If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   The EU's plan to destroy their economy altered, new plans in place should only mostly destroy their economy   (hotair.com) divider line 342
    More: Followup, Cypriot, European debt crisis, bank rescues, deposits  
•       •       •

6392 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Mar 2013 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



342 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-18 01:16:21 PM  

DamnYankees: I know, fiat currency is pretty amazing.


Is there a limit to how amazing it is?  If we printed, say, one trillion dollars and gave it to that individual, would the effects be any different?  Two trillion?
 
2013-03-18 01:17:41 PM  

Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:


Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.
 
2013-03-18 01:18:34 PM  

studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.

Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10


Which part of what he said was wrong? Does Latvia not have trillions more in debt now? Do they not have a young population that is fleeing the country? What part was wrong, specifically?
 
2013-03-18 01:18:41 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: And it would end very badly for them. The weak will always be weak and easily slapped around. That is your goddamn argument, really? Give money to the lazy or they will attack you?


Well your argument was that we could beat criminals and the poor into submission.  So your plan does rely on a large number of people being weak and easily slapped around.


You can. Not literally a physical beating.... But, did you know people go back to work within a short period of time of their unemployment running out? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, doesn't matter, there is a direct relationship between benefits running out and people deciding to work again. So why do we give them 2 years of benefits? Why not shorten it to 3 months? That is the kind of "beatings"I mean. Make things hard to be poor, don't encourage it.

Imagine if when the great depression hit, people just got unlimited welfare, free housing, free health care, free food and smokes, cash to spend? Think we would have bounced back nearly as well? Obama has given people all kinds of stuff, where are we at? We are limping by when we should be running full speed.
 
2013-03-18 01:18:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?


Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.
 
2013-03-18 01:19:13 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I know, fiat currency is pretty amazing.

Is there a limit to how amazing it is?  If we printed, say, one trillion dollars and gave it to that individual, would the effects be any different?  Two trillion?


Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?
 
2013-03-18 01:19:50 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?

Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.


You mean you would've freaked out about it because the point of my post was so far over your head that you couldn't understand why I used it.
 
2013-03-18 01:21:07 PM  
Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.
 
2013-03-18 01:22:35 PM  

CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.


Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.
 
2013-03-18 01:22:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.


We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."
 
2013-03-18 01:22:53 PM  
People, remember: Thunderpipes is someone who thinks only rich people should be able to vote.

/at least in federal elections
 
2013-03-18 01:23:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?


Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?
 
2013-03-18 01:24:13 PM  

studs up: your devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me


I can only assume you haven't read the results of the first link. Let me help:

Each side has a point. 2008 and 2009 were traumatic years for Latvia.  Unemployment surged to over 20 percent, and poverty rates remain high by EU standards.

You're confusing the facts of the level of pain Latvia has suffered and is suffering with the ideological argument that the end justifies the means.
 
2013-03-18 01:24:55 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?


Can you two get a room?
 
2013-03-18 01:25:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?

Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.

You mean you would've freaked out about it because the point of my post was so far over your head that you couldn't understand why I used it.


No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.
 
2013-03-18 01:25:20 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."


No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.
 
2013-03-18 01:25:20 PM  

Alonjar: Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

ROFL no choice but to work?  Is this guy serious?

They'll just come beat  you down and take  your stuff.  Believe it or not, this is a problem people have been working on for thousands of years.


That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

For me to keep what I have taken from those that are not able to resist me.

I am the perfect Anarchist, the one with a gun.
 
2013-03-18 01:26:11 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?


Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-18 01:27:00 PM  

skozlaw: Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?


Try these & there are a whole bunch of related stories too:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/cyprus-bailout-puts-new-press ur e-on-european-banks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9936737/Cyprus-b ai lout-live.html

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Page/Home/en/LIVE
 
2013-03-18 01:27:04 PM  

I_C_Weener: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?

Can you two get a room?


If you believe in magic
Come along with me
We'll dance until morning, just you and me
and maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet ya tomorrow
so late at night
 
2013-03-18 01:27:17 PM  

Wangiss: No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.


You pointed out that I used an either-or fallacy, which is true. However, the reason I did so was to highlight the stupidity of  Thunderpipes' claim.

You see, sometimes logical fallacies are worthwhile to oh forget it you won't get it.
 
