|
United States43539 Posts
On September 27 2011 01:57 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues. How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression. Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance. Here are a few things that come to mind: - Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious); - Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield). The bolded is the only point of interest to me here, but precisely which of your allies is less happy with Obama as your president than Bush? Edit: Also, what does it mean to 'unapologetically pursue American interests' in a foreign policy context? Is this not quite possibly incompatible with your second point?
The UK. Don't get me wrong, we're not fans of Bush, nor Blair for that matter. But that pair of religious nutcases were pretty close.
|
jmac and xDaunt, read for instance this article. It's always saddening to see anyone actually falling for the completely obvious Republican National Security gambit, but since you two obviously do, that's a nice place to educate yourself a bit.
|
On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues.
It's quite sad that you both believe that Republicans perform better when it comes to national security and the economy. It's the exact opposite. How you still put your faith in Republicans when it comes to the economy, looking at the last administration and the current actions of the Republicans in Congress, is mind-blowing to say the least.
|
On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. [...] Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution). [...]
How did you acquire such a good understanding of economics without ever hearing of Standard and Poor's?
|
On September 27 2011 05:21 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:
[quote]
They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated?
I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so...
Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job.
Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control).
In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget. Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you: Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring) Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution). Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money. More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with. Repeat ad nauseum. It's easy to predict the future when you create it. How did you acquire such a good understanding of economics without ever hearing of Standard and Poor's?
Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you don't LEARN economics itself from reading the financial columns of a newspaper. I've got better things to do with my time than read business columns and try to discern which of a million so-called economists believe they can predict the future better than the rest. Willing to bet most people in the entire world had never heard of S&P until this Summer, and many more still don't.
Attack the argument, not the poster, if you wouldn't mind.
|
On September 27 2011 05:15 Grumbels wrote:jmac and xDaunt, read for instance this article. It's always saddening to see anyone actually falling for the completely obvious Republican National Security gambit, but since you two obviously do, that's a nice place to educate yourself a bit.
No news there. Already know about all of that stuff, and it does nothing to change my opinion.
|
On September 27 2011 05:37 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 05:21 ziggurat wrote:On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall.
[quote]
I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget. Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you: Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring) Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution). Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money. More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with. Repeat ad nauseum. It's easy to predict the future when you create it. How did you acquire such a good understanding of economics without ever hearing of Standard and Poor's? Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you don't LEARN economics itself from reading the financial columns of a newspaper. I've got better things to do with my time than read business columns and try to discern which of a million so-called economists believe they can predict the future better than the rest. Willing to bet most people in the entire world had never heard of S&P until this Summer, and many more still don't. Attack the argument, not the poster, if you wouldn't mind.
I actually can't figure out what your argument is. It seems to be that we should keep wasting money on green subsidies because we waste more money on other things anyway? Or maybe not...? If that's your argument it hardly seems worth attacking.
My point, I guess, is that anyone can have an opinion. But in order to have an informed opinion you need to actually be knowledgeable about the subject. I don't understand how you can be so dead certain about your beliefs when you (like all of us) still have a lot to learn about the way the world works.
|
|
|
On September 27 2011 05:47 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 05:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 05:21 ziggurat wrote:On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit.
Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget. Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you: Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring) Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution). Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money. More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with. Repeat ad nauseum. It's easy to predict the future when you create it. How did you acquire such a good understanding of economics without ever hearing of Standard and Poor's? Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you don't LEARN economics itself from reading the financial columns of a newspaper. I've got better things to do with my time than read business columns and try to discern which of a million so-called economists believe they can predict the future better than the rest. Willing to bet most people in the entire world had never heard of S&P until this Summer, and many more still don't. Attack the argument, not the poster, if you wouldn't mind. I actually can't figure out what your argument is. It seems to be that we should keep wasting money on green subsidies because we waste more money on other things anyway? Or maybe not...? If that's your argument it hardly seems worth attacking. My point, I guess, is that anyone can have an opinion. But in order to have an informed opinion you need to actually be knowledgeable about the subject. I don't understand how you can be so dead certain about your beliefs when you (like all of us) still have a lot to learn about the way the world works.
You must be joking. Do I need to know the name of Newton's first pet to understand how gravity works, too?
Knowing what a credit agency DOES, and the names of every single one on the entire planet, are two very different things.
