Growth in Spending since Obama

[hcap]

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/10/18/spending-money-can-be-difficult-for-some-middle-aged-governments/

"So what we really want to look at is Federal Government Consumption and Investment. Lets check the tape:

The Long View

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/image19.png

As you can see the growth has been pretty steady accept for that flat period during the 90s. It becomes immediately clear why that it is when you think of what the government actually spends money on. That flat period is the peace dividend.

Now lets take a closer look at recent times

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/image20.png

In other words, government expenditures have grown about as fast for the past two years as they did during the Bush administration's final term. All the supposed tea party angst over spending and deficits is based on precisely nothing. Federal expenditures are about the same as they've always has been, while revenue has gone down and transfer payments have gone up because of the recession. We have been adding to the deficit, but it's because of the recession, not because spending has spiraled out of control.

[prospector]

i can't believe you don't get it...which direction is that blue line going to you?

[hcap]

Percentage of GROWTH has been a constant.
Yell at all the other administrations. Including Bush jr. Nothing recently out of line.Regardless of tea partiers complaints.

It mentions in the article, we have been thru a recession. Not to mention 2 wars

Brw, under Clinton it flattened out

[DJofSD]

Read post #2 again.

[bigmack]

hcap is so right. Why oh why are people picking on B.O.?

And yes, it flattened out with WJ Clinton. And may I add, he was a Democrat. Draw your own conclusions.

[JustRalph]

2 weeks before an election and HCAP posts this crap?

Symptom of the coming Virus I think............

I don't think the Repubs are in near the great shape everybody says......

but HCAP is trying to convince me........with a stunt like this

[Tom]

Especially considering all the whining about Bush's spending on Iraq.
Wow. :lol:

[delayjf]

Can't help but wonder how much welfare reform had to do with the 90's flat line. Or the fact that Republicans controlled the House (and the spending) during that same time frame.

[Robert Goren]

Can't help but wonder how much welfare reform had to do with the 90's flat line. Or the fact that Republicans controlled the House (and the spending) during that same time frame.Probably not much since the most of those Republicans stayed on when we changed presidents in 2001.

[Tom]

But, 9-11 imposed spending requirements fairly soon after the election.
Only way to know for sure is go back to republican controlled congress without Iraq.

Vote for the republican of your choice, but vote!

[delayjf]

Also, Democrat or Republican the medicare drug presciption plan was going to happen.

[hcap]

Didn't think you guys would admit the increase in government spending was as extravagant as the wall to wall complaining about socialism and "taking the country back" would lead one to believe.

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/image19.png

[DJofSD]

No.

And you are a complete idiot or fool to think the upward sloping line can continue forever.

[Tom]

Didn't think you guys would admit the increase in government spending was as extravagant as the wall to wall complaining about socialism and "taking the country back" would lead one to believe.



Yes, it is far worse!
And you know it.

[hcap]

Yes, it is far worse!.
And you are a complete idiot or fool to think the upward sloping line can continue forever.And you know it.No it is not far worse. You teabag/repug loonies make it out to be a Marxist takeover.

The upward slope has been going on since at ;least WWII.
The spending itself is not a sign of impending doom.

[hcap]

Donald the Anchor Duck

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HfuwNU0jsk0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HfuwNU0jsk0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[boxcar]

No it is not far worse. You teabag/repug loonies make it out to be a Marxist takeover.

Ever hear of Incrementalism? It has indeed been going on for a long time and it's picking up steam. If you don't believe that, talk to Joe Bite-Me, the VP and ask him why he said Obamination Care was such a big F***Deal? He got it -- in more ways than one. But you don't! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. BTW, do you engage in runaway spending for your household? If not, then why should allow the U.S. government to be engaging in it for OUR "household"?

[hcap]

Incrementalism? OK, but the tea/repug fervor against Obama is not a slight case of incrementalism. All the crap about a marxist communist takeover is a propaganda dream cooked up by holier than thou guys like you and gbeck wannabees wanting to go back to repug rule. The 2008 election pissed off a lot of southern white guys not wanting blacks or jews playin' on their golf courses

Again spending is not out of line.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/even-more-on-the-origins-of-the-deficit/
Even More On The Origins of the Deficit

I’ve thought of another way to present the data on GDP, spending by all levels of government, and taxes. Let’s look at trends in GDP, spending, and revenues over two periods — one designed to capture “normal” growth, the other the economic crisis.

For the first period, I look at trends from the business cycle peak in the first quarter of 2001 to the peak in the last quarter of 2007. This is a standard way of measuring economic trends, by the way, since business cycle peaks presumably measure the economy’s output at or near capacity. And yes, this means that I wrote this post in a fit of peaks.

For the second period, I use the quarters since that 2007 peak.

So here’s what you get:

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/deficit_growth.PNG

During the pre-crisis period, spending grew slightly faster than GDP — that’s Medicare plus the Bush wars — while revenue grew more slowly, presumably reflecting tax cuts.

What happened after the crisis? Spending continued to grow at roughly the same rate — a bulge in safety net programs, offset by budget-slashing at the state and local level. GDP stalled — which is why the ratio of spending to GDP rose. And revenue plunged, leading to big deficits.

But I’m sure that the usual suspects will find ways to keep believing that it’s all about runaway spending.

[delayjf]

The 2008 election pissed off a lot of southern white guys not wanting blacks or jews playin' on their golf courses

That's right this is all about discrimination against a black man. Personally I don't care if Jews or Blacks play on my golf course - just keep the French the hell away. I hate every one of those beenie wearing, crossant eating, no teeth brushing airheads ;)

[boxcar]

Incrementalism? OK, but the tea/repug fervor against Obama is not a slight case of incrementalism. All the crap about a marxist communist takeover is a propaganda dream cooked up by holier than thou guys like you and gbeck wannabees wanting to go back to repug rule. The 2008 election pissed off a lot of southern white guys not wanting blacks or jews playin' on their golf courses.

