|
|
On July 13 2012 04:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 04:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 03:02 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:41 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 02:35 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:13 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments.
I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals.
So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine?
This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you.
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Smoking pot may not create a felony, but how the hell do you think it gets to the user? It creates a market for felonious behavior, and indirectly causes citizens to commit felonies. If the only objective is "it's not a felony" for making it "ok", then I don't think participating in the drug market is the correct argument you should be making... You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but crying wolf on some teenage decision from dozens of years ago just makes you sound like a crybaby. Nobody makes it that far in life without doing something stupid at some point, and holding every youthful indiscretion against them would eliminate 99.9% of our candidates. Everyone has dirt if you know where to look. I frankly don't care what he did when he was younger. My point was that it's laughable to compare smoking pot (does no harm to others) to harassing people (does harm to others - at the very least, makes them stressful/wastes their time). The point of my reply to you was clearly to highlight the difference between the two, but for some reason you decided to go off on a tangent on felonies. On July 13 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments.
I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals.
So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine?
This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you.
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Of course not. Knock yourselves out. Gee wiz, thanks! And my point is that your "view" is overly simplistic, and, to a point, even ignorant. Juarez isn't what it is because people are murderous... it's because your so-called "behaviors that do not affect others" DO actually affect others, and many times in very, very negative ways. Just because you rationalize drug use as being self-contained does not make it so. You are talking about drug use on a systemic level. I don't "rationalize drug use as being self-contained", I rationalize drug use by Barack Obama as being self-contained. If Barack Obama had never purchased marijuana when he was young, literally nothing would have changed about the drug market and its effect on people. Had Romney not harassed people when he was young, however, people would not have been harassed. (also, it's possible to grow your own marijuana - not all marijuana consumption is linked to Mexican drug cartels, and I don't know how Obama got his) The important thing about Romney's history terrorizing people isn't the impact it had on individuals, its the insights it gave into his upbringing and who he is as a person. His behavior was enabled by his wealthy father, endorsed by his wealthy father. It shows that he was raised to abuse his money and power and to not pay too much attention to how it impacts the little guy. This was the kind of example that was set for him growing up and he has shown such tendencies time and time again in various interviews and whatnot. While the specific event and the impact it had on those people isn't very substantial in the big picture, it was really telling of Romney's upbringing and gives a lot of hints as to who he is now. This is a much better argument. However I still think it's somewhat of a stretch to say it is telling as to who he is now. Romney has lived a life where he has had a lot of different and interesting opportunities to interact with others. He's had time to grow up, is what I'm saying. While I think it's fair to say he had a somewhat privileged upbringing, I'm not sure how much I look at this as a reflection of who he is today. He was a teenager at the time this happened, and he's done a lot of things since then -- none of which really hint at this being a theme in his behavior. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. Being a deviant teenager is very different from being raised and enabled by your father to run around abusing the fact that you are essentially a different breed of human by having so much money and power. His "position" in life was obviously very strongly reinforced through his upbringing. My point is that when you look at how he was raised, how he behaved, and then all the things he's said that make you wonder if he can even hear himself talk, it really doesn't seem like he's changed much. And keep in mind that the things that he says that make people go O____o are the things that slip by. We all know Romney to essentially be a chameleon who says what he thinks it optimal to say. And even despite that, he still leaks some of these things (friends who own teams, etc). If it weren't for all his times where he can't seem to grasp how extremely fortunate he is, I would see your point as possible. But when you piece everything together, I can not see any possible way that he can truly understand the struggles of anyone other than the rich.
In a nutshell: Romney doesn't understand the 'common man' on a personal level and therefore he will enact laws that harm the common man.
I can understand that concern, but it seems a bit weak on its own. Plenty of out of touch (on a personal level) politicians (both R and D) have had long, successful and popular political careers. Are there aspects of Romney's political platform and record as Governor that reinforce your concerns?
|
Prohibition on drugs is just as wrong as prohibition on alcohol.
Questions:
- Where can I find stats of the size of the middle class in the USA from any date to now?
- Also the same for China. China's middle class is booming, and it's no surprise as anytime you introduce freedom to a country the middle class grows. many Austrian school economists have been saying so for decades, Capitalism grows the middle class. But I'd like to see the stats myself.
I'm curious because Obama is claiming to want to protect the middle class. Reducing middle class taxes will definitely help, but at the same time he is looking to raise taxes for anyone making over $250,000 and also increase capital gains taxes hugely.