2013-03-18 01:27:26 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I am of the opinion that if the gov't is offering to spend money on a person specifically because they meet a requirement, such as you earn bellow XXX, it is not a service. What that is, is a bribe with other people's money. For example, we will pay for your health insurance with so-and-so's money. Or, we will pay for your food with so-and-so's money, etc., all you have to do is vote for me. The left would have an argument if such bribes came with strings attached; forcing people to go to school for example. But they don't, they give away what other people have earned in exchange for a vote. When only certain people qualify for funding, and that funding is another persons money, you aren't providing a service you are bribing.


Fair enough. I don't altogether disagree. One of the problems with 'liberals believe' or 'conservatives believe' is that real people generally have, like you, more nuanced views.
 
2013-03-18 01:29:43 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Nice namecalling.

Who's asking for it, specifically? Name one single Democratic politician in the federal government who has campaigned on "making the US exactly like the EU"

ONE.


As far as making healthcare exactly like those foolish systems (and Canadia)... just about the entire Dem block in the Senate and the President. Throw in the Sec of State too.

NAFTA was supported by the majority of both parties back in the 90s.

I don't think any have had  "making the US exactly like the EU" as a campaign slogan though.
 
2013-03-18 01:30:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.


You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.
 
2013-03-18 01:31:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.



As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto policies) in a given jurisdiction.  While the loss history of a given policy has an impact it is much smaller than what one sees in the health insurance market and the underwriting decisions are focused on maintaining positive loss ratios across the entire policy line (e.g. risk is being shared amongst all such policies in a state).  The reason being that under P&C losses are not a given or a certainty...there is a risk that a loss may occur but it's equally likely that no loss will occur.  On the contrary, with health insurance, it's extremely likely that there will be a loss to any given policy during the policy year.  An individual insured can go for several years before calling upon their property or auto insurer for coverage but it's quite likely they'll call on their health insurer for coverage several times a year.

So whether you have excellent health coverage depends entirely on the size of your employer.  If you are an individual payer you do not have excellent coverage nor do you have affordable coverage.  If your employer is a small business your coverage is definitely going to be more expensive and provide less coverage overall than what is being offered to a larger employer with a more desirable population of insureds.  This variation could be evened out if risk were distributed over an entire population through a universal health care method but...
 
2013-03-18 01:31:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?

Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.


This is what I'm talking about.  See?  You've won.  He has to start the argument over again because his assertion is utterly untenable.  This is logic; this is helpful.  And, as a bonus, you are right.
 
2013-03-18 01:31:57 PM  

InstaZen25: As far as making healthcare exactly like those foolish systems (and Canadia)... just about the entire Dem block in the Senate and the President.


The assertion wasn't healthcare. It was "exactly like the EU"
 
2013-03-18 01:32:34 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.


You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.
 
2013-03-18 01:33:56 PM  

Ilmarinen: People, remember: Thunderpipes is someone who thinks only rich people should be able to vote.

/at least in federal elections


no, I think you should have to pay a voting fee, or at least pay a certain amount of federal taxes. Not rich people, just people who actually pay taxes or have earned the right by paying taxes in the past (for retirees).

Sorry, but I don't think people who have no stake in the game should be able to directly vote themselves money. This will just get worse as the losers breed faster and the hard working people slow down. Not to mention you guys can just vote 6 times for Obama if you want too.

Just common sense. As much as liberals would love it, the guy in the mail room should not be involved in major policy decisions of a Fortune 500 company. He is in the mail room for a reason. You won the Presidency, in major part, because being a successful business man, giving millions to charity and paying millions in taxes was painted as evil. Really think about that.
 
2013-03-18 01:34:19 PM  
Saw the Hot Air icon and quickly realized this wasn't a link worth following.
 
2013-03-18 01:34:38 PM  

DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.



Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.
 
2013-03-18 01:35:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.

Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10

Which part of what he said was wrong? Does Latvia not have trillions more in debt now? Do they not have a young population that is fleeing the country? What part was wrong, specifically?


I'm sorry, are you saying that all that debt just accrued since austerity was implemented? Well, here is that conservative rag, the NYT saying you, once again, are talking out your ass. You really need to stop posting your ignorance for the world to see. It's got to start getting embarrassing soon.
And yes, the young are fleeing the country. It happens when the free ride is over. A generation raised on the dole will go somewhere else when there is no more dole. They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.
 
2013-03-18 01:36:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.


What if we replace the individual with a group of people?  Maybe retired people over the age of 65?  Would that change your opinion on whether or not it will ever happen?  Does the fact that it was done via a group of people as opposed to an individual change the ramifications?
 
2013-03-18 01:37:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.

You pointed out that I used an either-or fallacy, which is true. However, the reason I did so was to highlight the stupidity of  Thunderpipes' claim.