Of course, BO is! He's the culmination of the Incrementalism. He's the Marxist chicken who has FINALLY come home to roost after all these decades. What part of this don't you understand? :bang: :bang: At some point, Mr. 'cap, Incrementalism begins to blossom! It doesn't remain a bud forever. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

All the crap about a marxist communist takeover is a propaganda dream cooked up by holier than thou guys like you and gbeck wannabees wanting to go back to repug rule.
I 'member a time with 'uber nerd' Paulie Krugman ran around acting as if he were just a garden variety, unbiased economist. He's so out of the Lib Closet now, he's the left version of Harvy Fierstein. :rolleyes:

I was going to tear-up hcap & his affinity for UberNerd but this guy from Flahrida did for me.

A response from the Paulie piece:

Poor Paul Krugman. His policy proposals have been implemented. Perhaps not to the extent that he wanted. But the "stimulus" was 80% of what he wanted. He got "targeted tax cuts" like "cash for clunkers. The cleanest experiments in "progressivism" (like clunkers and Obamacare) provided the cleanest results showing why "progressivism" must fail. PK is just not smart enough to run an economy of 300 million people. The used car market is now destroyed. Children can no longer get stand-alone policies. Boeing just announced it is cutting back on employee health care.

And now PK's whine can be heard around the world. Transferring resources from the dynamism, innovation, and discipline of markets to the cronyism, inefficiency, and blinkeredness of government did ... wait for it ... EXACERBATE an economic DOWNTURN. Like in the 1930's and the 1970's.

And guess what. Government REVENUES actually DROPPED.

PK is astonished because he is ideologically blind. This does not mean that YOU need be.

Remember, the Depression ended only in 1946, when a Republican congressional landslide brought an end to "progressive" governance. We have another chance in November.

[DJofSD]

Of course, BO is! He's the culmination of the Incrementalism. He's the Marxist chicken who has FINALLY come home to roost after all these decades. What part of this don't you understand? :bang: :bang: At some point, Mr. 'cap, Incrementalism begins to blossom! It doesn't remain a bud forever. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Ah, the flowers.

The response reminds me of the scene in Caddy Shack where Bill Murray is decapitating the flora lining the walkway. "He got all of that one!"

I expect the voters will get 'all of that one' in a couple of weeks.

hcap, when you start to go into withdrawl when the government teat runs dry, run up your credit cards then cash out your retirement savings. You'll feel better and you'll be helping the economy.

[boxcar]

Ah, the flowers.

The response reminds me of the scene in Caddy Shack where Bill Murray is decapitating the flora lining the walkway. "He got all of that one!"

I expect the voters will get 'all of that one' in a couple of weeks.

hcap, when you start to go into withdrawl when the government teat runs dry, run up your credit cards then cash out your retirement savings. You'll feel better and you'll be helping the economy.

But will the Repug establishment get it? The elitist RINOS will fight the tea elected party candidates tooth and nail before they give up an inch of power -- most especially in the senate. These elected newbies had better come well prepared for this fight.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

If they remember they too can be voted out of office then they'll have the courage to ignore the old guard power brokers.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap
All the crap about a marxist communist takeover is a propaganda dream cooked up by holier than thou guys like you and gbeck wannabees wanting to go back to repug rule.


where have you been? Have you missed the posts where we have already condemned the repubs and have been throwing them out on their ears, something your side has yet to do with your garbage.

Fundamentally, you have missed this boat.....we are in favor rule by no one. We support representation by honest, accountable people who understand their role and understand we will turn on them in a second if they screw up.

Come towards the light,,,,,come towards the light.

[boxcar]

Come towards the light,,,,,come towards the light.


I don't think he can. He probably has a violent allergic reaction every time he has tried. :D

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

where have you been? Have you missed the posts where we have already condemned the repubs and have been throwing them out on their ears, something your side has yet to do with your garbage.

Fundamentally, you have missed this boat.....we are in favor rule by no one. We support representation by honest, accountable people who understand their role and understand we will turn on them in a second if they screw up.

Come towards the light,,,,,come towards the light.


Tom...Cap' is stuck in his own conundrum. He apparently missed all the parts where we mentioned the repugs being terrible as well. But that's ok....in a few short weeks...hopefully we get the REAL hope and change!

[hcap]

I 'member a time with 'uber nerd' Paulie Krugman ran around acting as if he were just a garden variety, unbiased economist. He's so out of the Lib Closet now, he's the left version of Harvy Fierstein.

I was going to tear-up hcap & his affinity for UberNerd but this guy from Flahrida did for me.

A response from the Paulie piece:
Crapolla by a reader "Samuel Oelando"in response on Krugman's blog in the NYT. His comment is meaningless You may not agree or like Krugman, but he is certainly qualified. And his graph and the one I posted earlier shows the phony frantic bullshit about runaway spending.for what it is.
where have you been? Have you missed the posts where we have already condemned the repubs and have been throwing them out on their ears, something your side has yet to do with your garbage.Yeah, throwing out the repugs and replacing them with moonbat tea baggers? O'Donnell? Angle? Now there are 2 that will get us out of all our problems. And into a dumbed down childish fantasy lala land.

[hcap]

Of course, BO is! He's the culmination of the Incrementalism. He's the Marxist chicken who has FINALLY come home to roost after all these decades. What part of this don't you understand? :bang: :bang: At some point, Mr. 'cap, Incrementalism begins to blossom! It doesn't remain a bud forever. :rolleyes:

BoxcarSome history about taxes on the very rich.
And now you can complain about runaway axes.......

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/500-tax-rates-over-time-300x186.jpg

[hcap]

Another teabagger/rethug complaint. Another exaggeration out of line.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html?_r=1&hp

TARP Bailout to Cost Less Than Once Anticipated

WASHINGTON — Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all — the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies — will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit.
.................................................. ..........................

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-20/bank-bailout-returns-8-2-beating-treasury-yields.html

Bank Bailout Returns 8.2% Beating Treasury Yields

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government’s bailout of financial firms through the Troubled Asset Relief Program provided taxpayers with higher returns than yields paid on 30- year Treasury bonds -- enough money to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission for the next two decades.

The government has earned $25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money- market funds and certificates of deposit. Investing in the stock market or gold would have paid off better.

[fast4522]

Your pretty graphs are having a dramatic effect Hcap, like everyone eats them right up. I see the resemblance now with you.