- Which countries have the biggest middle class?
Also take a look at this:
Surplus or Deficit (−)
2001: 128,236 Bush
2002: -157,758 Bush
2003: -377,585 Bush
2004: -412,727 Bush
2005: -318,346 Bush
2006: -248,181 Bush
2007: -160,701 Bush
2008: -458,553 Bush
2009: -1,412,688 Obama
2010: -1,293,489 Obama
2011: -1,645,119 Obama
2012: -1,101,237 Obama
www.whitehouse.gov <---goes all the way back for over 100 years if you want to compare. And I don't believe it's adjusted for inflation.
|
As percentage of GDP
2001: 1.3
-1.5
-3.4
-3.5
-2.6
-1.9
-1.2
-3.2
-10.0
-8.9
-10.9
2012: -7.0
www.whitehouse.gov
|
On July 13 2012 04:22 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 03:02 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:41 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 02:35 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:13 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:
[quote]
I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over?
Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people.
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Smoking pot may not create a felony, but how the hell do you think it gets to the user? It creates a market for felonious behavior, and indirectly causes citizens to commit felonies. If the only objective is "it's not a felony" for making it "ok", then I don't think participating in the drug market is the correct argument you should be making... You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but crying wolf on some teenage decision from dozens of years ago just makes you sound like a crybaby. Nobody makes it that far in life without doing something stupid at some point, and holding every youthful indiscretion against them would eliminate 99.9% of our candidates. Everyone has dirt if you know where to look. I frankly don't care what he did when he was younger. My point was that it's laughable to compare smoking pot (does no harm to others) to harassing people (does harm to others - at the very least, makes them stressful/wastes their time). The point of my reply to you was clearly to highlight the difference between the two, but for some reason you decided to go off on a tangent on felonies. On July 13 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:
[quote]
I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over?
Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people.
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Of course not. Knock yourselves out. Gee wiz, thanks! And my point is that your "view" is overly simplistic, and, to a point, even ignorant. Juarez isn't what it is because people are murderous... it's because your so-called "behaviors that do not affect others" DO actually affect others, and many times in very, very negative ways. Just because you rationalize drug use as being self-contained does not make it so. You are talking about drug use on a systemic level. I don't "rationalize drug use as being self-contained", I rationalize drug use by Barack Obama as being self-contained. If Barack Obama had never purchased marijuana when he was young, literally nothing would have changed about the drug market and its effect on people. Had Romney not harassed people when he was young, however, people would not have been harassed. (also, it's possible to grow your own marijuana - not all marijuana consumption is linked to Mexican drug cartels, and I don't know how Obama got his) The important thing about Romney's history terrorizing people isn't the impact it had on individuals, its the insights it gave into his upbringing and who he is as a person. His behavior was enabled by his wealthy father, endorsed by his wealthy father. It shows that he was raised to abuse his money and power and to not pay too much attention to how it impacts the little guy. This was the kind of example that was set for him growing up and he has shown such tendencies time and time again in various interviews and whatnot. While the specific event and the impact it had on those people isn't very substantial in the big picture, it was really telling of Romney's upbringing and gives a lot of hints as to who he is now. This is a much better argument.
Let me clarify something again: I wasn't making an argument about the relevancy today of those actions of a young Romney. I was simply pointing out how fallacious your comparison to Obama smoking pot was.
|
On July 13 2012 02:30 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 02:27 DoubleReed wrote:
I meant balancing budgets with revenue increases and how that would affect the markets. I mean the method of budget balancing is pretty important to the point. I'm not advocating austerity. You are advocating austerity, you just want to cover the costs through revenues instead of through cutting spending which is arguably a worse idea. While it is possible to create taxes that don't have a distorting effect it is very difficult and most taxes end up creating dead-weight loss greater than the tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss I do not understand why most Americans think it is a good time for raising taxes or cutting spending, the real yield on 10 year t-bonds is negative. (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield) Any stimulus with a fiscal multiplier of just 1 in real dollars over ten years is going to be beneficial to the country in the long run. The eurozone is dragging the global economy down again, creating a need for more expansionist monetary policy, like additional quantitative easing. The weird combination of fiscal and monetary policy of the Eurozone looks like it will be looming large on the horizon for some time, creating upward pressure on the dollar and risks of deflation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704816604576335250426158790.html Conservative economists even consider this a risk after QE2 ends but there is also risk of the US and the Eurozone trying to deflate their currency too much. The establishment of more quantitative easing and borrowing of additional debt will help avoiod our economy being dragged back into recession by the Eurozones sputterings and China's attempts to control the speed of its own economy and to keep its inflation low. The reason that borrowing and quantitative easing is necessary now when in the other, smaller recessions of recent years it hasn't been, is that the US fiscal policy has hit the restrictive wall of a practically 0% rate. Pursuing more expansionist monetary policy will also reduce the real value of US debt and the interest paid on it, besides, debt held by the government owed to itself can be rolled over indefinitely. The time to deal with debt is later and to do it slowly and as painlessly as possible. As long as our politicians could make people confident they are capable of that, we would be much better off, but they can't.
