|
|
On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years.
Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush.
|
On April 20 2012 02:40 SadSatyr wrote:
Since joining the US army I've become very disillusioned with politics, so I'm not going to voice my own opinions except to say that if the OP wants a decent discussion his talking points should be neutral rather than overtly biased.
Please voice your opinions; I'm curious what they are and how they changed as a result of joining the army.
|
I'm surprised it's so lopsided, a lot of people here tend to be very libertarian minded, sort of the pro-Ron Paul crowd, very pro individual, pro freedom etc.
Obama couldn't be further from that really, he's a collectivist and very anti-individual.
Of course Romney isn't exactly great either.
|
On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point.
It is funny how Obama compromised each step of the way last 4 years , often alienating his own voters in the process just so things can be at least somewhat bi-partisan. And yet here we have people 4 years later completely parroting what their ideology and republican propaganda is claiming. That he did whatever he wanted last four years, are you kidding me ?
|
On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush.
Well what I can tell for sure is that on a foreign affair scale he was really really bad. On a economic scale, he had no crisis such as Obama's one, and still managed to increase America's debt. I don't need to be in the US to tell how things were during the Bush adminstration, they are a lot of economic datas.
And no need to answer back on the UK, we did terrible as well.
|
On April 20 2012 02:44 Zaqwert wrote:
I'm surprised it's so lopsided, a lot of people here tend to be very libertarian minded, sort of the pro-Ron Paul crowd, very pro individual, pro freedom etc.
Obama couldn't be further from that really, he's a collectivist and very anti-individual.
Of course Romney isn't exactly great either.
I think it is the same here as in wider reality. Ron Paul supporters are just the noisy ones creating illusion that they have bigger support than they actually have.
|
On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:27 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] The notion of opportunity cost is a microeconomics concept not a macroeconomic concept. If your point is comparing what would happen without the stimulus to what happened with the stimulus, than things are better because stimulus in recessions have fiscal multipliers. See for example: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written Version of Effects of Fiscal Policy.pdfFurthermore, we have another baseline for fiscal austerity: Europe and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain and Greece. wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending. No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease.
And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP.
Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility.
|
On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush.
You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid.
|
On April 20 2012 02:42 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:40 Kiarip wrote:On April 20 2012 02:37 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 Kiarip wrote:On April 20 2012 02:25 aksfjh wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:
[quote]usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful.
as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. You don't understand GDP, do you? the majority of GDP is consumption. So you can easily inflate GDP by printing more money and using that money to buy anything that other people are selling while they're still willing to accept your currency. In that model, I'm consuming more while paying the same or less for goods. That's GDP growth. Printing money really has little to do with it, since the formulas for it essentially cancel out the money involved. What? Printing money directly leads to more consumption. Same with borrowing money... More inflation, but if you take the real consumption it doesn't change that much.
What he said.
|
On April 20 2012 02:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:43 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:36 TanTzoR wrote:On April 20 2012 02:30 CaptainCrush wrote:On April 20 2012 02:23 Noro wrote:
If Obama wins this, America is going to be in so much trouble >< Exactly... he's been treading somewhat lightly the last 4 years with the idea of running again in 2012. If he gets re-elected this year, he wont have to consider public opinion as much anymore and his incredible stupidity will have far fewer constraits this term. He's nearly done whatever he wants anyways so once he stops caring about public perception, were in for a really bad ride. I'm not sure that Romney is that much better than Obama, but I'd probably still vote for just about any replublican short of Sarah Palin at this point. You have to consider that Obama's mandate was right in the crisis, he had a tough time. On the other hand Bush had 8 "easy" years. Really? A Brit telling Americans how things were during the Bush administration? Just because our problems didnt spill over and effect the world (or your) economy during Bush's 8 years does not mean that he in any way had it easy. It's very easy to not like Bush, I'm fine with that, but he wasn't half as stupid as Obama when it comes to big things like money and ridiculous plans that he shouldnt be delving into in the first place. I don't think you have all the facts here, its just another case of foreigners not liking Bush. You know that it was Bush who started this completely out of bounds spending even before the crisis where deficit should have been slowly repaid.
Eh, that's actually not true. Bush didn't bring government spending out of control or anything like it. His spending and tax cuts were all within acceptable levels. The economic downturn and the reactions that HAD to be taken put us in this position. All Bush did was put us in a slightly riskier situation, and it happened to put us in a rough spot.
|
On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:32 storkfan wrote:
[quote]wrong. opportunity cost is just the same at the macroscopic level. and the opportunity cost is all the WASTE of government they have created with their BS spending schemes. All the scarce resources that have been wasted there. Government spending will ALWAYS, i repeat ALWAYS, by its definition, be wasteful. It is because it is not based on profit and loss, but taxation and spending.
No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows. Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital. Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work. And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility.
Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this?
If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production.
You are are saying this the same as:
Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss.
???
Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies.
|
"Whoever wins... we lose."
|
Here's why I will not be voting for Romney:
Republicans sign a pledge refusing to EVER raise taxes.
Republicans infuse religion into legislation.