[hcap]

Incrementalism? OK, but the tea/repug fervor against Obama is not a slight case of incrementalism. All the crap about a marxist communist takeover is a propaganda dream cooked up by holier than thou guys like you and gbeck wannabees wanting to go back to repug rule. The 2008 election pissed off a lot of southern white guys not wanting blacks or jews playin' on their golf courses
Not that all of you are prejudiced or bigots, but enough sentiment against what as seen as encroachment on traditional "white" culture to energize what was known as the "Southern Strategy" Was common knowledge that the rethugs originated and practiced it with political success. To scare white voters by exaggerating the threat of the Negro .....

The Southern Strategy is the policy of the Republican Party in the United States to gain political support in the Southern section of the country. Politically, the concept generally uses themes traditionally supported by residents of the Southern states to win election in those locations. Since segregation continued well into the late 20th century in the region, the Republican Party officially attempted to utilize this wedge issue as a way of garnering support for their political faction in these states. In addition to the issue of segregation between white residents and African Americans, the party also utilized Southern values of religion, gun control and a distrust of counterculture to win votes.
So today we have the rethugs and tea partiers playing a similar political game. Updated catch phrases, winks and nods and financed by guys like the Koch brothers. Astro turf massaged cultural talking points, thinly veiled racist sentiments and way out of line criticism of pretty much everything accomplished by the new administration on the block.

Incremental-ism my ass!

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
.................................................. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy is a Republican Party method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition to the cultural upheaval of the 1960s/70s and in reaction to the changing economics of the South.

.................................................. ................
So don't tell me what is happening now is not a21st century update of an old playbook.

[bigmack]

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
It's twue, it's twue; race has no place in politics.

0mvP0ArKIGY

[PaceAdvantage]

I told you guys hcap and the boys would become increasingly more active as the election drew near and the polls showed that the Tea Party's impact was substantial.

In terms of terror alert color codes, hcap and the boys are sitting at Code Brown, as in "Shit Your Pants Time."

[newtothegame]

I told you guys hcap and the boys would become increasingly more active as the election drew near and the polls showed that the Tea Party's impact was substantial.

In terms of terror alert color codes, hcap and the boys are sitting at Code Brown, as in "Shit Your Pants Time."

Lmao...good one PA,...code brown..thats classic !

[bigmack]

In terms of terror alert color codes, hcap and the boys are sitting at Code Brown, as in "Shit Your Pants Time."
:lol: :lol:

'Nuff said.

[hcap]

It's twue, it's twue; race has no place in politics.

0mvP0ArKIGYYou know Mack I would not have thought the updated "the southern strategy," had much sway over you. I could be wrong.

[fast4522]

I told you guys hcap and the boys would become increasingly more active as the election drew near and the polls showed that the Tea Party's impact was substantial.

In terms of terror alert color codes, hcap and the boys are sitting at Code Brown, as in "Shit Your Pants Time."


I agree completely, they have nothing left but to try to make it about race when in fact there is nothing about race. The American people reject socialism and the European mindset. Complete rejection of such left leanings is American and bad for their agenda which is nothing more than class warfare to disassemble or United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. The reason they are in "shit their pants mode" is because most of the McGovernics will be dead or have dementia by the time Americans forget about the screwing they just got.

[hcap]

I told you guys hcap and the boys would become increasingly more active as the election drew near and the polls showed that the Tea Party's impact was substantial.

In terms of terror alert color codes, hcap and the boys are sitting at Code Brown, as in "Shit Your Pants Time."Have you counted the number of ant-Obama/socialist/democratic/communist/social justice posts lately? Of course not. You really think your com-padres are just simply returning the ant-bush stuff. You think it's a wash. Tit for tat. As the midterms approach the off topic tirade has doubled. Just andymay and Ralph alone are posting more crap than all the anti bush posters ever posted over all the years bush was adored here. AND I MEAN ADORED

Personally, my posting is simply in response to the wall to wall fantasy land that prevails. The tea party myths are just that. And the southern strategy is a good model of what is happening. Not exactly the same or as despicable, but in line with what it was. A crass political maneuver bought into by more and more naive pissed off white folks. I would think blacks and Hispanics represent less than 1 % of your so-called "movement". You may win the house. But I don't think the tea baggers can govern worth a shit. Sort of like boxcars' rants every day on the floor of congress.

God help us all.

[xtb]

Crapolla by a reader "Samuel Oelando"in response on Krugman's blog in the NYT. His comment is meaningless You may not agree or like Krugman, but he is certainly qualified. And his graph and the one I posted earlier shows the phony frantic bullshit about runaway spending.for what it is.


Those "graphs" are a clever attempt to fool those who don't understand what a logarithmic scale is, into believing things aren't that bad. It makes something that is increasing exponentially, appear linear. Do you bet the horses using a Martingale system? It would also appear linear using a logarithmic scale.

[hcap]

Those "graphs" are a clever attempt to fool those who don't understand what a logarithmic scale is, into believing things aren't that bad. It makes something that is increasing exponentially, appear linear. Do you bet the horses using a Martingale system? It would also appear linear using a logarithmic scale.

http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/image20.png

The delta or rater of growth does not change very much. Lpg or not. That is my point

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/deficit_growth.PNG

This is not logarithmic.The red expenditures have only gone up a small amount. Again my point of extreme exaggeration by tea partiers and the PA off topic anti everything just say no posters.

[PaceAdvantage]

Have you counted the number of ant-Obama/socialist/democratic/communist/social justice posts lately? Of course not. You really think your com-padres are just simply returning the ant-bush stuff. You think it's a wash. Tit for tat. As the midterms approach the off topic tirade has doubled. Just andymay and Ralph alone are posting more crap than all the anti bush posters ever posted over all the years bush was adored here. AND I MEAN ADOREDI don't really care anymore about any of this. It is what it is.

And certainly not the point I was making...

[DJofSD]

Well, Mike, at least he's consistent with his political under pinnings. I mean, liberals want everything fair and square: the count of the posting for the pro's and the con's have to be the same while all of the rest of us normal folks are just happy you let us post and have these debates!

[hcap]

Well, Mike, at least he's consistent with his political under pinnings. I mean, liberals want everything fair and square: the count of the posting for the pro's and the con's have to be the same while all of the rest of us normal folks are just happy you let us post and have these debates!This is not a question of a fairness doctrine . But when I am told I am getting antsy as the election approaches while you gentlemen are somehow perfectly calm and above the ruckus, is a bit disingenuous and laughable.