Oh, I thought austerity only referred to cutting spending, not revenue increasing.
I mean we're already borrowing a ton with a fiscal policy wall. Isn't it rather dangerous to be borrowing ever moreso? I would think that directed taxes could actually alleviate a lot of that concern (especially considering how low our tax rate currently is). I find it rather disconcerting that our economy seems so short-term focused. When our economy eventually gets back on track, I want to be on stronger footing than before.
|
On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 07:03 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:57 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 06:43 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 02:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:.... “He told us that he had gotten the uniform from his father,” George Romney, then the Governor of Michigan, whose security detail was staffed by uniformed troopers. “He told us that he was using it to pull over drivers on the road. He also had a red flashing light that he would attach to the top of his white Rambler. We thought it was all pretty weird. We all thought, ‘Wow, that’s pretty creepy.’ And after that, we didn’t have much interaction with him.” Source Ahahaha that is hilarious. I wonder what he told them when he did it. I stole a bunch of road signs and cones and blocked of roads for laughs, but police officer is an entirely higher level of rl trolling. It's beyond trolling. There's are very goods reason why impersonating a police officer is illegal. Like serial killers. And pedophiles. But Mitt Romney is neither a serial killer or a pedophile so I fail to see how that is relevant. Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety because you're too rich to care is irrelevant? Tell me, if some random guy in your neighborhood was pretending to be police officer, and say, harassing your children, would you be cool with that? I'd love to hear Mitt Romney defend impersonating a police officer. Anyone else would immediately go to jail. This is literally the kind of thing only a wealthy, privileged white man could get away with. All it does is reinforce how disconnected he is from the rest of the planet. I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over? Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people. Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger?
I'm assuming you don't know that Obama also did cocaine.
|
On July 13 2012 06:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 04:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 03:02 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:41 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 02:35 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:13 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments.
I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals.
So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine?
This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you.
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Smoking pot may not create a felony, but how the hell do you think it gets to the user? It creates a market for felonious behavior, and indirectly causes citizens to commit felonies. If the only objective is "it's not a felony" for making it "ok", then I don't think participating in the drug market is the correct argument you should be making... You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but crying wolf on some teenage decision from dozens of years ago just makes you sound like a crybaby. Nobody makes it that far in life without doing something stupid at some point, and holding every youthful indiscretion against them would eliminate 99.9% of our candidates. Everyone has dirt if you know where to look. I frankly don't care what he did when he was younger. My point was that it's laughable to compare smoking pot (does no harm to others) to harassing people (does harm to others - at the very least, makes them stressful/wastes their time). The point of my reply to you was clearly to highlight the difference between the two, but for some reason you decided to go off on a tangent on felonies. On July 13 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:
[quote]
Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments.
I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals.
So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine?
This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you.
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Of course not. Knock yourselves out. Gee wiz, thanks! And my point is that your "view" is overly simplistic, and, to a point, even ignorant. Juarez isn't what it is because people are murderous... it's because your so-called "behaviors that do not affect others" DO actually affect others, and many times in very, very negative ways. Just because you rationalize drug use as being self-contained does not make it so. You are talking about drug use on a systemic level. I don't "rationalize drug use as being self-contained", I rationalize drug use by Barack Obama as being self-contained. If Barack Obama had never purchased marijuana when he was young, literally nothing would have changed about the drug market and its effect on people. Had Romney not harassed people when he was young, however, people would not have been harassed. (also, it's possible to grow your own marijuana - not all marijuana consumption is linked to Mexican drug cartels, and I don't know how Obama got his) The important thing about Romney's history terrorizing people isn't the impact it had on individuals, its the insights it gave into his upbringing and who he is as a person. His behavior was enabled by his wealthy father, endorsed by his wealthy father. It shows that he was raised to abuse his money and power and to not pay too much attention to how it impacts the little guy. This was the kind of example that was set for him growing up and he has shown such tendencies time and time again in various interviews and whatnot. While the specific event and the impact it had on those people isn't very substantial in the big picture, it was really telling of Romney's upbringing and gives a lot of hints as to who he is now. This is a much better argument. Let me clarify something again: I wasn't making an argument about the relevancy today of those actions of a young Romney. I was simply pointing out how fallacious your comparison to Obama smoking pot was.