Republicans force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Republicans are against gay marriage (solely because of the Bible)
Republicans lie (moreso than Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong)
Republican congressman apologized to BP during their oil spill hearing
Republicans blah blah blah, etc.
Mitt Romney = Republican
The economy will fix itself, its issues are greater than Republican vs. Democrat. The social issues are what need to be fixed. It is absolutely appalling that in the year 2012, GLBT people cannot be married solely because it goes against what is written in a certain book. I have always found it funny that Christians are the ones who seem to forget the Golden Rule most often.
|
On April 20 2012 02:56 Sweepstakes wrote:
Here's why I will not be voting for Romney:
Republicans sign a pledge refusing to EVER raise taxes.
Republicans infuse religion into legislation.
Republicans force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Republicans are against gay marriage (solely because of the Bible)
Republicans lie (moreso than Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong)
Republican congressman apologized to BP during their oil spill hearing
Republicans blah blah blah, etc.
Mitt Romney = Republican
The economy will fix itself, its issues are greater than Republican vs. Democrat. The social issues are what need to be fixed. It is absolutely appalling that in the year 2012, GLBT people cannot be married solely because it goes against what is written in a certain book. I have always found it funny that Christians are the ones who seem to forget the Golden Rule most often.
Oh ya all of them?
|
On April 20 2012 02:55 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:47 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
No source. What waste? The stimulus created jobs the link shows.
Waste is unemployed. Idle labor. People sitting around doing nothing, not contributing the productive economic activities. Stimulus puts these people to work thereby reducing the waste associated with unused human capital.
Scarcity doesn't apply when there is high unemployment, i.e. people doing nothing, waiting for and wanting to work.
And you have not shown how government spending is by definition wasteful. You've declared as if you were an armchair economist delivering a sermon on economic truth passed on by god. Government spending is by definition the government spending it's money, nowhere in this definition is the concept of wasteful invoked. usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful. as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility. Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this? If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production. You are are saying this the same as: Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss. ??? Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies.
The loss part is the sum of all the customers of these companies. When a consumer buys a product the company makes a gain, and the consumer makes a loss.
This makes profit and loss for the economy a useless measure.
GDP is the best measure, because it measures production, ultimately people want products, which is why it's used.
The sum of the total profit and loss each year in an entire economy is identically 0 by definition. Note that this is different to how much money people and companies have at the end of the year since profit and loss measures the change in movement of money during a period of time, and not total net worth at the end of the year, which depends on the year before, whereas profit and loss doesn't. The only potentially complicating factor is inflation.
Please stop, everything you've said is economic voodoo, far beyond the fringe of mainstream economics, and has been thoroughly debunked.
|
|
|
On April 20 2012 02:33 josephmcjoe wrote:
I will vote for anyone in the slot that doesn't say "Obama". Romney's a bit of a chump, but I know he won't take half the money I plan on making someday, or fine me for not buying government health care. Or spend us into oblivion. How are 80% of you voting Obama???
Instead you rather lose all your money and then some when something eventually goes wrong with you and you end up like millions of other americans, in debt because of the poorly structured medical system? You are upset your money is going to help others, but you dont mind it being spent on weapons to kill people who pose no threat to you whatsoever? Its more important to kill some random family that has barely an idea what "America" is, nor has any means to attack you than to save your own life or your families?
Obama has not been a great, nor even good president. But Romney is a grade A, made by the machine, politician, he has flip flopped on more issues than anyone i can remember. He will say and do anything to get elected, then flip flop on every issue.
It appears especially people not from the states like democrates better in general. Which is not surprising in many ways, as the whole political spectrum in europe is far more "left" than the american although I do believe there are quite a lot of people who are simply ill-informed and heavily biased, thinking that every conservative if some, often religious, wackjob like Sarah Palin or Bill O'Reilly. There are actually quite a lot of sophisticated arguments taking place on the side of the conservatives that are worth considering.
What sophistication is neccessary when every pool shows that majority of republicans are against gay rights, abortion and many other issues, all because of "god".
It is impossible for someone who lives in countries that are less religious than the States to look at these debates and arguments "cuz Jezuz dun like dem gayz!" and not see the entire republican party and its voters as simple minded, old fashioned, religious nutbars.
And ofcourse thats not true, there are plenty of intelligent, reasonable republicans out there, but you gotta hide the freaks within your own party and showcase the good stuff. By focusing so much on beating on minorities (gays) and now trying to tell women what they can do with their own bodies it makes the party look bad. Focus on something positive, pleasing a invisible man in the sky is not the way to impress anyone
Perhaps in America, especially the traditional red states it gets you votes if you do rallies against gays, and everyone shows up, where everyone talks about the good "ol days" when the country was pure and how we need these freaks out of our country or at least imprisoned. But what do you really think the rest of the world thinks when they see this?
"Gee, first they treat women badly, then blacks and now this, dont these people ever learn?".
Thats why dems have a better reputation around the world, they win by default because you dont hear about them trying to take anyones rights or forcing anyone to do anything.
TLDR: Nobody knows what dems do or think, well most people dont. The only thing people know is the bad **** republicans are known for.
|
On April 20 2012 02:56 Sweepstakes wrote:
Here's why I will not be voting for Romney:
Republicans sign a pledge refusing to EVER raise taxes.