My liberal underpinnings require tolerance of others views, but not nonchalantly accepting others' bullshit.

[Tom]

Anyone else find it amusing that, after taking both the WH and congress, and getting all thier agenda items passed, all we see are anti-obama threads? NO NONE hardly ever has a good thing to say about him. hcap is forced into Bush=Bad, year 10. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Tom]

My liberal underpinnings require tolerance of others views, but not nonchalantly accepting others' bullshit.

My conservative underpinnings require me view other's as bullshit! :cool:

[ArlJim78]

_m06sSoZ5bo
..

[hcap]

Anyone else find it amusing that, after taking both the WH and congress, and getting all thier agenda items passed, all we see are anti-obama threads? NO NONE hardly ever has a good thing to say about him. hcap is forced into Bush=Bad, year 10. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:"NO NONE hardly ever has a good thing to say about him"

http://www.bartcop.com/o-mess-clean-up.jpg

[bigmack]

_m06sSoZ5bo
..
Well, well, well...

That's about as immaculate of a media presentation as I have ever seen of a 4 year political nightmare.

[hcap]

So here is a direct comparison between just before Obama and Obama in expenditures.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/deficit_growth.PNG

For some reason tea baggers go crazy.Pa off topic is 24/7/365 non stop anti- everything Obama

BUT?







Funny how they were all so totally deaf and dumb until now...


http://www.bartcop.com/chart-debt-2010-tb.jpg

[dartman51]

Hcap, I know that you love to dig up charts that show the story that you want to tell. But surely, you know that Congress controls the purse strings. The Democrats controled BOTH houses of Congress from the last 2 years of Reagan, and all of HW's Presidency, and the first term of Clinton. Republicans had both houses for Clinton's 2nd term. The Democrats had the Senate for the first 2 years of GW,s first term. The Democrats have had control of both houses for the last 4 years. From the beginning of fiscal year, Oct 1 2000 to the end of the fiscal year, Sept 30 2006, the INCREASE in the National debt was $2,832,795,689,328.37 .6 years of Republican control. In the last 4 years, the National debt has INCREASED $5,054,649,131,676.56. DEMOCRAT CONTROL!! :eek:


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[hcap]

A crock. I will dispute your so-called facts later.

Where the hell was the d tea partytype movements during all these years? Where where the "take back the country" and "BUSH IS A Socialist" placards? Where were all the protests about the elites? All the anti black snide and prejudiced remarks by all the tea party type candidates?

[dartman51]

A crock. I will dispute your so-called facts later.

Where the hell was the d tea partytype movements during all these years? Where where the "take back the country" and "BUSH IS A Socialist" placards? Where were all the protests about the elites? All the anti black snide and prejudiced remarks by all the tea party type candidates?

A CROCK????? These numbers come straight from the GOVERNMENT web site. If you want to argue with the numbers, argue with them. It's ALL your DEM friends in charge. You need to get away from the DAILY KOS and other LEFTY web sites and breath some CLEAN air for a while. It MIGHT clear your head.

[delayjf]

Where the hell was the d tea partytype movements during all these years?

Regardless of what the Republicans did or did not do - it is not a justification for increasing spending now.

Regardless of who was in office, the rise in Gov spending is due mainly to liberal entitlement programs.

[ArlJim78]

the bailouts, and tarp, and the stimulus, and big new spending all hit within a span of about 5 months between 2008 and 2009. that lit the match, that was the straw that broke the camels back and made people get angry about our runaway government. asking where was the tea party was before they were even organized is like asking what the revolutionaries were doing before the Boston tea party. at a certain point people have had enough and decide that things have to change. prior to that point they sit around and tolerate this crap thinking that there is nothing they can do and that someone is going to come along and things.. at a certain point you realize that no one is going to fix it because the whole thing is currupt and broken, and that we have to fix it ourselves before the whole ship sinks. People who ascribe this to racism are clueless. white Rinos like McCain are targets and black conservative insurgents like Col. West are tea party heroes.

2008 was Hope & Change for Democrats, 2010 is Smear and Fear

[mostpost]

Hcap, I know that you love to dig up charts that show the story that you want to tell. But surely, you know that Congress controls the purse strings. The Democrats controled BOTH houses of Congress from the last 2 years of Reagan, and all of HW's Presidency, and the first term of Clinton. Republicans had both houses for Clinton's 2nd term. The Democrats had the Senate for the first 2 years of GW,s first term. The Democrats have had control of both houses for the last 4 years. From the beginning of fiscal year, Oct 1 2000 to the end of the fiscal year, Sept 30 2006, the INCREASE in the National debt was $2,832,795,689,328.37 .6 years of Republican control. In the last 4 years, the National debt has INCREASED $5,054,649,131,676.56. DEMOCRAT CONTROL!! :eek:


http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
Yours is such a phony argument. Congress appropriates money. It does not formulate policy. That is done by the Executive. The Executive proposes a budget. The budget contains thousands of items. Congress may make some changes, but it is a practical impossibility for Congress to make a major impact on the budget presented by the Executive.

When Reagan took office and for the next six years the Republicans controlled Congress. We had two tax cuts. We had no decrease in spending; in fact we had a large increase in military spending. Result; the debt tripled.
Under George H.W. Bush it was the Executive which proposed a tax increase.

Here are the deficit/surplus numbers from 1992 to 2000:
1992 -290,321
1993 -255,051
1994 -203,186
1995 -163,952
1996 -107,431
1997 -21,884
1998 69,270
1999 125,610
2000 236,241

From these numbers it is clear that the deficit began to drop immediately when Clinton took office. The policies which he set in place during his first term continued throughout his second term. Need I remind you of what happened when Gingrich shut down the government.
Can you provide me with specific legislation passed by those Republican Congresses which impacted the economy significantly and which were opposed by Democrats?

To summarze: It is policy which determines the economy. The Executive sets the policy. Congress is limited in how much it affects that policy. A good or a bad economy can always be laid directly at the feet of the Executive. AFTER
A REASONABLE TRANSITION PERIOD.