fallacious? do you even know what that word means? just because you think smoking pot is an ok thing to do illegally doesn't mean i'm spewing falsities. they are both illegal, and both could be used as grounds for character judgments. You argued that one is ok because it doesn't affect others, and I pointed out that it DOES affect others and you're just dismissing those effects because they are outside of the direct control -- yet everyone knows they get their drugs from people who commit crimes.
This is not a "fallacious" argument. It's just one you disagree with.
|
On July 13 2012 06:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 07:03 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:57 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 06:43 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 02:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:.... [quote] Source Ahahaha that is hilarious. I wonder what he told them when he did it. I stole a bunch of road signs and cones and blocked of roads for laughs, but police officer is an entirely higher level of rl trolling. It's beyond trolling. There's are very goods reason why impersonating a police officer is illegal. Like serial killers. And pedophiles. But Mitt Romney is neither a serial killer or a pedophile so I fail to see how that is relevant. Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety because you're too rich to care is irrelevant? Tell me, if some random guy in your neighborhood was pretending to be police officer, and say, harassing your children, would you be cool with that? I'd love to hear Mitt Romney defend impersonating a police officer. Anyone else would immediately go to jail. This is literally the kind of thing only a wealthy, privileged white man could get away with. All it does is reinforce how disconnected he is from the rest of the planet. I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over? Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people. Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? I'm assuming you don't know that Obama also did cocaine.
So do like 50% of the lawyers that graduate from schools like harvard and yale... this would be no big surprise. Nor is it really relevant. (ok i'm exaggerating, but drug abuse is rampant in those circles).
|
On July 13 2012 06:17 Epocalypse wrote:
Questions:
- Where can I find stats of the size of the middle class in the USA from any date to now?
- Also the same for China. China's middle class is booming, and it's no surprise as anytime you introduce freedom to a country the middle class grows. many Austrian school economists have been saying so for decades, Capitalism grows the middle class. But I'd like to see the stats myself.
I'm curious because Obama is claiming to want to protect the middle class. Reducing middle class taxes will definitely help, but at the same time he is looking to raise taxes for anyone making over $250,000 and also increase capital gains taxes hugely.
- Which countries have the biggest middle class?
Middle class basically means not rich / not poor and the definition of poor and rich changes over time and varies from country to country. It is really more of a political term than an economic one so finding reliable statistics on it is pretty hard.
|
On July 13 2012 07:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:43 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 04:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 03:02 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:41 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 02:35 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:13 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal.
There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Smoking pot may not create a felony, but how the hell do you think it gets to the user? It creates a market for felonious behavior, and indirectly causes citizens to commit felonies. If the only objective is "it's not a felony" for making it "ok", then I don't think participating in the drug market is the correct argument you should be making... You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but crying wolf on some teenage decision from dozens of years ago just makes you sound like a crybaby. Nobody makes it that far in life without doing something stupid at some point, and holding every youthful indiscretion against them would eliminate 99.9% of our candidates. Everyone has dirt if you know where to look. I frankly don't care what he did when he was younger. My point was that it's laughable to compare smoking pot (does no harm to others) to harassing people (does harm to others - at the very least, makes them stressful/wastes their time). The point of my reply to you was clearly to highlight the difference between the two, but for some reason you decided to go off on a tangent on felonies. On July 13 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal.