If you're too lazy to read to understand the argument (good lord, how many times have I used the words 'pocket change' up until now? I feel like a broken record), and too childish to prevent yourself from attacking the poster, rather than the argument, then I'm done responding to you until you can act like an adult.
|
Cool, but is there anywhere I can view their data? It's entirely useless if they grade something as "pants on fire" that could be considered true. I'd just like to do some sort of sanity check.
|
Why in the ever loving hell do we live in a world where spouting at least 50% complete bullshit is the par for the course for almost 3/4 of these people?
You'd think that some of the people held to the highest standards of public oration would be potential candidates for the *presidency*
You'd think...
|
On September 27 2011 04:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 01:57 ikl2 wrote:On September 27 2011 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 01:36 Signet wrote:On September 27 2011 00:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 27 2011 00:43 jmac28 wrote:
Jobs and the economy should be the central issue in my book. I just graduated from college in May and I can’t tell you how many friends I have who don't have jobs. I went to a US News top 50 university so I may have not gone to Harvard but it wasn’t midwestern middle of nowhere community college.
For those of you who are younger and haven’t been hit by the harsh reality of a college degree and no job, teenage unemployment is at its highest since they started keeping record.
Half of my friends couldn't go on spring break because they couldn't find jobs and their parents are underemployed and can’t help them out with anything more then tuition (if that).
I am from one of the top 15 richest counties in the country so this is a place where money is supposed to not be an issue. I can't see how many people have issues higher on their list then jobs and the economy.
I don’t agree with many of the republican stances on social issues, but to me their economic policies outweigh the social policies.
What issues are most important to everyone else?
All things being equal, this is why I am a republican. National security and economic policy trump every other issue. I consider "social policy" issues to be luxury issues. If we don't get our national security (foreign strength) and economic policy (domestic strength) right, then everything else is moot. Democrats simply are demonstrably weaker than republicans on both issues. Don't get me wrong, republicans don't always do the right thing either (see Bush), but they are more likely to adopt the right policies on these important issues. How do Republicans have a demonstrably better record on national security? Sure they want to give the DOD and defense contractors a blank check, but their "assertive" foreign policies get American troops killed unnecessarily and foster global resentment of our country. We were far safer when entire regions of the world didn't view us as a symbol of imperialism/oppression. Democrats are guilty of these things themselves; there seems to be more of a difference in perception/brand image than actual substance. Here are a few things that come to mind: - Republicans generally aren't looking to gut the military (this one is obvious); - Republicans don't piss on our allies (to be fair, this may be something unique to Obama);- Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield). The bolded is the only point of interest to me here, but precisely which of your allies is less happy with Obama as your president than Bush? Edit: Also, what does it mean to 'unapologetically pursue American interests' in a foreign policy context? Is this not quite possibly incompatible with your second point? The UK. Don't get me wrong, we're not fans of Bush, nor Blair for that matter. But that pair of religious nutcases were pretty close.
While I agree, at the top (between Bush and Blair), the U.K. / U.S. were very close, I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of parliament and the general public opinion of America is better now in the U.K. with the U.S. under Obama than it was under Bush.
Republicans are more likely to unapologetically pursue American interests rather than sacrifice American interests to appease other countries (like the ballistic missile shield).
Is this really a good thing? Call me naive, but I think it's a good thing when countries can try compromise with each other - it leads to better relations and cooperation on issues. Also, I may have misremembered on this one, but wasn't the missile shield that was planned actually not that effective and could be better served by ships in the region? I seem to remember reading at least that (I think) Robert Gates said the system wasn't practical or effective and recommended scrapping it. I would think belligerently sticking to an ineffective system which also damages your relations with a key world power is the sign of bad policy, not good policy.
Sorry I missed anything obvious.
|
On September 27 2011 05:57 shinosai wrote:Cool, but is there anywhere I can view their data? It's entirely useless if they grade something as "pants on fire" that could be considered true. I'd just like to do some sort of sanity check.
I can't imagine that the metric used is predicated upon any support of objectivity. I looked at a description of the methodology used, to say that it's prone to abuse is an understatement.
|
|
|
On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated? I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so... Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:32 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
If there's a market for green products then shouldn't it emerge via the private market? Why is heavy gov't intervention needed? And if heavy gov't intervention is needed, then it's probably not helping the economy whatsoever in the short term, which is what's crucial.
Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job. Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control). In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget.
i wasn't talking about your ideas about environmental spending, i'm talking about your ideas on why jobs aren't being created.
Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget.
What? no it's not. Tax cuts don't really help either.
Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you:
they're not cowards... they have finally gotten smart enough to understand that the government is trying to manipulate them into poor business decisions (see technology and housing bubbles.) So they know that they're better off not investing when the situation is so unstable.
Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring)
Something happens in the global markets cases some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution).
Or maybe investors realize that US treasury really isn't secure, because the debt will either not get paid back, or it will get paid back with an over-inflated currency.
Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money.
More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with.
Repeat ad nauseum.
It's easy to predict the future when you create it.
Do you not understand that the low interest rates are there to TRICK investors into putting their money into the market, because low interest rates is normally a sign of people saving, which is usually a sign of cheaper resources which makes investing a good idea into projects that will utilize these resourcse...
Except now the investors aren't having anymore of this economic manipulation, so the only other thing that could push them into investing is an even higher inflation, the actual value of which is actually already really alarming. Of course luckily for people that have money there's still a place where they can hide their money from the big bad government and that's in commodities, and if you look at those it becomes brutally obvious what a farce this government's attempt at a recovery has been.
|
On September 27 2011 06:26 Kiarip wrote:
Except now the investors aren't having anymore of this economic manipulation, so the only other thing that could push them into investing is an even higher inflation, the actual value of which is actually already really alarming. Of course luckily for people that have money there's still a place where they can hide their money from the big bad government and that's in commodities, and if you look at those it becomes brutally obvious what a farce this government's attempt at a recovery has been.
I don't even know if you can trust commodities as an investment right now. A lot of them are shedding value rather quickly. Nonetheless, this underscores your point regarding, and the real reason why, companies and investors aren't hiring/investing: the economy is too unstable right now to make long term decisions. Though Obama is not responsible for some of the causes of this instability (Europe), he is responsible for others (Obamacare, EPA, NLRB, other federal regulations, and possible tax hikes).
|
On September 27 2011 06:26 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:55 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 01:49 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 01:44 TheGlassface wrote:
[quote]
They tried to remove the oil subsidies though...and failed...the market is already being skewed, ya know? Who's to say that green jobs aren't out there but simply can not compete when government is aiming to keep the other competition inflated?
I'm also a fan of all subsidies ending so...
Because I believe the green subsidies are even larger, but don't quote me on it. Regardless I think we should get rid of most subsidies overall. On September 27 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:
[quote]
Last I checked, the government isn't fully paying off every hybrid vehicle and handing them out to anyone who wants to 'save the planet'. The companies researching them, and the people buying them, get a few tax breaks here and there, sure. But, like pretty much every debate we've had so far on the economy in this thread, hell this entire website, we're arguing over frigging pocket-change. Oh no, some green companies went bankrupt despite government assistance! Big deal. Loans always go out with the expectation that some of them are going to default. This is part of the reason why we've come to have a fiat money system. It allows money to evaporate through everyday human mistakes with nary a hiccup in the economy. If not, we'd see a good old-fashioned rebellion every time someone lost their job.
Solyndra going under is no big deal. At all. It's normal. Conservatives have turned it into a big deal because, to the uneducated, it's a big story and further 'evidence' of this administration's incompetence - therefore ammunition in order to get the Republicans elected and on a personal basis, further their own desires (whether it's social control, or economic control).
In the end, it's a long-term investment, because there is LITERALLY (not the figurative usage of the word literally) no way we're going to maintain our current trend of oil production and consumption forever. The US economy WILL need something else in the future to maintain its energy needs, or it will crumble the moment word gets out that all of the oil is gone. The way I see it, the Republicans want to further jeopardize the country's future to make short-term political gains by pissing and moaning about pocket-change from the bottom of the sofa to try and make the Democrats look bad. I think you're going on an entirely different topic than I was originally mentioning. I never said green jobs were intrinsically bad nor did I say there is no demand for green products. Rather, in the current state of the economy, I'm advocating that investing heavily into the green market should not be a priority on the agenda. Why not? Again, it's pocket change. Even amidst this current jobs market, people should still have the common sense to save away money into their 401k, even if it is only a small amount. Renewable energy funding is merely the government doing the same thing. What, because we're spending umpteen fucking bajillions on a military that has nobody left to kill, and continuing tax breaks for the 'job creators' who STILL aren't creating jobs despite those tax breaks being held in place for another year, we should drop all of these mini projects to make up the numbers? Fuck that shit. Nobody in politics has the cajones to talk about the elephants in the room (the big bills, which also includes other things like Social Security and Medicare) while we sit here fighting, bickering and arguing over that tiny fraction of money we're saving for our kid's college fund every week. Investing heavily =! pocket change. And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere. It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. i wasn't talking about your ideas about environmental spending, i'm talking about your ideas on why jobs aren't being created. Show nested quote +
Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget.