[Tom]

A crock. I will dispute your so-called facts later.

Where the hell was the d tea partytype movements during all these years? Where where the "take back the country" and "BUSH IS A Socialist" placards? Where were all the protests about the elites? All the anti black snide and prejudiced remarks by all the tea party type candidates?

Feel free to quote this in all your posts, as it is 100% you...


I HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA WHAT THE TEA PARTY IS ALL ABOUT.

[delayjf]

Can you provide me with specific legislation passed by those Republican Congresses which impacted the economy significantly and which were opposed by Democrats?

Welfare Reform

And I say again, their was not surplus under Clinton, the National Debt went up every year. Clinton borrowed against SS to make it appear that there was a surplus - it was a shell game. Also, both sides were pushing a medicare prescription plan - the major source of the increase in spending under Bush.

[delayjf]

in fact we had a large increase in military spending. Result; the debt tripled.

Now there was a stimulus packaged that worked. I'm a bit surprize that you disparage defense spending so vehmently - lots of union jobs at McDonald Douglas and Northrup Grumman.

[hcap]

Yours is such a phony argument. Congress appropriates money. It does not formulate policy. That is done by the Executive. The Executive proposes a budget. The budget contains thousands of items. Congress may make some changes, but it is a practical impossibility for Congress to make a major impact on the budget presented by the Executive. I believe veto rumps congress.So if this "theory" of congress shaping the direction of the country is at all valid-which it isn't-why didn't bush put a stop to many things you guys think are THE problems. He didn't. He vetoed stem cell research

As far as I can tell, the only veto overridden by congress that had any impact on the deficit-and that alone does not account for bush's economic ineptitude--was
July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[32] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President's veto.

Other than that he made no attempt veto anything else of economic substance.

POLICIES carried out by the administration that required NO bill of congress or approval primarily shaped the economic failure of his administration.

And remember he controlled all houses of congress when the bush tax cuts were enacted. One of the main culprits of the recession

[Tom]

What stupid, excessive, spending has Obama vetoed?

and mosite...what the hell are you smoking?

[Tom]

He vetoed stem cell research

No he did not. He stopped tax dollars going towards it. Your Sugar Daddy Soros could have contributed to it instead of funding commie dems, or your hero Castro could have used his might health care system to advance it. Or Michale "Meat" Moore could have contributed the profits from his cartoons to it, or Bill "No" Mahr could have kicked in, or your precious unions could have kicked in, man, if anyone is rolling in cash it is a union president.

All you miserable libs do is cry and whine and want other people to do everything for you., Grow a set, boys, and go do this shit for yourselves if you think it so GD important. What a bunch of cry-babies libs are.

[mostpost]

What stupid, excessive, spending has Obama vetoed?

and mosite...what the hell are you smoking?
If I see mosite, I'll as him. :lol: :lol:
Yes,I am making fun of your typing skills. :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

I was obviously referring to your Jewish counter-part. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Rocky,
You are talking about the budget which is made up at the beginning of the year as a projection. It is true that the Bush administration did not include the supplemental war costs here. These figures in the chart, by contrast, are the actual totals for all spending and income and do include the war spending.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... All you miserable libs do is cry and whine and want other people to do everything for you., Grow a set, boys, and go do this shit for yourselves if you think it so GD important...

These are my two favorite sentences from a splendid post. :cool:

[johnhannibalsmith]

If I see mosite, I'll as him. :lol: :lol:
Yes,I am making fun of your typing skills. :lol: :lol:

Yours truly,

King Irony IXXIV

[hcap]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day:


1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.

[fast4522]

We the people will as a majority vote on November 2 and cast down this current trend, this you can count on.

[Tom]

Yours truly,

King Irony IXXIV

I missed that! Good catch! :lol:

[Tom]

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

Well over a tril now...well over.

Where did you get all this stuff, The New Jerk Times? All the news you wish were true? :lol:

Every one is false, btw.

[hcap]

Well over a tril now...well over.

Where did you get all this stuff, The New Jerk Times? All the news you wish were true? :lol:

Every one is false, btw.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318

(Reuters) - Congressional budget analysts said on Thursday a broad healthcare overhaul would cut the U.S. deficit over 10 years and sharply expand insurance coverage, boosting the momentum for final passage in the House of Representatives.

.....House Democratic leaders unveiled the final changes to the overhaul, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would expand coverage at a cost of $940 billion over 10 years and cut the deficit by $138 billion in the same period through new fees, taxes and cost-saving measures.

[boxcar]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61O4NV20100318

(Reuters) - Congressional budget analysts said on Thursday a broad healthcare overhaul would cut the U.S. deficit over 10 years and sharply expand insurance coverage, boosting the momentum for final passage in the House of Representatives.

.....House Democratic leaders unveiled the final changes to the overhaul, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would expand coverage at a cost of $940 billion over 10 years and cut the deficit by $138 billion in the same period through new fees, taxes and cost-saving measures.

So...are you suggesting the CBO actually read the "health care" bill -- that non one else read prior to passing it? :bang:

Clue: You actually have to know what is in the gazillion-page bill before you can make any reasonable and intelligent budget predictions.

Boxcar

[Tom]

hcap, how is your new bridge in NY working out?

[mostpost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
If I see mosite, I'll as him.
Yes,I am making fun of your typing skills.



Yours truly,

King Irony IXXIV
__________________
"See sig" - CharlieD

Well, that is embarrassing. :blush: :blush:

Brush up on your Roman Numerals. IXXIV would the nineteenty fourth. :confused: :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Brush up on your Roman Numerals. IXXIV would the nineteenty fourth. :confused: :confused:

Okay, I won't point out the Goren-esque omission of an entire word because I appreciate that you translated my made-up numerals into a real number... nineteenty... I invented nineteenty... nineteenty... I love it!!!!!!

[mostpost]

So...are you suggesting the CBO actually read the "health care" bill -- that non one else read prior to passing it? :bang:

Clue: You actually have to know what is in the gazillion-page bill before you can make any reasonable and intelligent budget predictions.

