|
On August 17 2011 00:54 Mazer wrote:
Pretending that wars in Libya/Syria/etc are even close in scope to those in Afghanistan/Iraq is a complete riot. At least those 'wars' have international support.
all of them are undeclared but
|
On August 17 2011 00:12 aeyr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:47 TranceStorm wrote:On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote:On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country. Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Yes. The problem with Ron Paul is that he proposes great and radical visions of what should happen to America - and they do seem great. But he can never fully articulate how he will go about implementing these changes. It is very easy to criticize existing systems of governance, but very difficult to propose and implement working models. For example, Paul is a big opponent of big government and has advocated for the removal of many federal government institutions such "as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service" (Source: Wikipedia lol). But how would you implement educational/energy/security/etc policy afterward? What makes Paul inherently unelectable is the fact that he argues for large sweeping changes without considerations of the consequences of such actions. Obviously removing such entities would have large unforeseen effects, but Paul only focuses on his vision of what good it may cause. Although he does say these government programs should be removed, he and most people understand that it's impossible to get rid of all of them at once. A slow degradation of these programs, however, is a step in the right direction, but we probably won't see a complete removal in his presidential term(s). If elected, of course. :D
lol Ron Paul has stated before many times he just wouldn't cut all of those things at once or even each one completely 1by1 over night.
He would do it slowly so the people currently dependent on medicare/medicaid/welfare or w/e wouldn't get fucked, it would be a slow transition out of those programs. And "young" or w/e people would have a choice to do the social security thing, so it would slowly phase out also since i dont think anybody would like to have a huge chunk of their paycheck go into some shitty ponzi-scheme that will collapse in the future when ur about to need it most likely lol =P
|
On August 17 2011 00:52 Schmoopykins wrote:Show nested quote +
“If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement” - Senator Michele Bachmann.
Please don't give her that amount of credit, she won her own dimwitted district not votes from the entire state of Minnesota. It's Representative Michele Bachmann, our senators are Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar. They had to get the votes of the entire state and it's only the sixth district that voted for Bachmann.
Thanks, updated.
|
Ron Paul actually won a yahoo.com poll just 2 or 3 days ago. He won with 35% of the votes and over 30.000 votes.
Second was I think Romney with only 20.000 votes. So all the talk that he can't win is crap, especially since he has been winning every online poll from CNN, Fox, Yahoo, NBC to washington post polls. He won Cpac two years in a row, won on the previous straw poll and has been in the front for more than 2 years now.
|
I think Ron Paul is similarly crazy as Bachmann, but at least he is consistent and from the perspective of other countries he is actually good choice, because of his non-interventionism.
But whatever I think of Ron Paul's program I have to say the treatment he gets from US media is ridiculous :
Daily Show on Ron Paul
More ironic is that they love him during non-election season, but comes presidential election and his usefulness is gone for the Republicans and the media.
|
Can someone please explain to me why in the world you think Bachmann is a good choice? I see people saying she should win, she's popular (apparently) and she's also batshit fucking insane.
So...
Do go on. I need to know *just* how fucked my country is in 2012.
|
On August 17 2011 00:36 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:31 ShadeR wrote:
Genuine Q. Which of the 18 listed is not a creationist/ID? none. But how is all this related?
I'd love an atheist president. You know, one who doesn't think God will solve everything or try to impose religious doctrine on the whole country(issues like homosexuality among others show how you can't separate religion and politics) or want end to come and it all has to happen in Judea.
I'd still rather Ron Paul won, because he's not bought out and doesn't just pander to populism and mob rule. Add on the fact that he's a real conservative(none of the other republicans are actually conservatives) and you've got a decent candidate that I'd support even though my record is voting with the left. John Huntsman seems like the next reasonable person, at least when he's in interviews.
I really can't see how people would vote for Bachmann or Perry. They're straight up crazy. Palin had support somehow. I think people don't really care about the issues, Bachmann is a republican woman(masochistic, I know) so she "looks nice" and makes people seem like they're progressive(electing a woman) while allowing themselves the guilty pleasure of regressing 50 years. Just get someone to spew talking points about big government and religion hating atheists(Christianity is the only religion to them) and how Obama made everything worse and it was no one else's fault. There are people who think that Bachmann is actually an intelligent human being and that she nails every interview and every question. It's sort of scary.
|
On August 17 2011 00:59 thehitman wrote:
Ron Paul actually won a yahoo.com poll just 2 or 3 days ago. He won with 35% of the votes and over 30.000 votes.
