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.
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
On August 17 2011 01:07 TwilightStar wrote: 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)
And this is where the problem is. It's your country, your future man. Take some pride and vote. Learn about these people who may be deciding very important steps in your life. Don't ask others for opinions to choose from, make an honest choice after deciding for yourself. Hell, if you end up liking Bachmann...well, I respect your right to do so even.
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.
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
O GOD NO. NOT ANOTHER TEXAS YAHOO FOR PRESIDENT ! That woman seems quite idiotic too. I don`t care who wins, as long as he`s ( yes, HE is ) sane. .. .... Actually that narrows it down quite a bit. Romney fighting
i dont understand how can any1 vote republican. i m not u.s. citizen but i follow politics. Their political rethoric is something out of 19 century but they still get votes playing the patriotic card which works anywhere in the world. All the benefits that a state can offer they call communism. What is wrong with free health insurance for the poor. Taxes are lower for the rich than for the poor.lol etc. They cut NASA budget which is equal to a few days of war in iraq which makes it laughable. Also they want budget cuts in education, which is the only way for poor to become rich, and is a way for a country to generate long term economic growth.(which USA needs to compete with china) Who in their right mind can opose the medical insurance reform when half of USA has no insurance. Something is obviously wrong in the sistem when half of the ppl can t afford it.lool Also having totaly private health insurance and hospitals ??!? Well that makes going to doctor same as going to wallmart That means that doctor is same as car salesman; how can any1 quantify health in such manner? i could go on and on....i really dont understand the republicans. i am not left or right, i just think that u should use common sense and i think that republicans in this decade are totaly wrong in what they percieve as americas problems.( in some other decades i would support them/ certain periods of cold war, ) lol i wrote a big post so i ll just stop bothering u ppl
o yeah P.S. Tea PArty movement.....yeah abraham lived till he was 800 yrs old lool
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.
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.
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.
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!
What.
The unemployment rate is currently 9.2%, what do you mean he hasn't "saved" anything? Even if I buy that the reason why unemployment is decreasing is because people are becoming fat cats at home, you do realize that Obama had nothing to do with rising unemployment right?
The bubble burst and the financial crisis is what caused unemployment. Obama's acts of bailing out markets and companies (COUGH GM COUGH) saved a good portion of the economy. No matter how you look at it...it could've been worse, and while I disagree with a good portion of the stimulus, the GM bailout was one of the successes that have brought thousands of jobs back.
So seriously. Stop. You're not backing up your stuff with facts. At all.
Let's go back to your wars.
We've increased military presence because the LAST administration seriously screwed up by ignoring Afghanistan and pouring meaningless efforts into Iraq. We've drawn down in Iraq and now we're facing the REAL problem: the Taliban in Pakistan, and increased problems in Afghanistan. That was the RIGHT thing to do.
You seriously don't understand that when you are STUCK in conflict, you need to resolve the situation first before coming out of it. Once again, give credit where credit is due. The president has navigated these wars to the BEST of his abilities, and I doubt many could have done too much better.
I also love how you avoided Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Teehee.
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.
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
I'm pretty sure that your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
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.
This isn't really true. A good deal of his follower know exactly what he is about. Libertarianism is an extremely appealing political philosophy if you can look beyond the traditional Democrat/Republican viewpoint.
I totally understand the appeal, but I've never understood how people could accept it as a practical ideology. I'm a libertarian at heart, really. But I don't want to live in a libertarian world: a world with massive disparities in wealth (worst than we currently have), where giant boom and bust economic cycles more severe than what we have are commonplace, where workers toil for long hours in dangerous conditions for little pay, and where there's no refuge for people who, through no fault of their own, end up sick, homeless, or otherwise unable to support themselves.
I want maximum freedom. It's worth dieing for. It's just not something people should die because of.
I agree with you, I don't know how practical libertarianism is. That being said, in a world of true libertarians, you wouldn't have the troubles with poor working conditions or a lack of support system from the poor. Libertarianism demands morality from the citizens. A true libertarian would be building the replacement society-based programs necessary to give a everyone in the community the support they need while removing the government programs
On August 16 2011 23:18 NorthernRiver wrote: Bachmann makes me cry :/ The fact that she has supporters proves that some people in the US are as crazy as the conservative islamists in the Middle-East.
the word fundamentalist which is now commonly used to describe islamists in middle east was first used to describe certain american protestant groups, a fact that makes me laugh coz religion is a religion and ppl are all the same anywhere. so what s the difference?? between usa and middleeastern countries??
I think he was trying to point out how shortly ago, several companies from the US, including Xe as they go by now and some from elsewhere (such as BP who had a cable leaked saying they had a very serious interest in Iraq/Afghanistan and could not afford to lose it, or something along those lines) suddenly got very lucrative deals to drill there.
On August 17 2011 01:07 TwilightStar wrote: 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)
And this is where the problem is. It's your country, your future man. Take some pride and vote. Learn about these people who may be deciding very important steps in your life. Don't ask others for opinions to choose from, make an honest choice after deciding for yourself. Hell, if you end up liking Bachmann...well, I respect your right to do so even.