Boxcar
You are not allowed to use the word "Clue" since you obviously don't have one. :bang:
The CBO did read the bill. That's what they do. They are tasked with the economic analysis of legislation. The CBO uses economic models and previous history to predict the effects of legislation on the economy.
If the CBO tells me the Health Care legislation will reduce the deficit by $138B, I will certainly believe them before I believe it will increase it by $1T.
Especially if I get the latter information from a deceptive weasel like Limbaugh or Beck.

[bigmack]

You are not allowed to use the word "Clue" since you obviously don't have one.
Speaking of clues, were you able to find any evidence of man causing climate change? You ran so fast out of that thread a while ago it appeared you were talking out of your... Well, you get the idea.

[Tom]

Brush up on your Roman Numerals. IXXIV would the nineteenty fourth.

Hope you did better with the zip codes! :eek:

[boxcar]

You are not allowed to use the word "Clue" since you obviously don't have one. :bang:
The CBO did read the bill. That's what they do. They are tasked with the economic analysis of legislation. The CBO uses economic models and previous history to predict the effects of legislation on the economy.
If the CBO tells me the Health Care legislation will reduce the deficit by $138B, I will certainly believe them before I believe it will increase it by $1T.
Especially if I get the latter information from a deceptive weasel like Limbaugh or Beck.

Right. And not only did the CBO read the bill, but they're infinitely smarter than the pols and bureaucrats who currently can't make heads or tails out it after it was passed because the bill is so convoluted and confusing. Yet, the CBO understood it perfectly before it was passed? :bang: :bang:

I not only stand by my observation that you're without a clue, but will also add that you keep digging that Dark Pit of Naivete deeper for yourself with every passing day. You'll believe anything any pol or organization of your political persuasion tells you. Critical thinking skills are not your strong suit. Neither is thinking outside the box -- well, maybe a letter box. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. Is it any wonder the prophet of my tag line wrote what he did? In more ways than one, I might add. :rolleyes:

[delayjf]

If the CBO tells me the Health Care legislation will reduce the deficit by $138B

Not according to the lastest CBO estimates - Pelosi was right, we'd need to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

[mostpost]

P.S. Is it any wonder the prophet of my tag line wrote what he did? In more ways than one, I might add.
All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge...Jer 51:17
is one translation of Jeremiah 51-17.
Here is another:
At this everyone stands stupefied, uncomprehending, every goldsmith blushes for his idols; his castings are but delusion, with no breath in them.
The definition of stupefy is "To make dull witted or stupid," but it can also mean "to cause consternation." The verses leading up to verse 17 tell the story of the coming attack on Babylon and the terrible destruction which will ensue. Jeremiah says the destruction will be so complete and terrible that men will be unable to fathom it.
"All mankind is stupid" is a bad translation because it causes people to think, as you do, that man does not have the capacity to understand the world he lives in. That we will always be as we were in ancient times.
"At this everyone stands stupefied" is a much better translation because it acknowledges events that may cause us to lose our understanding, yet gives hope for the future.

[boxcar]

is one translation of Jeremiah 51-17.
Here is another:

The definition of stupefy is "To make dull witted or stupid," but it can also mean "to cause consternation." The verses leading up to verse 17 tell the story of the coming attack on Babylon and the terrible destruction which will ensue. Jeremiah says the destruction will be so complete and terrible that men will be unable to fathom it.
"All mankind is stupid" is a bad translation because it causes people to think, as you do, that man does not have the capacity to understand the world he lives in. That we will always be as we were in ancient times.
"At this everyone stands stupefied" is a much better translation because it acknowledges events that may cause us to lose our understanding, yet gives hope for the future.

:lol: :lol: I don't know who is worse at this spinfest -- your or 'cap. :lol: :lol: Fer sure -- one of y'all deserve the Fickle Finger of Fate Award. :D

First off, Sherlock, even if the prophet was alluding to man's understanding of the world -- even if it was (and the operative word here is "IF"), you can't logically give this as reason for rejecting the NASB translation or any translation for that matter. What you just essentially said is: I don't like how that translation came out, so I'm going to categorically reject it. Cute. :rolleyes:

With that aside, the good news (for me, not you :D ) is that the prophet wasn't saying what you think he was. He was not talking about mankind's intellectual capacity or man's understanding of the world around him -- of the world in which he lived. He wasn't alluding to man's mere, raw intellectual capacity on a scale (e.g. quick, smart, dull, dimwitted, etc.). He was referring, instead, to man's moral/spiritual capacity. If you had paid attention to me, I have said in the recent past that the term "stupid" in the bible is used in very similar fashion to the terms "fool(s)" or "foolish" in that all these terms basically denote a serious moral deficiency.

The prophet actually tells us why "all mankind is stupid" in the second qualifying phrase, i.e. "devoid of knowledge". Man is stupid because he doesn't have knowledge of something specific. The text is not saying that man is stupid because he doesn't have any knowledge of anything! That would be an absurd statement. In fact, if you had bothered to check, the larger context of the passage would have helped you to understand the prophet's true spiritual meaning:

Jer 51:17-19
17 All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge;
Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols,
For his molten images are deceitful,
And there is no breath in them.
18 They are worthless, a work of mockery;
In the time of their punishment they will perish.
19 The portion of Jacob is not like these;
For the Maker of all is He,
And of the tribe of His inheritance;
The Lord of hosts is His name.
NASB

All unbelievers are idolaters. All. Without any exception; for all unbelievers hold something or someone in higher esteem or regard than the one true God. Therefore, all unbelievers are idolaters. This is why Jeremiah could say "all mankind". (The term "all" here is not used in the universal sense but in the limited sense, as it is often used in scripture and all conventions of languages.)

The bible speaks a great deal about the "knowledge of God". And this is to what the prophet was alluding. In fact, "knowledge of God" is also antithetical to ignorance. And "knowledge of God" has the exact opposite effect upon believers than what stupidity does to unbelievers:

Prov 2:5-8
5 Then you will discern the fear of the Lord,
And discover the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.
7 He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk in integrity,
8 Guarding the paths of justice,
And He preserves the way of His godly ones.
NASB

The people described above are anything but stupid! And they're certainly not idolaters!

