on getting prices of drugs lowered. But the law said Medicare had to pay what the drug companies wanted.

ensign_noname: PC LOAD LETTER: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: A seatbelt law or an anti-marijuana law is just anti-liberty, telling individuals what they may or may not do even when it doesn't harm anyone else.

lefande: PC LOAD LETTER:

Governments HAVE TO support the poor. Period. Not doing so in some form is suicide to people trying to stay in power.


I was just fine with zero real unemployment under most of the Bush Administration. Moots the issue, doesn't it?

LOL WUT

Well there is a portion of the population that doesent want || need to work.

There will never be zero because of lazy || financially secure people.

I don't think financially secure people count toward the unemployment rate. I think it's calculated off of something else.

locustfajita:



Obama says he can cut costs and expand coverage. I don't belive that is possible without making me pay a shiatload more for a shiatload less.

That bothers me, and I think it bothers a lot of hard working voters.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

It doesn't bother me as a hard working American? Why? Two reasons.

1) The american government already pays more for health care per citizen than any other nation in the world. Socialized health care(which President Obama isn't even supporting) would easily bring that number down, just like it did in every other 1st world country that adopted the system. You just have to look at the results. You're actually against saving money when you argue for the current system.

2) I'm more concerned about the health and welfare of the citizens that live in my country than I am about my taxes. Despite what you think, the vast, VAST majority of americans are hard working, they just can't afford the huge amounts of money health insurance costs. And they're lucky if that's the worst of their problems. Let's not even talk about pre-existing conditions.

The insurance companies have had their chance, but they refused to try to fix the system. The government must intervene.

uatuba:

This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

I think you're right. Only nowadays "True" conservatism means something totally different than what it did years ago. Old-school conservatism is no longer "true" conservatism, now it is more closely tied with complete deregulation of industry, anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, and making sure that all the defense contractors have their pockets properly lined.

uatuba:
This is what so many Democrats fail to see. Republicans haven't started losing because of their conservative policies--they have started losing because of their compromise on (and even embrace of) liberal policies. Moving back toward true conservatism is moving toward winning elections.

Republicans have never embraced conservative policiess, so I don't think they will any time soon. You're whole party was pretty gung-ho about voting for Bush TWICE. Are you saying Bush was liberal? If he was, why did the conservatives vote for him?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: PC LOAD LETTER: Hey, go campaign to remove them.

So you're saying I should beg all of my government "representatives" to reduce the government's own size and control, not to mention remove one of its most useful tools for raising revenue on the highway and searching its citizens for contraband. Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. Besides, the last time I wrote to my Congressman he replied nearly a year later with a form letter. To be fair, he was in and out of substance rehab at the time and struggling with some serious mental health problems.

Go start a revolution then. Good luck with that.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I can assure you that the government couldn't care less if you personally live or die. It's about control and revenue generation, that's it. I'm sorry if you bought their absolutely laughable press release that it's for your own good.

It's a combo of keeping VOTERS alive, and keeping state costs down. Yep, it's largely about money. Don't like it? Tough shiat. You won't get anyone elected to change the fundamentals of American Government in any real way. Americans want a small change, not a revolution in government. This is not a small change you are proposing. Move or try to overthrow the government. Or you can continue to whine about how unfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair it all is on Fark.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: The horror! Good thing nowhere in this country allows such recklessness and disaster. Oh wait, New Hampshire does, and it's not an issue. At all. In fact, it's consistently rated one of the safest and healthiest states, although I forget whether it was number one or number two this year. What you are describing is highly improbable in the first place, somebody flying over the headrests and injuring somebody in the front seat. Would you like me to dig up all the articles I can find about people dying or being seriously injured because they couldn't get their seatbelt off in time to counter the instances in which it does occur?

Then by all means, move there and shut up.

So by your logic, NH proves that seat belts are dangerous and only not having them is the only safe option to keep you alive. Right. I'm sure you'll pull out your study and I can get the NTSB's studies or whatever and we can see whose is bigger or whatever.