Republicans infuse religion into legislation.
Republicans force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.
Republicans are against gay marriage (solely because of the Bible)
Republicans lie (moreso than Democrats, correct me if I'm wrong)
Republican congressman apologized to BP during their oil spill hearing
Republicans blah blah blah, etc.
Mitt Romney = Republican
The economy will fix itself, its issues are greater than Republican vs. Democrat. The social issues are what need to be fixed. It is absolutely appalling that in the year 2012, GLBT people cannot be married solely because it goes against what is written in a certain book. I have always found it funny that Christians are the ones who seem to forget the Golden Rule most often.
Sorry, but I disagree with you here. The social issues will fix themselves, the US has been and always will be moving in a socially progressive direction, all it takes it time for the new generations to gain market share.
The economy on the other hand has been moving in a dangerous direction and still experiences swings from one spectrum to another. The economy is the greater issue by far.
|
On April 20 2012 02:24 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:46 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:42 xUnSeEnx wrote:
Welp, IF Obama is elected for a second term, good bye United States, Hello Socialism.
And whoever is trying to compare Bush's spending with Obama (I disliked Bush greatly) is a joke. That much money was spent primarily because of the Patriot Act and then going to War, who cares when it benefits the United States. The money Obama has spent, does not benefit the United States but hurts it waaay more than it needs to be right now. Bush did more for socialism than Obama has ever done. Real? Which major private companies did Bush take over? Also arguing with Keynesian economists is funny. Of course the stimulus helped! We can't tell you by how much or anything, but we know it had to have! Keynesians validating Keynesian principals? Who would have thought...
AIG?
|
On April 20 2012 03:00 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 02:55 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:42 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:22 scaban84 wrote:On April 20 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 02:04 storkfan wrote:On April 20 2012 01:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On April 20 2012 01:49 storkfan wrote:
[quote]usefulness of work can be gauged by profit and loss. the government doesnt operate based on them, so it cannot ensure its work is useful.
as a result, government spending is always wasteful, and must be minimized for the good of the tax payer You've dodged half the post. It's not about profit and loss. You've just made that up. It's about economic growth and unemployment, and fiscal stimulus in a recession has been shown to increase economic growth by putting idle labor to work. For an example of what happens when government cuts spending in a recession, you only need to look at Europe, 20% unemployment. numerical growth can be a delusion. if you borrow money from your buddy and spend it or employ someone for a bullshit job, your GDP grows. do you become richer? no! How do you know this? Because you operate at a loss to do this! That is what it all comes down to, PROFIT and LOSS. That is the true indicator of usefulness of resource usage. Not only have you dodged half of the previous post, you've dodged half of this post too. And if you've made a profit, that's because another person has spent money, which is a loss. Profit and loss for an economy is a pointless measure, which is why no economist uses it. They use GDP instead, because it measures production. And products are what increases utility and social well-being. I suggest you get a economics education before talking about a technical subject for which you have a simple-minded and erroneous understanding of. GDP can grow because of inflation. It does not reflect social being and utility. It is what it is. Having high priced goods and services does make you "richer" on paper but it does not reflect the actual well-being of the people. So what if it includes inflation? Have you heard of real GDP and nominal GDP? Economist can look at both real GDP (doesn't include inflation) and nominal GDP (does). And products are what people want. I use money to buy products, I value food, computers, beds, chairs, video games, etc. GDP measures production. And I've completely debunked your nonsense about profit and loss to the point you haven't even brought it up. I didn't bring up profit and loss. But profit is a necessity because losses will result in less production. If I make cars at a loss than I'm not going to buy any more of your raw materials and won't demand any of your services. The economy shrinks and prices can still rise. You use money to buy products, that's why what you can buy with your money is important. GDP can rise and your purchasing power can still decrease. And if you don't make cars, that's reflected in the GDP. Again, profit and loss is symmetrical, everyone's profit is another person's loss, so it makes no sense at an aggregate level, which is one reason why economist don't use it. Why do people want to make a profit? Because it gives them money. Why do people want money? To buy products. Products are what people ultimately want, it' is ultimately what increases utility. Profit and loss is not symmetrical. It is not a zero sum game. Why do you keep saying this? If metal fabrication company buys metal from a mining company who makes a profit, and that fabrication company sells to a car company at a profit, and the car company sells its car at a profit, customer buys car at a loss to increase his production. You are are saying this the same as: Mining company sells metal at a loss, fabrication company sells parts at a loss, car company sells car at a loss. Customer buys car at a loss. ??? Tell me what happens to the jobs of the people at all these companies. The loss part is the sum of all the customers of these companies. When a consumer buys a product the company makes a gain, and the consumer makes a loss. This makes profit and loss for the economy a useless measure. GDP is the best measure, because it measure production, ultimately people want products, which is why it's used.
What do you mean by "gain"? Net profit? I'm describing a situation where a company operates at a loss. This is your GM's, etc. Production /= prosperity. GM made many cars that no one was buying. It operated at a loss. So you are saying this is the customer's gain?
So in your view a country with many high priced goods that people can't afford is still good. You must like Venezuela's economy then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