Finally, note how broadly the bible defines "idolatry". It has a much wider meaning than most people imagine:

1 Sam 15:23
23 "For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He has also rejected you from being king."
NASB

And again,

Col 3:5
5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
NASB

This is how the same apostle could tell the church at Rome that non one understands:

Rom 3:11
There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
NASB

Like the prophet, Paul isn't saying that no one understands anything of the world around him per se. And here again, the second phrase qualifies the first. People don't understand because they don't seek God. And if they don't seek God, how can they have any true knowledge of him? And if they have no true knowledge, are they not all stupid?

However, having said all this it should be understood that it's axiomatic that all truth is God's truth. He is The Truth (so said Jesus) and he is the source of all truth (so said Christ again); therefore each one of us can properly understand the meaning of life and our purpose for living only to the extent that we believe God -- to the extent that we appropriate His truth for our own lives. For example, I can look around the world and see the direction governments and economies are moving, and it all makes good sense to me because I view the world, the world systems, world events, etc. through the prism of God's revelation. In short, my world view is a biblical world view.

No need for clever, convoluted spin jobs, Mosty. The bible really isn't that difficult to understand if you approach it with the right frame of mind and disposition of heart.

Boxcar

[Tom]

Austin 3:16 "I just whooped your ass!"
Q_atmzsOrK0&feature=related

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.
.................................................. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy is a Republican Party method of winning Southern states in the latter decades of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century by exploiting opposition to the cultural upheaval of the 1960s/70s and in reaction to the changing economics of the South.

.................................................. ................
So don't tell me what is happening now is not a21st century update of an old playbook.

The NAACP points out that the tea party attracts extremist right wing hate groups . They are correct
[YT=""]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ms9Wm1F9mtY&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ms9Wm1F9mtY&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[Tom]

Who would know racism better than the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE?

Give it up hcap, you are totally clueless about the Tea Party movement.
Don't embarrass yourself.

I'll wait for you to get your email response.

[hcap]

What percentage of tea partiers are NOT white ?
How many blacks and hispanics?

Duke is an extremist bigot The tea party groups should go out of their way to disassociate themselves from any one like Duke. There are many like him supporting the movement

[lsbets]

Hcap, David Duke has spent most of the past 10 years associating himself with the left wing, anti semetic so called peace movement. They have a lot in common.

Tea Party - Allen West.

"Peace Movement" - David Duke.

[delayjf]

The NAACP points out that the tea party attracts extremist right wing hate groups .

Considering the authors of the study why am I not surprized by their conclusions:

The Washington Post reports that the NAACP-endorsed “Tea Party Nationalism” was “put together” by the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights, but doesn’t report further on who the IREHR is. Politico reports that the NAACP “commissioned Leonard Zeskind and Devin Burghart” to write the study, but makes no mention of who Zeskind or Burghart are other than noting their association with the Institute.

The IREHR is a group with “long-held dreams for social and economic justice,“ who condemn the ”so-called Christian right, paleo-conservatism, and other far-right movements“ for their ”symbiotic relationship[s] with nativism and white nationalism.”

Has Obama ever distanced himself from the Black Panthers or Louis Farrakhan?

[hcap]

Hcap, David Duke has spent most of the past 10 years associating himself with the left wing, anti semetic so called peace movement. They have a lot in common.

Tea Party - Allen West.

"Peace Movement" - David Duke.Watch the video I posted

[boxcar]

Let me see if I understand this, Mr. 'cappy: Duke = one guy who shows up at some rally, right? And that's proof-positive that the TP is racist? Using your logic, therefore, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (what an oxymoron when this term is used in the same breath with your handle) :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , could I not say that the Left consists mostly of communists or communist sympathizers, since several communist organizations showed up at that pathetic leftist rally last month in D.C.?

Consider my parable: If a little bit of leaven (Duke) leavened the entire lump (the TP movement), then how much more so would a great deal of leaven (all the commie demonstrators in D.C.) leaven the whole lump (the Democrat Party)?

Please get back to me on this, will ya?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

There are many like him supporting the movement

Put up or shut up: Where's the proof of this? Or have you succumbed to your delusions again?

Boxcar

[hcap]

Let me see if I understand this, Mr. 'cappy: Duke = one guy who shows up at some rally, right? And that's proof-positive that the TP is racist? No I said the the tea party attracts racists. The money BEHIND the tea parties is cynically using an old time racist political strategy, the Southern strategy as a scare tactic

[boxcar]

No I said the the tea party attracts racists. The money BEHIND the tea parties is cynically using an old time racist political strategy, the Southern strategy as a scare tactic

Fine. Then using your logic, I can say that the Democrat Party attracts communists, can't I?

Boxcar

[lsbets]

No I said the the tea party attracts racists. The money BEHIND the tea parties is cynically using an old time racist political strategy, the Southern strategy as a scare tactic

So in your world would it be fair to say that the peace movement attracts Jew hating anti semites and does nothing to discourage them?

Give it a break Hcap. I'm not watching a video featuring one of Light's favorite guys to quote. The people you like to associate yourself with have much more in common with vile racists like Duke than the average tea partier. And you know it, you're not dumb.

It must be hard. You were duped by hopenchange. We all told you it was a crock, and we were right, but you are not man enough to admit it. You got snookered. Its okay, so did lots of other people, the only thing is, lots of others are not too small to admit it.

[bigmack]

What percentage of tea partiers are NOT white ?
How many blacks and hispanics?
You've become such a joke I feel silly responding to your idiocy.

How many black men are employed by all of NPR? As of this week, none.

Behold, one of your motherships.

http://predictablehipster.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/msnbc-white-sour.jpg

[Tom]

Didn't NPR just fire 100% of their Black employees? :lol:

hcap.....I tired to warn you.
You just look so foolish now, it is sad.

[hcap]

Fine. Then using your logic, I can say that the Democrat Party attracts communists, can't I?

BoxcarYeah, you can but communists are communists. We don't pretend. a new "movement" that is somehow the voice of the people. When the communists are running they run same old line. And the dens repudiate communists. All the tea party has to do is the same

The tea party is an artificially astro turfed "movement" and to claim it is independent from rethugs or your beloved rinos is laughable.

Peace marches may attract weirdos as Ls points but the right wing groups pf loonies have us beat in quantity. I remember the largest peace demonstrations in hidstory. 10 million worldwide just before bush invaded. No one carrying weapons

[hcap]

You've become such a joke I feel silly responding to your idiocy.