I'll start:

In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented and $913 billion in costs saved. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the deaths and serious injuries prevented by safety belts resulted in savings of $50 billion in medical care, lost productivity and other injury-related costs. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

Motor vehicle crashes in 2000 cost a total of $230.6 billion, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product, or $820 for every person living in the United States. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]

The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. [NHTSA, Economic Impact of Crashes, 2002]


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: One of many reasons why I don't support Medicare/Medicaid. People should be forced to pay for the consequences of their own personal decisions.

As someone with an 81-year old Father with Parkinson's in a Nursing Home with Medicare now as his only method to afford actual health care and Medicaid in a bit, you can imagine what I think of your "let them eat cake" crap. Without them, he would be forced into the nice Veteran's hospital nearby. It's a god damned zoo there and they IMMEDIATELY try to get you to sign a DNR. No thanks. Plus, that's yet another "burden on the state", according to you folks (unless military service gets you some magical exemption. He was a damned pencil pusher in the Army. Not exactly Audie Murphy there.)

I'd rather pay into the system (and have everyone else do the same). It works just fine: you have to have basically no money to be eligible for Medicaid. My dad's got an apartment we are selling, so he's a private payer now. When he's run out of funds from that one and only asset, the choices are the state pays or he's out on the street. I have no problem with a system that prevents us reverting to the 1830s with "poor houses".

People need to be forced. Sorry. It's the way it has been since the damn dawn of Governments in Human history.

I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

The Federal Reserve is pulling money out of the system... Should be an exciting week and months of bankruptcies and bank failures...

yelmrog: I think you're right. Only nowadays "True" conservatism means something totally different than what it did years ago. Old-school conservatism is no longer "true" conservatism, now it is more closely tied with complete deregulation of industry, anti-evolution mumbo-jumbo, and making sure that all the defense contractors have their pockets properly lined.

Well, conservatism hasn't existed since Regan. And even then, his foreign policy was far from conservative.

YodaTuna: Republicans have never embraced conservative policiess, so I don't think they will any time soon. You're whole party was pretty gung-ho about voting for Bush TWICE. Are you saying Bush was liberal? If he was, why did the conservatives vote for him?

Republicans have embraced conservative policies. Unfortunately, not for some time. The current bunch using the social conservative agenda to masquerade as conservatives, while pushing liberal big-government and fiscal polices, are not conservatives.

PC LOAD LETTER: Go start a revolution then. Good luck with that.

It's called the Free State Project. It's already been started, and it's going on now. I may very well move to New Hampshire and participate in it. Thank you for your well wishes.

PC LOAD LETTER: You won't get anyone elected to change the fundamentals of American Government in any real way. Americans want a small change, not a revolution in government. This is not a small change you are proposing. Move or try to overthrow the government. Or you can continue to whine about how unfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair it all is on Fark.

I realize that, we have a self-serving two-party system. I don't expect to get a libertarian president elected and I don't expect or want to change everyone's mind, that's the point of the Free State Project. I have no desire to overthrow the government, not sure what you're rambling on about or what you think I advocate.

Oh, I see, so when you don't like an idea or policy it's an airing of grievances but when I don't like something you support I am "whining" about how "unfaaaaaaaaaiiir" it is. Very mature. Tell you what, I don't want to see you taking issue with anything the US government does ever again, because by your logic that will make you a whiner and a hypocrite, and the proper way to deal with it will be "through your representative" rather than "here on Fark." Of course, I already know you're a complete hypocrite because I've seen you take issue with US or state policies in numerous other threads, but it's okay when you do it I guess, since you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

shut up

No thank you, I'll keep exercising my first amendment rights. I invite you to do the same. I'm not afraid of opposing ideas, in fact, I welcome them.

People need to be forced. Sorry. It's the way it has been since the damn dawn of Governments in Human history.

No, as long as they aren't aggressing against others, they really don't, and that's a pretty scary authoritarian mindset. Humans are noble autonomous creatures, and I think it's sad and sick that you try to reduce us to some sort of insectoid hive-mind or a timid pack animal to be led around for our own good. I don't want a part of any society that would turn me into that, although you are welcome to live in one. I can make my own decisions as long as I am not harming anyone else. That is morally right. Using force to coerce other people to do what you want them to do is morally wrong, unless they have harmed you first in a meaningful way (not to be confused with hurt feelings, or a denial of services that you feel you are entitled to for some unnatural reason).