What? no it's not. Tax cuts don't really help either. Show nested quote +
Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you:
they're not cowards... they have finally gotten smart enough to understand that the government is trying to manipulate them into poor business decisions (see technology and housing bubbles.) So they know that they're better off not investing when the situation is so unstable. Show nested quote +
Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring)
Something happens in the global markets cases some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution).
Or maybe investors realize that US treasury really isn't secure, because the debt will either not get paid back, or it will get paid back with an over-inflated currency. Show nested quote +
Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money.
More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with.
Repeat ad nauseum.
It's easy to predict the future when you create it.
Do you not understand that the low interest rates are there to TRICK investors into putting their money into the market, because low interest rates is normally a sign of people saving, which is usually a sign of cheaper resources which makes investing a good idea into projects that will utilize these resourcse... Except now the investors aren't having anymore of this economic manipulation, so the only other thing that could push them into investing is an even higher inflation, the actual value of which is actually already really alarming. Of course luckily for people that have money there's still a place where they can hide their money from the big bad government and that's in commodities, and if you look at those it becomes brutally obvious what a farce this government's attempt at a recovery has been.
The very same people that pulled money out of their businesses when the US went through the credit drop back in August put that money into...
you guessed it...
US treasury bonds.
They didn't feel secure investing in the jobs of the country and it's prosperity, but they were more than willing to invest in, STILL, the safest place to put their money despite the reduction in confidence that caused them to pull that money out in the first place. I could not even hope to dream of a greater irony than that in a hundred years.
Trick them? Please. It's an incentive, nothing more. Tricking them would be having low interest rates knowing absolutely full 100% damn well the country is going to get hit by a meteor tomorrow. Truth is, they're simply unwilling to invest, because nobody else is. We'll have to sit and wait for some ballsy guy to bring along the next big product that storms the market, before they start to realize that they're literally spooked over nothing. I hope it comes quick, because the longer they wait, the less likely that will happen.
|
While I agree with people saying that we shouldn't take these numbers too literally (ie Huntsman telling the truth eighty-six point zero percent of the time), it's really just putting into numbers what we already knew.
ie, in general I'd expect a candidate who is willing to break from the partisan line in the face of evidence (such as Huntsman and Paul, or to a lesser extent Romney) to campaign on more truthful things than someone who holds party over reality (ie Santorum and sometimes Perry).
Pretty much any sane person regardless of party or ideology knows to ignore the verbal diarrhea coming out of Bachmann.
|
Torturing people doesn't make us safer. Fabricating reasons to invade countries doesn't make us safer. Killing civilians with military operations and sanctions doesn't make us safer. Wasting all that money instead of investing it into our country (or paying off debt) doesn't make us safer. The fact is that we create terrorists with our foreign policy, and continuing or escalating these practices will not make us safer. Democrats have demonstrated that they aren't much better than Republicans in these regards, unfortunately.
I was talking with a conservative friend of mine, and we disagreed about Israel. I listed off the things that over the decades have given Muslims in the middle east plenty of grievances against us and our policy toward Israel. His response was "so what? fuck 'em. They aren't important to our interests and that's all that matters. Israel is what matters." He's not crazy, he's actually very intelligent. And I think he sums up our disagreement over foreign policy pretty well.
I'm a broken record, but if you want to keep or increase our level of military spending then you aren't a fiscal conservative. And if you think our foreign policy makes us safer, I guess empirical evidence isn't your bag of chips.
|
On September 27 2011 05:52 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2011 05:47 ziggurat wrote:On September 27 2011 05:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 05:21 ziggurat wrote:On September 27 2011 04:37 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 04:08 Kiarip wrote:On September 27 2011 02:19 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:17 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 27 2011 02:14 Bibdy wrote:On September 27 2011 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
Investing heavily =! pocket change.
And I think the pocket change argument is stupid itself. Even if we are being retarded with the military, which I agree with you, it doesn't mean that we should be retarded or less cautious elsewhere.