Second was I think Romney with only 20.000 votes. So all the talk that he can't win is crap, especially since he has been winning every online poll from CNN, Fox, Yahoo, NBC to washington post polls. He won Cpac two years in a row, won on the previous straw poll and has been in the front for more than 2 years now.
Online polls mean nothing, they just show how active are your core followers and Ron Paul has rather active followers, but in real election they will be like a drop in the sea of people who cannot care less about online polls.
EDIT:typo
|
On August 17 2011 00:50 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking. You should also mention it's not like he is the only person who thinks this, it's actually mainstream economic thought.
As far as I can tell, Krugman's views on stimulus are unfalsifiable. If a stimulus doesn't "work", no matter how much is spent on it, Krugman can always respond "you didn't spend enough." This is precisely what he says about Japan even though Japan spent plenty on stimulus.
I'd be willing to change my mind if you could you find an article from Krugman where he gives a precise amount needed to properly stimulate the economy in recession situations (note: this cannot be an after-the-fact number, for his economic theories to have any value they must have predictive value thus, the stimulus number must be before or during the recession).
|
On August 17 2011 01:00 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:36 thoradycus wrote:On August 17 2011 00:31 ShadeR wrote:
Genuine Q. Which of the 18 listed is not a creationist/ID? none. But how is all this related? I'd love an atheist president. You know, one who doesn't think God will solve everything or try to impose religious doctrine on the whole country(issues like homosexuality among others show how you can't separate religion and politics) or want end to come and it all has to happen in Judea. I'd still rather Ron Paul won, because he's not bought out and doesn't just pander to populism and mob rule. Add on the fact that he's a real conservative(none of the other republicans are actually conservatives) and you've got a decent candidate that I'd support even though my record is voting with the left. John Huntsman seems like the next reasonable person, at least when he's in interviews. I really can't see how people would vote for Bachmann or Perry. They're straight up crazy. Palin had support somehow. I think people don't really care about the issues, Bachmann is a republican woman(masochistic, I know) so she "looks nice" and makes people seem like they're progressive(electing a woman) while allowing themselves the guilty pleasure of regressing 50 years. Just get someone to spew talking points about big government and religion hating atheists(Christianity is the only religion to them) and how Obama made everything worse and it was no one else's fault. There are people who think that Bachmann is actually an intelligent human being and that she nails every interview and every question. It's sort of scary.
I wanted to run for president.
Then I found out that since I'm an atheist, I can't. 
|
On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed.
6 wars? Packistan is and always has been involved in Afghanistan, and if you had payed even the remotest attention Obama said, before the election, he was going to escalate Afghanistan. Quite frankly it needed it, and the shift in policy has finally begun to settle the region. His plan to leave Iraq drowned out the "escalate Afghanistan" in the news, but it's always been there.
We aren't even involved militarily in Yemen and Syria to a major point, and I fail to see how he's responsible for Libya. It was Europe, especially France, that pushed Libya, and as NATO members we're obligated to join them.
As for unemployment, again the economy was already crashing a few months before he became president. Nothing he could have done could have stopped the momentum. Again, he inherited Guantanimo and an unsolvable problem. He got stuck with legions of people who couldn't be released for security reasons, but had been denied due process. Guantanimo shouldn't have happened, but now that it has there's no way to escape it without releasing tons of guilty people.
As for the patriot act the most offensive parts of it were removed during the Bush era.
I'm sorry, but you're just misinformed on every level. Almost everything you said was out of his control, and what's left was necessary.
|
On August 17 2011 01:02 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:50 Grumbels wrote:On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking. You should also mention it's not like he is the only person who thinks this, it's actually mainstream economic thought. As far as I can tell, Krugman's views on stimulus are unfalsifiable. If a stimulus doesn't "work", no matter how much is spent on it, Krugman can always respond "you didn't spend enough." This is precisely what he says about Japan even though Japan spent plenty on stimulus. I'd be willing to change my mind if you could you find an article from Krugman where he gives a precise amount needed to properly stimulate the economy in recession situations (note: this cannot be an after-the-fact number, for his economic theories to have any value they must have predictive value thus, the stimulus number must be before or during the recession).
Can it be projected how bad things would be if you didnt have the stimulus? That would be the easiest way to see if it worked or not surely?
|
On August 17 2011 00:56 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed. not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. We've HAD troops in Yemen. We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem. We HAD troops in Pakistan. We've left things to NATO in Libya. We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan. No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now. Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it. Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics. Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine.