There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Of course not. Knock yourselves out. Gee wiz, thanks! And my point is that your "view" is overly simplistic, and, to a point, even ignorant. Juarez isn't what it is because people are murderous... it's because your so-called "behaviors that do not affect others" DO actually affect others, and many times in very, very negative ways. Just because you rationalize drug use as being self-contained does not make it so. You are talking about drug use on a systemic level. I don't "rationalize drug use as being self-contained", I rationalize drug use by Barack Obama as being self-contained. If Barack Obama had never purchased marijuana when he was young, literally nothing would have changed about the drug market and its effect on people. Had Romney not harassed people when he was young, however, people would not have been harassed. (also, it's possible to grow your own marijuana - not all marijuana consumption is linked to Mexican drug cartels, and I don't know how Obama got his) The important thing about Romney's history terrorizing people isn't the impact it had on individuals, its the insights it gave into his upbringing and who he is as a person. His behavior was enabled by his wealthy father, endorsed by his wealthy father. It shows that he was raised to abuse his money and power and to not pay too much attention to how it impacts the little guy. This was the kind of example that was set for him growing up and he has shown such tendencies time and time again in various interviews and whatnot. While the specific event and the impact it had on those people isn't very substantial in the big picture, it was really telling of Romney's upbringing and gives a lot of hints as to who he is now. This is a much better argument. Let me clarify something again: I wasn't making an argument about the relevancy today of those actions of a young Romney. I was simply pointing out how fallacious your comparison to Obama smoking pot was. fallacious? do you even know what that word means? just because you think smoking pot is an ok thing to do illegally doesn't mean i'm spewing falsities. they are both illegal, and both could be used as grounds for character judgments. You argued that one is ok because it doesn't affect others, and I pointed out that it DOES affect others and you're just dismissing those effects because they are outside of the direct control -- yet everyone knows they get their drugs from people who commit crimes. This is not a "fallacious" argument. It's just one you disagree with.
Merriam-Webster:
fal·la·cious 1: embodying a fallacy <a fallacious conclusion> 2: tending to deceive or mislead
Your comparison is fallacious because it attempts to equate two different acts by only looking at the fact that they're both illegal, while the relevant aspects here were not only their illegality but the fact that doing them directly endangers other people's safety (key word: directly) - hence why your comparison is deceitful. Let me quote Defacer, which posted before you replied in this discussion: "Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety [...]".
Again, Obama not smoking pot wouldn't change anything for other people, because drug trafficking would still exist. Romney not dressing up as a police officer would change something for other people - namely, the people he harassed. See the difference that your comparison tried to cover up?
On July 13 2012 06:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 07:03 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:57 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 06:43 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 02:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:.... [quote] Source Ahahaha that is hilarious. I wonder what he told them when he did it. I stole a bunch of road signs and cones and blocked of roads for laughs, but police officer is an entirely higher level of rl trolling. It's beyond trolling. There's are very goods reason why impersonating a police officer is illegal. Like serial killers. And pedophiles. But Mitt Romney is neither a serial killer or a pedophile so I fail to see how that is relevant. Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety because you're too rich to care is irrelevant? Tell me, if some random guy in your neighborhood was pretending to be police officer, and say, harassing your children, would you be cool with that? I'd love to hear Mitt Romney defend impersonating a police officer. Anyone else would immediately go to jail. This is literally the kind of thing only a wealthy, privileged white man could get away with. All it does is reinforce how disconnected he is from the rest of the planet. I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over? Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people. Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? I'm assuming you don't know that Obama also did cocaine.
And how exactly does this contradict what I said?
|
I just hope Romney doesn't get voted, god knows what I'll do if that guy gets presidency
|
On July 13 2012 07:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:07 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 06:43 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 04:22 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2012 03:02 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:41 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 02:35 kwizach wrote:On July 13 2012 02:13 BluePanther wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people.
[quote]
So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Smoking pot may not create a felony, but how the hell do you think it gets to the user? It creates a market for felonious behavior, and indirectly causes citizens to commit felonies. If the only objective is "it's not a felony" for making it "ok", then I don't think participating in the drug market is the correct argument you should be making... You're more than welcome to share your opinion, but crying wolf on some teenage decision from dozens of years ago just makes you sound like a crybaby. Nobody makes it that far in life without doing something stupid at some point, and holding every youthful indiscretion against them would eliminate 99.9% of our candidates. Everyone has dirt if you know where to look. I frankly don't care what he did when he was younger. My point was that it's laughable to compare smoking pot (does no harm to others) to harassing people (does harm to others - at the very least, makes them stressful/wastes their time). The point of my reply to you was clearly to highlight the difference between the two, but for some reason you decided to go off on a tangent on felonies. On July 13 2012 00:19 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people.