While I don't usually like to defend ignorance, the list is entirely too expansive. Limiting it to the top 3-4 would be unfair, but do we really need an option to vote for Thadeus McCotter?
On August 16 2011 23:18 NorthernRiver wrote: Bachmann makes me cry :/ The fact that she has supporters proves that some people in the US are as crazy as the conservative islamists in the Middle-East.
the word fundamentalist which is now commonly used to describe islamists in middle east was first used to describe certain american protestant groups, a fact that makes me laugh coz religion is a religion and ppl are all the same anywhere. so what s the difference?? between usa and middleeastern countries??
You're just trying to start a debate that has no place here. Jus' sayin' There's clear and discernible differences between the middle east and USA. Culturally, we're nearly alien to each other. Especially considering how little most Americans understand the middle east. Geography alone and age of said nations forces a lot of these differences. We could delve further, but again...this isn't the here or there. Start a new thread if you want a ven diagram.
Also, yes...fundamentalism isn't a new concept. Very good. You understand that word.
The political quagmire Obama inherited was just incredible. It's simply amazing that the Republican party vetoed something like 80% of bills coming through congress in 2008/2009 and Obama gets the wrap for not doing enough, setting the stage for a huge swing and giving Republicans control of Congress. In what just world does this kind of thing happen?
I'm more than willing to give Obama another shot. The only person who could have done better in the last 3 years is a cybernetically enhanced Jesus Christ.
As for the Republican party, the only thing that will restore my faith in them is if Ron Paul wins. He's the one single and only guy who speaks from the heart and has his head screwed on. The rest are just Bible-belt panderers or worse.
The fact that Fox News is literally ignoring the guy on every single broadcast means he's the right guy to choose. I can't believe someone could look at what Fox is doing to Ron Paul and still consider them fair and balanced - even to the frigging political party everyone knows they suck up to! They don't give a shit anymore. They've turned the 'blatant bias' dial up to 11, now.
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.
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.
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.
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!
What.
The unemployment rate is currently 9.2%, what do you mean he hasn't "saved" anything? Even if I buy that the reason why unemployment is decreasing is because people are becoming fat cats at home, you do realize that Obama had nothing to do with rising unemployment right?
The bubble burst and the financial crisis is what caused unemployment. Obama's acts of bailing out markets and companies (COUGH GM COUGH) saved a good portion of the economy. No matter how you look at it...it could've been worse, and while I disagree with a good portion of the stimulus, the GM bailout was one of the successes that have brought thousands of jobs back.
So seriously. Stop. You're not backing up your stuff with facts. At all.
Let's go back to your wars.
We've increased military presence because the LAST administration seriously screwed up by ignoring Afghanistan and pouring meaningless efforts into Iraq. We've drawn down in Iraq and now we're facing the REAL problem: the Taliban in Pakistan, and increased problems in Afghanistan. That was the RIGHT thing to do.
You seriously don't understand that when you are STUCK in conflict, you need to resolve the situation first before coming out of it. Once again, give credit where credit is due. The president has navigated these wars to the BEST of his abilities, and I doubt many could have done too much better.
I also love how you avoided Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Teehee.
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.
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
I'm pretty sure that your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Look I don't care about Bush or Obama or Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or anyone. What I care about is having finally a honest man take the presidency in the USA who is not corrupt, who doesn't work for the criminal corporations, who isn't an Emperor launching wars without congressional approval and who is sane enough to stop all this oil blocking which is the REAL cause for the world economic crisis.
And BTW buddy, bailing out the big banks with your own money, who then lend it to you at 15% interest rates is not a successful policy, especially not when those big banks reported record profits and the average people lost their jobs and the value of the dollar went down.
So what they did is the biggest scam in the history of the world giving 700 billion dollars to the big banks, then giving 5 trillions in secret that has now come out a month ago to other world banks and overall the federal reserve has in secret given out about 15 trillion dollars to big corporations and world mega banks.
I bet that is enough money to buy off half the politicians in the entire world.
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.
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.
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.
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!
What.
The unemployment rate is currently 9.2%, what do you mean he hasn't "saved" anything? Even if I buy that the reason why unemployment is decreasing is because people are becoming fat cats at home, you do realize that Obama had nothing to do with rising unemployment right?
The bubble burst and the financial crisis is what caused unemployment. Obama's acts of bailing out markets and companies (COUGH GM COUGH) saved a good portion of the economy. No matter how you look at it...it could've been worse, and while I disagree with a good portion of the stimulus, the GM bailout was one of the successes that have brought thousands of jobs back.
So seriously. Stop. You're not backing up your stuff with facts. At all.
Let's go back to your wars.
We've increased military presence because the LAST administration seriously screwed up by ignoring Afghanistan and pouring meaningless efforts into Iraq. We've drawn down in Iraq and now we're facing the REAL problem: the Taliban in Pakistan, and increased problems in Afghanistan. That was the RIGHT thing to do.
You seriously don't understand that when you are STUCK in conflict, you need to resolve the situation first before coming out of it. Once again, give credit where credit is due. The president has navigated these wars to the BEST of his abilities, and I doubt many could have done too much better.
I also love how you avoided Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Teehee.
