Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

WSJ "Obama speech most dishonest in decades"Follow

#202 Apr 22 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,258 posts
Man, I don't even need to say anything, you @#%^ing cited Glenn Beck.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#203 Apr 22 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,370 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That $80B increase was about a 50% jump in total cost (it went from $190B to $272B)


80is not 50% of 190. It is 42% which is still large but not about 50, its really more about 40.


Yes. I was estimating dork. It's still a pretty significant jump in spending.

Quote:
But you can thank Mr. Bush and his crack team of retards for not addressing economic issues which were brought up in 2006, 2 years before the sh*tstorm, that cost a lot of people their jobs, their health coverage and forced a migration to government assisted health services.


Even if I accepted your blame of Bush for the economic collapse of 2008 (I don't), it didn't cause the current debt crisis. See. That's the part that I keep pointing out and you all keep failing to see. The reason we're in so much trouble right now is because our federal government spent too much money in response to that crisis. We made it worse by overreacting to it. Had we just done TARP and stopped right there, the banks would have recovered and paid us back (just as they did), the market would have recovered (just as it has), and businesses would have gone back to expanding and creating new jobs and unemployment would have come down (as it hasn't).

Why didn't that last piece happen? Because business investors (as opposed to commodity investors or market players) are worried about the spending/deficit and whether and how much our tax laws are going to change to pay for it. This is keeping them from investing in ventures which tie their money down in businesses with offices and work sites and jobs. That's why we haven't recovered fully. It's because we didn't stop at TARP. We went on with the stimulus bill, and added tons of new spending in the 2009/2010 omnibus bills, and tossed in yet more spending in our energy bills, and tossed even more spending in every direction we could in nearly ever bill that came through congress in 2009/2010.


That's what caused this current crisis. By all measurable factors in the finance market, we are fully recovered from the crisis which started this. One has to wonder why the rest of the economy, and specifically the job market, hasn't. It's not because of mortgage securities failing, or banks going under. It's because of the debt problem. And that's because we spent too much. It's not really that complicated.

Quote:
I find it funny as hell that you and a lot of people put Obama on the hot seat when he inherited the most @#%^ed up economy the states has seen since the 30's.


It's funny because it really wasn't that fucked up. TARP fixed it pretty easily. Had we left it alone, the impact to middle and working class america would have been minimal. It would have been a two to three year dip in our economic fortunes from which we'd recover and move on, just like any of a number of similar economic crashes we've had over the last 30 years or so. Interestingly enough, the last time we got "stuck" in a hole like this was in the late 70s. Which was also the last time that the Dems so completely controlled the government. That's not a coincidence btw.


It's interesting you talk about the 30s though. There's a lot of good arguments, that the New Deal policies of FDR, while they did address the symptoms of the economic problems of the day, actually dramatically lengthened the time it took to recover because it put the government in the front seat of the economy and it struggled to get out of the same tax and spend cycle it's going into right now. That's exactly where we're headed. The initial economic crash isn't what caused the Great Depression. It was bad fiscal/spending policies by the government in response to that crash which did. Similarly, it was no single crash or event in the 70s which led us into such dire straights by the end of that decade, but a series of bad fiscal decisions (again involving spending our way out of it) that caused it. And the Obama administration is repeating the exact same mistake again. It's like the left never learns the lessons from history.


Actually, as I've stated on this forum in the past. The left does know this. But they also know that they can't use the tools needed to actually recover the economy fully. Their social ideology gets in the way of what needs to be done economically. They cannot ever acknowledge that money held in the hands of private industry is what grows the economy and creates jobs (even though that should be obvious to us all really), thus they can't implement the correct solution to an economic downturn like this (stop spending on government programs and let the free market correct the problem on its own). They're like a kid with ADHD trying to push a ball down a hill. They can't help but constantly push it this way and that way, and cant trust that if they just let it roll on its own, it'll get to the bottom faster.

Quote:
Its gotten better, be it because of Obamas economic policies, or natural correction remains to be seen, but one things for sure, the mandatory spending increases, are hardly his fault, that is a result of bad economic choices pre 2008, and the resulting collapse of 90% of the economic powers in the world.


What mandatory spending increases were created pre-2008 and are affecting us today and causing this debt crisis? Do you know? Or are you just repeating something you heard and hoping no one will call you on it?

I've run the numbers in two different threads now. The *only* mandatory spending increase you could possibly blame on Bush would be increases in Medicare and that was like an $85B/year increase. That's hardly what's causing us to have over $1T in increased yearly deficit. So what mandatory spending increases are you talking about? And what the hell do you think the Dems were doing for two years? I mean, the GOP attempted to oppose bill after bill warning that the Dems were spending too much money. And now we find out that we're spending too much money and are in a debt crisis. Are you seriously saying you can't put 1 and 1 together here?

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 4:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#204 Apr 22 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That $80B increase was about a 50% jump in total cost (it went from $190B to $272B)


80is not 50% of 190. It is 42% which is still large but not about 50, its really more about 40.


Yes. I was estimating dork. It's still a pretty significant jump in spending.

Pardon me. I haven't paid attention to anything since about the first or second page, but...

Since when do you "estimate" up when the amount is under 5 within a range of 10? I mean, at 46%, sure, 50% is a nice estimate. But 42 to 50? That makes absolutely no sense. It's like going from 3% to 90+%. Totally the same? Um... Smiley: dubious

Edited, Apr 22nd 2011 8:56pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#205 Apr 22 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,831 posts
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes

____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#206 Apr 23 2011 at 1:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Also, in the United Stated, barter is taxable as income.


If you actually keep records of it, I suppose.