You see, sometimes logical fallacies are worthwhile to oh forget it you won't get it.


I already acknowledged what you just wrote before you even wrote it.  I asked, "Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he[?]"
You didn't say yes until now, so now we have it: the truth.  Thanks for that.
 
2013-03-18 01:37:28 PM  

studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.


Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!
 
2013-03-18 01:37:54 PM  
Have we had a discussion regarding the tanking European economy, their crazy union and socialized ways, their 30 hour work weeks, their 50 weeks of vacation between 50 bank holidays, and the fact that the Euro is better than a US Dollar?  Should I ,like, read a book or something?
 
2013-03-18 01:38:32 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.


As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto polic ...


Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.
 
2013-03-18 01:38:34 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.


As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto polic ...


You, yes you.

Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sensible.

Just leave, there is hyperbole in progress, and you don't want to stand in the way of progress.
 
2013-03-18 01:40:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.


Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?
 
2013-03-18 01:41:44 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:09 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.

Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?


I haven't even responded to most of his posts.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:55 PM  

InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.


There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:55 PM  

ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.


It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.
 
2013-03-18 01:43:18 PM  
Stupid question:

Some companies make a payrole deposit per month. X goes in, X typically goes rights out after everyone cash their check.

Sooo, if they do this 5,10% or whatever, what stops someone's pay from bouncing?
 
2013-03-18 01:45:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.


And you are the problem.

You think they just needed to raise taxes. You are just like American liberals. You completely ignore the real problems, spending, entitlements, work ethic, responsibility. Your solution to anything is just to raise taxes. You cannot continue to do that forever.
 
2013-03-18 01:46:04 PM  

Thunderpipes: You can. Not literally a physical beating.... But, did you know people go back to work within a short period of time of their unemployment running out? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, doesn't matter, there is a direct relationship between benefits running out and people deciding to work again. So why do we give them 2 years of benefits? Why not shorten it to 3 months? That is the kind of "beatings"I mean. Make things hard to be poor, don't encourage it.

Imagine if when the great depression hit, people just got unlimited welfare, free housing, free health care, free food and smokes, cash to spend? Think we would have bounced back nearly as well? Obama has given people all kinds of stuff, where are we at? We are limping by when we should be running full speed.



Regarding your first point, people are leery about returning to work because doing so would void the remainder of their unemployment benefit at which point they must remain at their current employment for a period of time before they become eligible once again.  So taking on temporary or contract work (which is popular at this time) is incredibly risky because your term could end without an offer and leave you without unemployment benefits.  Quite frankly, what you should notice is that people ride their benefits to the end regardless of the length.  If it's two years then they will last two years.  If two months then they will last two months.  The problem isn't that unemployment allows a free ride, the problem is puts people in a position where they need to find a full time permanent replacement for the income they lost on the first attempt.  In any event we give people two years because in the current economic climate where employers are attempting to nickle and dime workers on salary it can easily take that long to find a job that replaces the income an individual was earning at their old job.  Given that federal and state revenues rely on income tax receipts assisting individuals in attaining high paying work is more desirable than forcing them to compromise by taking temp work that pays much less and forces them to rely heavily on social services for basic needs.

When the Great Depression hit we had breadlines and shanty towns.  By your logic we would never have escaped from the Great Depression if we kept giving free food to the poor.  The Federal Gov't also increased the income tax rates to fund massive public works projects in an effort to put the poor to work.  However current conservative philosophy would argue against such programs citing them as evidence of government "waste".  The Great Depression itself was caused by financial practices that were advocated by conservatives in the late 90's and the Depression itself lasted from 1929 till 1941.  We didn't "bounce back" from the Depression nearly as fast as you seem to think.
 
2013-03-18 01:46:56 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


I think you are confusing that with debt. Nice try!
 
2013-03-18 01:47:09 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.


If I lend you a shiat-ton of money that we both know you won't be able to pay back, in what way are you being irresponsible, but I'm very responsible?
 
2013-03-18 01:47:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.

Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?

I haven't even responded to most of his posts.


So the line is drawn at "most," which unless you correct me I will admit to being a simple majority.  If I find a thread wherein you have replied to most of a poster's posts, will that define you as "obsessed" and "weird"?  Or will you employ a No True Scotsman fallacy to protect your emotions?  Or would you like to take an early opportunity to admit that you ware wrong--that there is a possible other reason a person might respond to a majority of your posts?
 
2013-03-18 01:50:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.


People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.
 
Displayed 50 of 342 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report