You really think that all governments were good and an improvement upon the human condition? The vast majority were evil and self-serving for a select few.

uatuba:

Well, conservatism hasn't existed since Regan. And even then, his foreign policy was far from conservative.


Reagan wasn't even an old-school conservative in my opinion. He started pushing deficits back up that had been decreasing since Truman, as well as bloating the military-industrial complex (remember, not a term coined by liberals) to unheard of levels.

To me, he was the first of the false conservatives. It's just that since he didn't go absolutely nuts on the social conservative end of things, he seems much more old-school than the modern cons.

I just hope the Treasury isn't using Epson printers, cause man, those things suck the ink.

/Can't print money with Light Magenta out
//No Light Magenta needed, though
///Staple Premium member
////Member

I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

ragekage: Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

Could you at least make it a little less obvious on which trolling headlines you write, Nemo?

Not just that, but you wrote that sentence without any sense of irony. Like that's any different than previous administrations. Our government has been printing it's way out of hard times since, oh, the Civil War. Methinks it's you who has gone full retard; sadly, I'm afraid I must farky you as such.

No kidding. Plus, do you want to take the side of some moron like him who doesn't know the difference between the money supply and the federal deficit?

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: It's called the Free State Project. It's already been started, and it's going on now. I may very well move to New Hampshire and participate in it. Thank you for your well wishes

Sure. Right. That'll take off. Just like RON PAUL's candidacy.

Read The Populist Moment and learn why sweeping political movements fail in the US.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Oh, I see, so when you don't like an idea or policy it's an airing of grievances but when I don't like something you support I am "whining" about how "unfaaaaaaaaaiiir" it is. Very mature. Tell you what, I don't want to see you taking issue with anything the US government does ever again, because by your logic that will make you a whiner and a hypocrite, and the proper way to deal with it will be "through your representative" rather than "here on Fark." Of course, I already know you're a complete hypocrite because I've seen you take issue with US or state policies in numerous other threads, but it's okay when you do it I guess, since you're always right and everyone else is always wrong.

Well, when you are proposing fantasy and you come here complaining how horrible the current system is, yeah, that's whining. I complain about things that a vote for the other guy has a far more likely chance of changing. I voted for the other guy. So far, most of the things he's done I agree with, but there's a lot I don't. If he (or Congress) doesn't do the right thing, we change them like dirty underwear, unless the "other guy" is even worse (which is what the GOP has become). I think both parties suck and need housecleaning. I view Libertarians and Greens in the exact same light: groups that want to legislate the unlegislatable. No one will vote for measures they are proposing unless one of 2 things happen: 1) they get into ever legislative body as the majority. If it hasn't already started, it won't happen anytime soon. No one in any major party is willing to move over and the public isn't buying the message enough to actually elect people to power. 2) a hugely popular and charismatic leader comes to power. I mean HUGELY. Making Obama look like late term Bush in popularity. Even then, the "coattails" would be people who run as D or R who adopt their policies. Right. Just like the current Congress ("sure we'll do what Obama says, just vote for us. [time passes] Oh that promise? I don't recall it."). The chances of 1 AND 2 happening at the same time are basically zero.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: No, as long as they aren't aggressing against others, they really don't, and that's a pretty scary authoritarian mindset. Humans are noble autonomous creatures, and I think it's sad and sick that you try to reduce us to some sort of insectoid hive-mind or a timid pack animal to be led around for our own good. I don't want a part of any society that would turn me into that, although you are welcome to live in one. I can make my own decisions as long as I am not harming anyone else. That is morally right. Using force to coerce other people to do what you want them to do is morally wrong, unless they have harmed you first in a meaningful way (not to be confused with hurt feelings, or a denial of services that you feel you are entitled to for some unnatural reason).

Define "morality"...

Regardless, Governments exist to prevent societal collapse. Well, that's the frontal reason. They really exist to keep themselves in power and further whatever agenda they think is right, whether it be world domination, peaceful co-existence, or just simple law-and-order. They do this by compelling the populace to go along and by enacting measures to ensure the philosophy of the ruling class is carried out. Is that tyranny? Possibly, but literally every government (including a Kibbutz or commune) is like that. And they all use some sort of threat or force. What you propose is not going to work.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: You really think that all governments were good and an improvement upon the human condition? The vast majority were evil and self-serving for a select few.