Not really 6 wars... but we are bombing yemen and pakistan
any future military action by those 2 countries iran and nk will be dealt with by the US.
NATO still means the US is involved...
|
If Bachmann or Palin wins the nomination, the Republican Party will flop in 2012.
|
On August 17 2011 01:04 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:56 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed. not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. We've HAD troops in Yemen. We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem. We HAD troops in Pakistan. We've left things to NATO in Libya. We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan. No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now. Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it. On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics. Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine. Not really 6 wars... but we are bombing yemen and pakistan any future military action by those 2 countries iran and nk will be dealt with by the US. NATO still means the US is involved...
There's a big difference between a US lead war (Iraq/Afghanistan) and an allied nations war that the US gets involved in to help (Libya) due to NATO obligations. I mean, a really big difference.
|
On August 17 2011 01:02 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:50 Grumbels wrote:On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking. You should also mention it's not like he is the only person who thinks this, it's actually mainstream economic thought. As far as I can tell, Krugman's views on stimulus are unfalsifiable. If a stimulus doesn't "work", no matter how much is spent on it, Krugman can always respond "you didn't spend enough." This is precisely what he says about Japan even though Japan spent plenty on stimulus. I'd be willing to change my mind if you could you find an article from Krugman where he gives a precise amount needed to properly stimulate the economy in recession situations (note: this cannot be an after-the-fact number, for his economic theories to have any value they must have predictive value thus, the stimulus number must be before or during the recession).
You could also type the words "stimulus+krugman" in google and click on the first few articles.
|
On August 17 2011 01:04 thoradycus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:56 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed. not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. We've HAD troops in Yemen. We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem. We HAD troops in Pakistan. We've left things to NATO in Libya. We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan. No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now. Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it. On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics. Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine. Not really 6 wars... but we are bombing yemen and pakistan any future military action by those 2 countries iran and nk will be dealt with by the US. NATO still means the US is involved...
We've consistently subsidized NATO since forever. Yemen and Pakistan have always been places where we have been involved, even when Obama wasn't president. And besides, Yemen is an incredibly unstable country and a hotspot for members of Al Qaeda. If you ask me, it's a smart choice that we're trying to prevent the collapse of what could become a terrorist state.
And like I said, NK and Iran have always been a problem.
|
I'd participate in the poll, but I don't know enough about each candidate to make an informed decision... Which of these candidates are the least 'evil'? (from what I'm hearing Bachmann is insane)
|
On August 17 2011 00:56 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well. Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious? Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed. not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. At least publicly. >.> We've HAD troops in Yemen. We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem. We've HAD troops in Pakistan. We've left things to NATO in Libya. We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan. No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now. Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it. Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics. Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine.
Unlike you I actually post facts and can back up my facts. The unemployment rate hasn't gone more than 10.2% and he hasn't saved anything, its been continually getting worse since Obama took office.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment rate us
You still bomb Pakistan, you withdraw 20.000 troops from Iraq and send 40.000 to Afghanistan, then you put 10.000 mercenaries in Iraq. Do the math and you'll see that he has actually increased the military presence by 30.000 troops in just the last year!
|
On August 17 2011 01:02 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 00:50 Grumbels wrote:On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote:
I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/. Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise. On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote:He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons. Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.> To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too. Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later. I don't think your logic works. Obviously if the White Houses' stimulus was too low according to Krugman, he would advocate to "double down on spending". That's a perfectly consistent attitude, not really deserving of your mocking. You should also mention it's not like he is the only person who thinks this, it's actually mainstream economic thought. As far as I can tell, Krugman's views on stimulus are unfalsifiable. If a stimulus doesn't "work", no matter how much is spent on it, Krugman can always respond "you didn't spend enough." This is precisely what he says about Japan even though Japan spent plenty on stimulus.I'd be willing to change my mind if you could you find an article from Krugman where he gives a precise amount needed to properly stimulate the economy in recession situations (note: this cannot be an after-the-fact number, for his economic theories to have any value they must have predictive value thus, the stimulus number must be before or during the recession).
Bingo. The federal government expended in excess of $1 trillion in stimulus spending, multiplied by some indeterminate amount of quantitative easing from federal reserve policies, in a $15 trillion economy. We're running in excess of 40% annual budget deficits at the federal level when we already have a national debt that exceeds 100% of our GDP (and this doesn't even count the estimated $100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities that we have). How much more do we really have to spend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