It really is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg (direct link if it won't load) 2010 federal spending. Renewable energy research is a small percentage of the (reading clockwise) third red section of that pie chart - Department of Energy. Their entire yearly funding is down to the single digits of Billions, whereas our budget problems are in the thousands of billions. How is this relevant whatsoever to what I said? You keep going on a different topic than I'm mentioning. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't focus on investing heavily into that market, in the current state of things. What that means is I'm saying we shouldn't increase spending into that category by pumping $10+ billion into it. How in the world is the 2010 budget relevant to the debate on the future? If I'm saying we shouldn't pump a ton of money into an industry, your argument that "we're already not putting much in at all" is wholly irrelevant. I editted my last post, so I'll put it here, too. Our short term would be FINE if these fucking, so-called job-creators were doing their jobs by creating jobs! So, what do you do, when these people aren't going to distribute that wealth for everyone's, including their OWN, benefit? FYI, we've tried the tax incentive route for several years now, and still nothing. And I think your perception of what constitutes a 'heavy investment' is skewed. Renewable energy costs went from $8B to $13B from 2010 to 2011. That's about 50% increase. That seems like a lot, until you look at it relative to the 5-10% increase in Department of Defense spending year-by-year. are you really that ignorant? if it was in their interest to create jobs... they would, but it's not, because the cost of labor is too high, and the current interest rates are unsustainably low... you and whitewing both understand economics so poorly, that it's almost futile to argue with you because you think that bad is good. Oh please, get off your high horse, you pretentious ass. I understand micro and macroeconomics perfectly fine. $8-$13 B in government spending barely makes a dent. Pretending otherwise is nothing short of the same kind of childish opportunism that Conservatives are using to try and make these policies look bad to further their own agenda. You could take all of the money out of these 'UTTERLY WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS', and still come woefully short of fixing the current budget. Isn't that the EXACT same kind of thinking that leads these so-called economists to predict that letting the Bush tax cuts would ONLY make an $800 B a year dent...wait. $800 B? That sounds like an awful lot similar to the entire Congressional discretionary spending budget. Yeah, you have it exactly right, there are no jobs because they're cowards. The business world is currently locked up in this stupid self-fulfilling prophecy of a double-dip recession. Let me paint a picture for you: Investors the world over hear news that a double-dip recession COULD happen (only because it has happened in the past. Presently, zero evidence of it occurring) Something happens in the global markets causes some mischief. Fairly minor in general (e.g. US credit rating drop by a trivial amount from some obscure agency nobody had ever heard of until now, more repetition of the 'fear' of Greece defaulting, some oil derrick explodes, some backwater country that doesn't have shit to do with anything has a democratic revolution). Investors see this as a coming of the prophecy and start pulling money out to prevent them losing money. More jobs are lost as a result of investors 'turtling up' for the coming apocalypse. Now there's plenty of evidence of a double-dip recession on the way, caused by the very same people who were terrified of it to begin with. Repeat ad nauseum. It's easy to predict the future when you create it. How did you acquire such a good understanding of economics without ever hearing of Standard and Poor's? Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression that you don't LEARN economics itself from reading the financial columns of a newspaper. I've got better things to do with my time than read business columns and try to discern which of a million so-called economists believe they can predict the future better than the rest. Willing to bet most people in the entire world had never heard of S&P until this Summer, and many more still don't. Attack the argument, not the poster, if you wouldn't mind. I actually can't figure out what your argument is. It seems to be that we should keep wasting money on green subsidies because we waste more money on other things anyway? Or maybe not...? If that's your argument it hardly seems worth attacking. My point, I guess, is that anyone can have an opinion. But in order to have an informed opinion you need to actually be knowledgeable about the subject. I don't understand how you can be so dead certain about your beliefs when you (like all of us) still have a lot to learn about the way the world works. You must be joking. Do I need to know the name of Newton's first pet to understand how gravity works, too? Knowing what a credit agency DOES, and the names of every single one on the entire planet, are two very different things. If you're too lazy to read to understand the argument (good lord, how many times have I used the words 'pocket change' up until now? I feel like a broken record), and too childish to prevent yourself from attacking the poster, rather than the argument, then I'm done responding to you until you can act like an adult.
Yes, it's clear that I need to stop attacking the poster. Sorry about that.
There are only 3 major credit rating agencies, and if you read much about this stuff you can't help but be familiar with them. This is basic stuff. If you were to start casting SC2 games and you didn't know the names of some of the units ("oh, wow, those tall thingies have laser beams!") then no one would take you seriously there either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/23/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0923-politifact_simplified/fivethirtyeight-0923-politifact_simplified-blog480-v2.png)