Yet despite their evils, we are having a conversation on the Internet. That alone is a testament to the power of Government.

No, I don't think governments are good. I do think that the alternatives are horrendous.

PC LOAD LETTER: No one in any major party is willing to move over

I'll change that to "extremely few". I'll give you Barr and McKinney as shining examples of people brave enough to buck the system. Go team!

wow pretty much every active politics tab troll made it to this thread. atleast one of em even admitted to being a troll

/good job modmins, you cockbags.

FoxNoise history, re-imagined:
January 20, 2001 - Unemployment drops to .001% within hours of the inauguration, slacker liberals who don't want to work are the only ones without jobs. Happiness spreads throughout the land, and all is right with the world.

January 21, 2001 - January 19th, 2009 - You have nothing to fear, war is peace, up is down, slavery is freedom. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

January 20th, 2009 - OMGWTFBBQ!!!! Unemployment rises to 1,000,000%! Fire... flood... earthquake... locusts... 40 days and 40 nights... the meteors from space... sekrit muslin terrists... gay marrying abortion doctors are breaking into your house... we're all gonna die... zombie apocalypse!!!!!1!

madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

In a nutshell, inflation occurs-that is, the purchasing power of the dollar shrinks-to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars. A standard approach to analyzing the connection between the money supply (M) and the general price level (P) uses an accounting identity called the "equation of exchange":

MV = Py

where V denotes the income-velocity of money (the number of times per year the average dollar turns over in transactions for final goods and services), and y denotes the economy's real income (as measured, e.g., by real GDP). Because V is defined as Py/M, the ratio of nominal income to money balances, the equation follows. The quantity theory of money (a better name would be "the quantity-of-money theory of the price level") says that a higher or lower level of M does not cause any permanent change in y or desired V-or, in other words, does not permanently affect the real demand to hold money. It follows that, in the long run, a larger M means a proportionally higher P. In less formal terms, putting more dollars in circulation dilutes the purchasing power of each dollar; or: prices rise when there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

via Library of Economics (new window)

PC LOAD LETTER: Sure. Right. That'll take off. Just like RON PAUL's candidacy.

I never expected Ron Paul to be elected President. You're just creating straw men now.

Read The Populist Moment and learn why sweeping political movements fail in the US.

It's not sweeping, it's very targeted and realistic in its aims. It's already taken off and has had early successes, of course nothing compared to what will happen when the 20,000 number of pledges is met (it's around halfway there now).

The aim of the Free State Project is not to change the entire country. In fact, the entire basis of it is the acknowledgment of what you are saying, that the rest of the country has essentially gone bonkers curtailing individual liberties, growing government into a Colossus, and spending itself into oblivion. It seeks to carve out a small part of the country and live there peacefully, allowing the rest of the country to do the same. A similar type-movement (but not exactly the same) was done by the Mormons with success in Salt Lake City. FYI, Porcfest, the annual Free State Project festival, has doubled in size every year it's been held.

PC LOAD LETTER: Regardless, Governments exist to prevent societal collapse. Well, that's the frontal reason. They really exist to keep themselves in power and further whatever agenda they think is right, whether it be world domination, peaceful co-existence, or just simple law-and-order. They do this by compelling the populace to go along and by enacting measures to ensure the philosophy of the ruling class is carried out. Is that tyranny? Possibly, but literally every government (including a Kibbutz or commune) is like that. And they all use some sort of threat or force. What you propose is not going to work.

Well first of all I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I believe in limited government, and there is no reason why limited government couldn't work.

As for anarchy, it's really not as bad as it sounds. It doesn't mean "chaos" as most people have been indoctrinated into believing it does, it just means self-rule. There's no reason why there couldn't be jails or rules in an anarchist society, they would just be run by private individuals. It's complicated, but so is capitalism compared to previous systems in which what the king or dictator said simply went.