[quote]
So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? Of course not. Knock yourselves out. Gee wiz, thanks! And my point is that your "view" is overly simplistic, and, to a point, even ignorant. Juarez isn't what it is because people are murderous... it's because your so-called "behaviors that do not affect others" DO actually affect others, and many times in very, very negative ways. Just because you rationalize drug use as being self-contained does not make it so. You are talking about drug use on a systemic level. I don't "rationalize drug use as being self-contained", I rationalize drug use by Barack Obama as being self-contained. If Barack Obama had never purchased marijuana when he was young, literally nothing would have changed about the drug market and its effect on people. Had Romney not harassed people when he was young, however, people would not have been harassed. (also, it's possible to grow your own marijuana - not all marijuana consumption is linked to Mexican drug cartels, and I don't know how Obama got his) The important thing about Romney's history terrorizing people isn't the impact it had on individuals, its the insights it gave into his upbringing and who he is as a person. His behavior was enabled by his wealthy father, endorsed by his wealthy father. It shows that he was raised to abuse his money and power and to not pay too much attention to how it impacts the little guy. This was the kind of example that was set for him growing up and he has shown such tendencies time and time again in various interviews and whatnot. While the specific event and the impact it had on those people isn't very substantial in the big picture, it was really telling of Romney's upbringing and gives a lot of hints as to who he is now. This is a much better argument. Let me clarify something again: I wasn't making an argument about the relevancy today of those actions of a young Romney. I was simply pointing out how fallacious your comparison to Obama smoking pot was. fallacious? do you even know what that word means? just because you think smoking pot is an ok thing to do illegally doesn't mean i'm spewing falsities. they are both illegal, and both could be used as grounds for character judgments. You argued that one is ok because it doesn't affect others, and I pointed out that it DOES affect others and you're just dismissing those effects because they are outside of the direct control -- yet everyone knows they get their drugs from people who commit crimes. This is not a "fallacious" argument. It's just one you disagree with. Merriam-Webster: Show nested quote +fal·la·cious 1: embodying a fallacy <a fallacious conclusion> 2: tending to deceive or mislead Your comparison is fallacious because it attempts to equate two different acts by only looking at the fact that they're both illegal, while the relevant aspects here were not only their illegality but the fact that doing them directly endangers other people's safety (key word: directly) - hence why your comparison is deceitful. Let me quote Defacer, which posted before you replied in this discussion: "Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety [...]". Again, Obama not smoking pot wouldn't change anything for other people, because drug trafficking would still exist. Romney not dressing up as a police officer would change something for other people - namely, the people he harassed. See the difference that your comparison tried to cover up? Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On July 13 2012 00:18 kwizach wrote:On July 12 2012 22:42 BluePanther wrote:On July 12 2012 07:19 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 07:12 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 07:03 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:57 Romantic wrote:On July 12 2012 06:43 Defacer wrote:On July 12 2012 06:42 Romantic wrote:
[quote]
Ahahaha that is hilarious. I wonder what he told them when he did it. I stole a bunch of road signs and cones and blocked of roads for laughs, but police officer is an entirely higher level of rl trolling. It's beyond trolling. There's are very goods reason why impersonating a police officer is illegal. Like serial killers. And pedophiles. But Mitt Romney is neither a serial killer or a pedophile so I fail to see how that is relevant. Ignoring a law designed to protect people's safety because you're too rich to care is irrelevant? Tell me, if some random guy in your neighborhood was pretending to be police officer, and say, harassing your children, would you be cool with that? I'd love to hear Mitt Romney defend impersonating a police officer. Anyone else would immediately go to jail. This is literally the kind of thing only a wealthy, privileged white man could get away with. All it does is reinforce how disconnected he is from the rest of the planet. I doubt he got caught by real police. Assuming this story isn't complete BS, I would make a firm guess the police never caught him doing it. Are we just assuming his behavior is motivated by being rich and he was caught and they just let him go because his name is Romney and he has white skin? Black or poor people have never broken laws to prank anyone? Children drive cars now so they'd have been pulled over? Lol, I can tell this conversation is going to go far. You win. Breaking any laws for laughs is exactly equal to breaking laws to rape and murder people from both a legal and moral POV. These stories about Romney are all 100% true, and we can safely assume he is a terrible rich white person who only understand other evil rich privileged white people. Wow, I didn't make any of those arguments. I didn't equate what Romney did to being a serial killer. I simply pointed out that impersonating a police officer is a serious offense, precisely because if it were legal, it would be abused by all kinds of criminals. So things aren't illegal unless you get caught? And if you don't get caught it's fine? This is why this prank is so distasteful. Because it encourages irresponsible behaviour by people like you. Every recent president has admitted to smoking pot, which is illegal. There is "illegal" and illegal. Yes, something like that probably borders on the edge, but it's no reason to make someone pay for it 25 years later. We all do stupid stuff when we're teenagers -- some just get caught and others don't. Either way, it's forgivable at this point in his life. Smoking pot affects nobody but yourself. Here, we're talking about committing a felony which consists of harassing other people. On July 13 2012 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
All of this feigned outrage over the dressing up as a cop incident is really funny. Here's a newsflash: it's not going to mean dick in the election. So that means we're not allowed to share our opinions on something the presumptive Republican nominee did when he was younger? I'm assuming you don't know that Obama also did cocaine. And how exactly does this contradict what I said?