Anyone ever tell you that your posts are a lot more bark than bite?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#207 Apr 25 2011 at 8:49 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
Moebiuslord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
If you want to avoid taxation, you could always see how far you get on bartering.
Also, in the United Stated, barter is taxable as income.
If you actually keep records of it, I suppose.

Ah, so if you want to avoid taxation you should break the law. See, it sounds so much less stupid when you phrase it correctly.
Kachi wrote:
Anyone ever tell you that your posts are a lot more bark than bite?

Only people trying to avoid the fact that they're not smart enough to play.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#208 Apr 25 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,370 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That $80B increase was about a 50% jump in total cost (it went from $190B to $272B)


80is not 50% of 190. It is 42% which is still large but not about 50, its really more about 40.


Yes. I was estimating dork. It's still a pretty significant jump in spending.

Pardon me. I haven't paid attention to anything since about the first or second page, but...

Since when do you "estimate" up when the amount is under 5 within a range of 10?


Because the word "estimate" somewhat assumes that I didn't actually do the math, but just glanced at the numbers. You're talking about "rounding", which is not the same thing. At the end of the day, who the hell cares? Ok. It was a 42% increase (or whatever it was, don't really care). It's still a huge jump compared to the relative cost increases we normally expect over a 3 year period of time. I was pointing out that those two programs jumped up significantly. That statement is true, regardless of the exact number. I estimated because in this case, the exact number wasn't important. All that mattered was that while other programs I was looking at had 3 year cost increases more in the 10% range, those two had much larger ones.


That observation is true, isn't it?


Quote:
I mean, at 46%, sure, 50% is a nice estimate. But 42 to 50? That makes absolutely no sense. It's like going from 3% to 90+%. Totally the same?


Lol. And now who's exaggerating? 3:90 is only a 1:30 ratio difference. While 42:50, is slightly less than 4:5. Seriously? Again, my point was to show relative jumps in costs. I was contrasting other programs with 10-15% increases to those two. It's not like I followed that estimate with additional math or anything. It was purely about showing that these two stood out in terms of cost increase and nothing more. Why make such a big deal out of it? It was literally the least important number I wrote in that entire post. So you ignore all the other stuff because one number was slightly off in a way which didn't change the conclusions I was making one bit?


Seems like avoidance on your part.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#209 Apr 25 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Maybe Paulsol should start looking within instead of always attacking the US.



I could post criticisms of Tajikistan here. But it would be pretty fUcking pointless as I dont think there are any Tajiks who post here..

And as a point of order. I am not attacking the 'US'. I'm attacking its practices especially the ones that effect the rest of the world in a detrimental way, and particularly the way in which its practices are set forth as some sort of 'benchmark' for the rest of the world to aspire to.

Believe me, I've got a whole load of criticisms that are directed at New Zealand and the way it is run, not least of which is its bloody awful Social Security programmes.

But do you think I should post about those here? I post here for the random entertainment it provides me whilst between things at work, not because I think I'm going to change anything or anyone.

I do post what I think as opposed to what I think will make me popular.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#210 Apr 26 2011 at 3:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
I post what makes me laugh. Guess what the post you quoted did for me?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#211 Apr 26 2011 at 1:50 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Moebiuslord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
If you want to avoid taxation, you could always see how far you get on bartering.
Also, in the United Stated, barter is taxable as income.
If you actually keep records of it, I suppose.

Ah, so if you want to avoid taxation you should break the law. See, it sounds so much less stupid when you phrase it correctly.
[


I don't know tax law that well, but I would imagine that to a large extent, taxation on bartering is not something that can be enforced. My main point, though, is that it would be easy to avoid taxation, and if you don't think those taxes SHOULD be the law, then what's stopping you? Most people who reluctantly pay taxes do so for fear of consequence, not in order to fulfill the social contract or contribute to the general welfare.

Quote:
Only people trying to avoid the fact that they're not smart enough to play.


What a fun way of saying, "The people who think I'm not very bright aren't very bright." No, I already got that about you, just like I'm sure you got that it was a rhetorical question. You're a classic case of wit over substance, which is less of a compliment than it seems.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#212 Apr 26 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
What a fun way of saying, "The people who think I'm not very bright aren't very bright." No, I already got that about you, just like I'm sure you got that it was a rhetorical question. You're a classic case of wit over substance, which is less of a compliment than it seems.

The personal attack usually works so much better when the person you attacking cares and the audience likes you. Until you encounter either of those, stick to the topic at hand.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#213Kachi, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 2:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, if you ask me. But it seems that some people here do like you, somehow. I guess the lesson for me is to be ruder, more arrogant, and less insightful, and maybe I can be like you some day!
#214 Apr 29 2011 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, if you ask me. But it seems that some people here do like you, somehow. I guess the lesson for me is to be ruder, more arrogant, and less insightful, and maybe I can be like you some day!

Hey, lucky me, I didn't ask you!

Conversely, you could just quit being a douchebag.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#215 Apr 29 2011 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,802 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Makes you a bit of a hypocrite, if you ask me. But it seems that some people here do like you, somehow. I guess the lesson for me is to be ruder, more arrogant, and less insightful, and maybe I can be like you some day!

Hey, lucky me, I didn't ask you!

Conversely, you could just quit being a douchebagposting.

Fixed!
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#216 Apr 29 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Conversely, you could just quit being a douchebag.


I don't know. It seems to work so well for you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#217 Apr 29 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Conversely, you could just quit being a douchebag.

I don't know. It seems to work so well for you.

Yes, but Moe has a certain wit that you lack.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 99 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Bijou, ElneClare, Kastigir, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (94)