People trot out examples like "Somalia" which are ludicrous for a variety of reasons (by that logic, the Soviet Union would prove that governments are simply too corrupt and dangerous and never work in the end). I agree with you on one point though, it would require a mindset change. I know what you'll probably say, that people are what they are, they're inherently bad, need to be corrected, herded, etc., but that simply isn't true, at least not entirely. If you told people in the middle ages about republicanism or democracy, they would have laughed and told you it was impossible and wouldn't work. It's a complicated subject, but to give another example, after the Soviet Union collapsed, economists prescribed open government and free trade and told the leaders of those countries that everything would magically fix itself. It didn't, because the people of those countries weren't ready for freedom and democracy yet, they were used to the kleptocracy that was communism. When goods were shipped from a store, either the driver of the truck would simply steal the goods, or it would be stolen by the neighborhood people once it arrived at the house. We don't have that problem, because we have established a certain societal framework. So maybe anarchy wouldn't work "right now," but if we evolved mentally and politically a bit, it would be a very workable system, and arguably more economically efficient and liberty-oriented. Again, not an anarchist, but I want it to be treated fairly and not just dismissed as "fringe kookery" as you seem to have been doing in your post. There is no reason why sometime in the future there couldn't be a successful anarchist society. It's simply never really been tried, just as democracy hadn't 1000 years ago.

Nemo's Brother: Obama has either gone full retard, or he is a brilliant and wants American to fall.

I'm not worried about Obama going full retard, so much as I am worried about him going full Kafka.

You don't want things to go full Kafka. You really don't.

YodaTuna: madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

Inflation is usually at 1.5%-3% annually, and right now it's about 10%, and the really bad part is yet to come. So you tell me how this is a good thing.

And we had deflation for 1.5 farking months! Why? Because when oil was high prices naturally tend to rise (factors of production) and when oil went back down, guess what genius...prices came down. Yes, long term inflation is very bad, but not that it is when it's prolonged and sustained, not when it can be explained with a lowering of factors of production.

basemetal: I'm not a big fan of ANY politician but it's hard not to kind of like the guy. He inherited a turd and you have to give him some time. Still, he'll be lucky not to come out looking like Carter, who himself inherited a turd and quickly dropped it.

actually,as much as i hated the carter years,many of carters policys actually made ronnie look pretty good. and they took years to show an effect,way after carter left office. it was indeed an ugly time we went thru,and the burden did get heavy,but after 10 years or so,things began to change. one thing that contributed a lot to our current problem was the nafta agreement,as it gave manufacturers the idea that it was ok to ship manufacturing jobs outside our borders.no manufacturing jobs guarentees no middle class,so you only have rich and poor.
and the rich arent paying the amount they should be into social welfare programs so they are underfunded.without the middle class picking up the tab,things got screwy in a bigger hurry then anyone imagined.

clgrin: clgrin: If I might ask, do you primarily get grant requests for a certain business sector or is more by whoever is in the area. My brother used to do a lot a grant writing himself, but he pretty much only did stuff with think-tanks.

I write grants for a community college, so mostly we write for money supporting our vocational programs, which means we are looking to support workforce development for the industries in our general area. Occasionally we pursue and score funds for something strictly academic, but given the nature of our students, it's not commonplace. I can crank out proposals about autobody repair technology and registered nursing in my sleep!

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: People trot out examples like "Somalia" which are ludicrous for a variety of reasons (by that logic, the Soviet Union would prove that governments are simply too corrupt and dangerous and never work in the end)

I won't answer your entire post (too late, need sleep), but I will say that this is flawed. There are examples of governments working and not working. There are no examples of lack of government working. When I think of lack of governmental control, I think of Somalia, Iraq after we invaded and before we assumed formal control, Afghanistan after the USSR withdrew, the end of the Western Roman Empire (to a certain degree. In reality it was more far controlled than a "fall" suggests), collapse of colonial Africa, and one can even argue part of the French Revolution fits here (though not really).

I am hard-pressed to think of any viable government where there are few rules. Tribes are not a good example: a long and complex set of rules exist.

Anarchy has been tried literally countless times. It always falls to some sort of government sooner rather than later. Usually a strong ruler. And frequently they are rather cruel.

Mr. Right: Klingon Penis: Mr. Right:
Reagan cut taxes and let the economy go. Successful economy.