Romney's a douchebag but this is a bullshit arguement. If you partake in something that has consequences, you're responsible, even if you're role is very minor. If Obama didn't smoke then sure, the Cartels would still be active, but they would be a tiny bit weaker, and if other individuals followed suit then the impact would be greater. Just because a bunch of people do something doesn't make it right/wrong. This is the exact kind of arguement you see stemming from war criminals: Oh everyone else was doing it/I wasn't the big dog, it's not my fault. (Not that I'm comparing smoking pot to killing people, but it's a similar idea)
For the record I smoke weed too.
edit: The point is, Obama's not evil or anything, but it's certainly a justifiable reason not to vote for him. (Personally I think voting on what these guys did when they were teenagers/college kids is stupid and it's just an excuse to dislike them further, but that's another arguement.
|
1Eris1, the overall impact on other people of Obama's drug consumption is not comparable to the direct impact of Romney's harassment of people on those people he harassed. End of story. We are not talking about the structural impact of drug consumption, we are talking about individual actions.
|
On July 13 2012 07:39 OneBaseKing wrote:
I just hope Romney doesn't get voted, god knows what I'll do if that guy gets presidency
Join the Taliban?
Sorry but your post and your destination just make me giggle.
|
On July 13 2012 09:14 kwizach wrote:
1Eris1, the overall impact on other people of Obama's drug consumption is not comparable to the direct impact of Romney's harassment of people on those people he harassed. End of story. We are not talking about the structural impact of drug consumption, we are talking about individual actions.
I don't think that's the arguement though. Is what Romney did worse? Obviously, but I think Bluepanther's point was that they're both criticizable things...If not, then nevermind.
|
On July 13 2012 10:05 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:14 kwizach wrote:
1Eris1, the overall impact on other people of Obama's drug consumption is not comparable to the direct impact of Romney's harassment of people on those people he harassed. End of story. We are not talking about the structural impact of drug consumption, we are talking about individual actions. I don't think that's the arguement though. Is what Romney did worse? Obviously, but I think Bluepanther's point was that they're both criticizable things...If not, then nevermind.
He was equating the two based on the fact that they're both illegal while replying to a line of discussion in which the relevant aspect being discussed was harm and potential harm to others.
|
|
|
This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue.
So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex.
I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm.
|
On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm.
The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007.
Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern.
|
On July 13 2012 23:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 19:40 Danglars wrote:This truly is wishful thinking. The size of the US debt and its rate of growth will eclipse all attempts to spread its burden / allay it through the selling of bonds. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41486). See elsewhere in the thread for the growth of public debt. It's a tidal wave that will swallow up the holding of debt if allowed to continue. So the spending problem / revenue problem needs addressing. Both parties have their plans. The "cut spending now, NOW, NOW..." is a decidedly conservative Republican tack. I must say conservative Republican because spending deficits tend to grow under both parties majorities in Congress. So you get tired of yelling at the spending side of government to undergo painful cutbacks, knowing the pain of undertaking them will be worse if undertaken further along. It is no new fad to claim the facts support your argument and leave the opponent in the dust, see thread for ex. I hope you can also see why people eager for the immediate passage of spending cuts do not consider the current buying of US debt to quell the alarm. The only direct thing that matters about the debt is the interest we have to pay on it. Currently, we pay less on that interest than we did in 2007. Indirect factors are debt to GDP ratio and debt growth in relation to GDP growth, but those are more "spook" factors than actual notes of concern.
The worry is that when interest rates rise the debt will slowly be refinanced at a higher rate. That will make the budget very hard to manage and pretty scary along with the growing demands of social security / medicare.
Certainly massive austerity right now isn't a good idea but a little more prudence would go a long way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