On August 17 2011 01:11 thehitman wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:08 BlackFlag wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:04 thoradycus wrote:
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:
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
I'm pretty sure that your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Look I don't care about Bush or Obama or Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or anyone. What I care about is having finally a honest man take the presidency in the USA who is not corrupt, who doesn't work for the criminal corporations, who isn't an Emperor launching wars without congressional approval and who is sane enough to stop all this oil blocking which is the REAL cause for the world economic crisis.
And BTW buddy, bailing out the big banks with your own money, who then lend it to you at 15% interest rates is not a successful policy, especially not when those big banks reported record profits and the average people lost their jobs and the value of the dollar went down.
So what they did is the biggest scam in the history of the world giving 700 billion dollars to the big banks, then giving 5 trillions in secret that has now come out a month ago to other world banks and overall the federal reserve has in secret given out about 15 trillion dollars to big corporations and world mega banks.
I bet that is enough money to buy off half the politicians in the entire world.
You do realize Bailouts are getting paid off and they're not free money right? Wait lol, no you don't x_x -- and there's quite a bit of speculation in what you said. Conspiracy theory junk.
i was trying to start a debate and no need to be rude. question marks where rhetorical. it s just one of those funny things in life. When u say fundementalist today it is always in bad context. When it was first used it had no context but the primary meaning/ protestants who wanted to get to the primary values of christianity
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.
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.
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.
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!
What.
The unemployment rate is currently 9.2%, what do you mean he hasn't "saved" anything? Even if I buy that the reason why unemployment is decreasing is because people are becoming fat cats at home, you do realize that Obama had nothing to do with rising unemployment right?
The bubble burst and the financial crisis is what caused unemployment. Obama's acts of bailing out markets and companies (COUGH GM COUGH) saved a good portion of the economy. No matter how you look at it...it could've been worse, and while I disagree with a good portion of the stimulus, the GM bailout was one of the successes that have brought thousands of jobs back.
So seriously. Stop. You're not backing up your stuff with facts. At all.
Let's go back to your wars.
We've increased military presence because the LAST administration seriously screwed up by ignoring Afghanistan and pouring meaningless efforts into Iraq. We've drawn down in Iraq and now we're facing the REAL problem: the Taliban in Pakistan, and increased problems in Afghanistan. That was the RIGHT thing to do.
You seriously don't understand that when you are STUCK in conflict, you need to resolve the situation first before coming out of it. Once again, give credit where credit is due. The president has navigated these wars to the BEST of his abilities, and I doubt many could have done too much better.
I also love how you avoided Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Teehee.
On August 17 2011 01:11 thehitman wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:08 BlackFlag wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:04 thoradycus wrote:
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:
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 the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
I'm pretty sure that your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Look I don't care about Bush or Obama or Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or anyone. What I care about is having finally a honest man take the presidency in the USA who is not corrupt, who doesn't work for the criminal corporations, who isn't an Emperor launching wars without congressional approval and who is sane enough to stop all this oil blocking which is the REAL cause for the world economic crisis.
And BTW buddy, bailing out the big banks with your own money, who then lend it to you at 15% interest rates is not a successful policy, especially not when those big banks reported record profits and the average people lost their jobs and the value of the dollar went down.
So what they did is the biggest scam in the history of the world giving 700 billion dollars to the big banks, then giving 5 trillions in secret that has now come out a month ago to other world banks and overall the federal reserve has in secret given out about 15 trillion dollars to big corporations and world mega banks.
I bet that is enough money to buy off half the politicians in the entire world.
The only time he's launched a "war" without congressional approval is Libya, and we have since then left it to NATO forces. Can we seriously stop talking about the issue when it's pretty much a nonissue at this point?
I honestly don't care either, but what I can't stand for are people who don't give the president credit when he's legitimately deserved it.
I never said bailing out financial institutions was a smart idea, but I did say that the bailout of GM was incredibly successful. The company is back on its feet, making record profits, and boosting job growth. Read my last post. I said that there were parts of the stimulus (which included the bailouts) that I didn't agree with. In this case, you're right, the bailouts didn't do much.
But even so, the bailouts are getting paid back. Troubled assets are getting balanced by actual profits. The reason why things are at high interest is because banks and financial institutions are scared of paralysis in Washington and the looming threat of another bubble burst (in this case, the Tech bubble). The markets, on the other hand, are doing better than ever before, rising back from the low 8000s when the bubble burst. Jobs ARE being developed, it's just that the landscape of the economy is changing.
Job growth is dependent on businesses creating jobs that are conducive to businesses. This administration has been VERY business friendly with tax breaks, credits, and stimulus. Yet, the reason why jobs aren't growing is because the growth of technology is getting rid of unskilled workers and we're losing jobs inevitably to powerhouses in emerging economies. This is why long term focus on things like education and skilled workers are necessary to get the economy running again.
This "scam" that you keep talking about is not the fault of president Obama. Pin the blame correctly and say it's the Fed, but don't suddenly say that the president suddenly becomes powerful enough to suddenly steer the economy. Few presidents are ever like that.
EPT
That means that doctor is same as car salesman; how can any1 quantify health in such manner?