He also tripled the deficit. Your hero.

The economy was successful. If deficits are a bad thing, your boy Obama is evil incarnate.

This is that whole thing where, someone gets called a hypocrite for calling out a hypocrite. It doesn't work that way.

Party A makes a moral high ground stand against issue X,
Party B does not make a moral high ground stand against issue X,

Party A does issue X
Party B does issue X

Party B points out Party A's hypocrisy in doing issue X
Party A then calls Party B's hypocrisy in doing issue X

Which one of these is invalid?

PC LOAD LETTER: Anarchy has been tried literally countless times. It always falls to some sort of government sooner rather than later. Usually a strong ruler. And frequently they are rather cruel.

Not really, although again it's a complex discussion. Nobody will dispute that if you simply take a capitalist or communist society and yank the government out from under it like yanking a tablecloth out from a set table, it will most likely turn into chaos. Certainly anarchists themselves acknowledge that. But to say that all anarchist societies would end like that is committing a fallacy, and would be like looking at what happened when free trade and democratic government were instituted in Romania and saying, "Clearly democracy relies too heavily on trust and could never be viable long-term, it doesn't account for human nature and will just end in a kleptocracy." But that's not true, because it has worked in the United States and other places. Of course when people have become dependent on a government and only know how to function with a government, when you remove the government suddenly there will be fear, violence, and chaos. The idea is rather evolving into an anarchist society socially and politically, the same way monarchies evolved into republican democracies over time when people were ready to do so. People have to learn to take care of themselves first. It might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it is doable.

madblader: YodaTuna: madblader: I just love how the retards think that paying the government in a bit more taxation for universal health care is wrong compared to giving WAY more money to private insurers to provide health care as they see fit to a few.

And printing money WILL lead to inflation, devaluation, and needless to say higher cost of living.

So keep cheering you brainless retards, I hope the image of Obama will gently warm your heart as you live in a cardboard box while dying of pneumonia.

You seem to support Universal Health Care, but despise Obama, I think? Anyway, we actually need inflation right now. We were dangerously close to deflation a little while ago(don't know where we sit now). Incidently deflation is way worse than inflation.

Inflation isn't inherantly a bad thing. Unless it's out of control, which right now it's not and there are zero indicators that it will be anytime in the future.

Inflation is usually at 1.5%-3% annually, and right now it's about 10%, and the really bad part is yet to come. So you tell me how this is a good thing.



[Citation Needed] on 10% inflation.

Nevermind, I already found that you're more full of shiat than a pig pen. But don't let a little thing like being completely wrong get in the way of your ideology.

http://forecasts.org/inflation.htm

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Second, wind and solar power a total waste of time and resources and are grossly inefficient, unsalvageably so. They are just feel-good do-nothing projects that enrich a select few giant corporations. Nuclear is the future. It's efficient, safe, and clean. There is no reason to invest in anything else right now. The argument that building infrastructure will create jobs to maintain that infrastructure is just more broken window fallacy.

This entire paragraph is basically wrong.
Your assessments of wind, solar, and other technologies are completely and utterly wrong, bold-faced lies used to prop up your argument against renewable fuels.

Solar technology is very viable, and it is cheap and quick to build. Thin-film solar promises to be so inexpensive that individuals will be able to afford systems to power their homes, and the efficiency goes up every year. Parts of Europe already get almost 30% of their energy from wind, and off-shore facilities can produce even more. What is your argument against renewables being "unsalvageably inefficient"? You've done nothing but assert it.

Further, your assessment of nuclear completely ignores the fact that it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to build and to run, and takes far longer to construct reactors, not to mention the fact that they aren't clean (waste is not a trivial issue), and the "breeder reactors" are only prototype technology as of yet.


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I could not disagree with your assessment more, and frankly this kind of grossly oversimplified and misguided explanation seems juvenile from an economics standpoint.

Is it, now.
Well clearly since you're calling me juvenile you must have some expertise, right? Some sort of degree? Since you're the expert, give me your learned opinion of why there was a post-war economic boom in America, won't you please?


Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Please explain how hiring somebody to build an instrument of war (which presumably sinks the the bottom of the ocean or sees 10 years of service and then rusts in a lot somewhere) makes the country better off economically.

First the government creates economic incentive to build instruments of war via things like DoD contracts. In order to fill those needs, new companies are created (or old ones expanded). Jobs are created to do the work for those companies. The government buys the equipment with the contract money which goes to paying for the company's operation. In order to sustain revenue, generally the company diversifies, using the fruits of their R&D labor to build new technologies. If the company is successful, they will attract investors and create products that are bought by both the general populace and by other countries (see General Electric). Ta-da.

In the case of companies building energy infrastructure components, it is even easier because the product is already a money-maker. Company pays worker to build product, product bought by energy company. Energy company builds facility, hooks it to grid, sells energy. Ta-da. Or even: company builds solar panel, homeowner pays company. Homeowner receives energy, company receives money. Ta-da.

uatuba: I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

98% of the time, these people are full of shiat. Look it up.

mark12A: Obama dismissed the idea of a second stimulus

He also was going to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, close Gitmo, give the Gitmo internees US trials, stop using signing statements, post Bills on the Internet so they can be seen by the public before he signed them and so on and so forth... none of which has happened.

He's a nice guy, but an empty suit.

To his credit, The Obamessiah has realized that the anti-terror machinery/policies Bush-Cheney put into place aren't so bad after all. He's like Clinton and both Bushes. Just wanted to be president. Doesn't have any real goals/plan. Reagan had goals.

Bush I was a caretaker, and reacted very professionally when Gulf war I happened. We were lucky to have him at the time.

Clinton had no real plans, just wanted to be prez. The republican congress keep him under control, and he had to be dragged kicking/screaming into doing something about Bosnia.

Bush II had no real plans, other than to be "The Education President", whatever that was. At least Bush II stepped up and got busy after 9/11.

Stop making shiat up, it's giving me a headache.

10.0.0.1: uatuba: I love people that say "look it up" and then don't provide a source.

98% of the time, these people are full of shiat. Look it up.

My source says 99%. I would post the think but I've lost my bookmarks and I'm not going to do your job for you...

/another favorite

Gawdzila: This entire paragraph is basically wrong.
Your assessments of wind, solar, and other technologies are completely and utterly wrong, bold-faced lies used to prop up your argument against renewable fuels.

Solar technology is very viable, and it is cheap and quick to build. Thin-film solar promises to be so inexpensive that individuals will be able to afford systems to power their homes, and the efficiency goes up every year. Parts of Europe already get almost 30% of their energy from wind, and off-shore facilities can produce even more. What is your argument against renewables being "unsalvageably inefficient"? You've done nothing but assert it.

Further, your assessment of nuclear completely ignores the fact that it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more expensive to build and to run, and takes far longer to construct reactors, not to mention the fact that they aren't clean (waste is not a trivial issue), and the "breeder reactors" are only prototype technology as of yet.

Well, I'm only a materials engineer who worked for the leading producer of wind turbines, what do I know? I'm sure you're more up to date than I am.

Solar technology is currently one of the most expensive technologies to implement because of the advanced materials required to create panels that do anything more than look nice. They get absolutely terrible efficiencies (30% is extremely high and expensive to achieve, 10-15% is more common). It is unreliable and inappropriate for almost anything except housing, and just plain doesn't work in many places in the world for obvious reasons.

Wind technology is probably the most crude, the baseball bat of the energy world if you will. Suffers from corrosion (especially near oceans, where most of them are), mechanical failures, buildup which has to be cleaned. Gigantic in scale, expensive materials, you need rows and rows of them to get any good payout. Can't be operated in winds that are too high or too low. Low efficiencies (usually around 15 percent), not to mention they are an unbelievable eyesore.

Nuclear reactors are expensive, but once they are built, the efficiencies and amount of power they generate are overwhelming. There's a reason country like France and Japan get almost all their energy from nuclear sources. Efficiencies can be 80% or higher and the payout is tremendous. Waste is a trivial problem, it can be stored safely underground and contrary to popular belief doesn't cause nuclear fallout if it falls off a train. Designs have come a far way in 30 years, of course we don't have many examples because the US won't invest in them.

You are misinformed.