How many black men are employed by all of NPR? As of this week, none.

Behold, one of your motherships.

http://predictablehipster.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/msnbc-white-sour.jpgMan, are you out of it. Whadanatta' can't dig up some archaic cultural figure to dump on? Maybe your bud toe can do a flat Sarah Silverman joke.

BTW, how many black anchors on faux? Maybe I am not up to date, but......
While CNN has the most Black news anchors with eight, the other cable networks don't fair as well. MSNBC has only one Black--Alison Stewart--while the Fox News Channel, with its motto "Fair and Balanced," is not balanced at all, having no Black anchors to host a regular time slot. .

[boxcar]

Yeah, you can but communists are communists. We don't pretend. a new "movement" that is somehow the voice of the people. When the communists are running they run same old line. And the dens repudiate communists. All the tea party has to do is the same

The tea party is an artificially astro turfed "movement" and to claim it is independent from rethugs or your beloved rinos is laughable.

Peace marches may attract weirdos as Ls points but the right wing groups pf loonies have us beat in quantity. I remember the largest peace demonstrations in hidstory. 10 million worldwide just before bush invaded. No one carrying weapons

:lol: :lol: You "don't pretend"? :lol: :lol: Everything about liberalism is a lie. And the Dems "repudiate communists"? When did this happen? I didn't see or hear about any communists getting the boot at the D.C. rally. Better try to sell that line to Mzzzzz. Pelosiiiiii (good luck with that!) who believes as Marx did that there is great disparity in wages, equity and ownership. And she wasn't talking about in some banana republic either. She was talking in this country! In other words, like her ideology's Founding Father, she wants to see equal outcomes. She wants to confiscate wealth from the Earners and give to the ObamaBucks Takers.

Boxcar
P.S. For your info, "right wing pf loonies" have you commie sympathizers beat every way but loose -- not just in quantity. Although I will predict a massive voter turnout next month. Mark my words on this. And that turnout will spell "doom" for your side.

[hcap]

All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge...Jer 51:17

Hey box, you finally came up with a srmi autobiographical biblical tag line.
Finally I can see the context out of which it originated

[boxcar]

Hey box, you finally came up with a srmi autobiographical biblical tag line.
Finally I can see the context out of which it originated

Even if that were true, I'd still be miles ahead of you in the smarts department. ;)

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

The tea party is an artificially astro turfed "movement" and to claim it is independent from rethugs or your beloved rinos is laughable.It must be killing you that the Tea Party has been this effective to date. You guys tried so hard to kill it and beat it down with your early claims of racism and whatever other bullshit you tried to throw its way.

Now that it is apparent that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and that its credibility has survived and even thrived despite your's and the left's constant attacks, it must suck to be you... :lol:

[mostpost]

It must be killing you that the Tea Party has been this effective to date. You guys tried so hard to kill it and beat it down with your early claims of racism and whatever other bullshit you tried to throw its way.

Now that it is apparent that the Tea Party isn't going anywhere, and that its credibility has survived and even thrived despite your's and the left's constant attacks, it must suck to be you... :lol:
I bet they can't spell effective either. :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

Man, are you out of it. Whadanatta' can't dig up some archaic cultural figure to dump on? Maybe your bud toe can do a flat Sarah Silverman joke.

BTW, how many black anchors on faux? Maybe I am not up to date, but......
Tamron Hall is also a black anchor on MSNBC.

[boxcar]

But I bet PA knows how many states there are in the Union.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I bet they can't spell effective either. :lol: :lol:Why, I have no idea what you are talking about. It looks 100% correct to me...I just went back and looked.

[mostpost]

Why, I have no idea what you are talking about. It looks 100% correct to me...I just went back and looked.
Helps to be the monitor, doesn't it? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge...Jer 51:17

A tea party intellectual critique of health care....

[YT=""]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pilG7PCV448&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pilG7PCV448&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[johnhannibalsmith]

Uh oh, a sample of Tea Party L.C.D.... somebody quick post up the OBAMA BUCKS video to show an accurate portrayal of most Democrats...

[boxcar]

Be careful what your wish for, 'cap. Let's go to the other side of the political spectrum and take a walk on that Dark Side, and let's hear some amazingly candid comments -- considering the sources.

LQy_XpzwRn0

Next case:

mcyNVE7RsKY

[boxcar]

Uh oh, a sample of Tea Party L.C.D.... somebody quick post up the OBAMA BUCKS video to show an accurate portrayal of most Democrats...

I did just that, but not the way you think. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

Be careful what your wish for, 'cap. Let's go to the other side of the political spectrum and take a walk on that Dark Side, and let's hear some amazingly candid comments -- considering the sources.

LQy_XpzwRn0


Dean makes perfect sense. Adding 4% more to those earning over $250,000 a year is equitable. BTW, they are taxed at the same level as everyone else up until $250,000


Next case:

mcyNVE7RsKY

Again with this nonsense? All the western democracies do this and score better on per capita costs and efficacy Both of these videos represent intellectually honest informed views. Not extreme or Marxist or Socialist. Mainstream 21st century approaches to reality. Whereas the tea party interviewees were uninformed and kinda out of it. And these are the folks you want running the country?? Of course yo do. You guys are just like them.

[boxcar]

Just for the record: So, you're in you're in full agreement with the cornerstone of Marxist ideology that says, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Without question Marx had redistribution of wealth in mind when he penned those words.

And for the record: I don't give a flip what other sovereign nations do. I'm only concerned about what this nation does. All mankind is stupid because Man is it's idol. Man is going to save Man. Man is going to save the planet. Man ('ol Harry, that is) has saved the world from economic depression. Man (this time Pelosi) has in mind to save Man from the horrible disparities in wages, equity and ownership. Man, Man, Man. It's all about Man, which is why Socialism, Progessivism and Communism are downright STUPID forms of human governance. And this is why they don't work and never will work.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Whereas the tea party interviewees were uninformed and kinda out of it...


You were doing okay just calling Tea Partiers dumb, but now that we're doing comparisons... I really would like to see some of those classic examples of voters counting on hope and change...

[Greyfox]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

How true in that vid.

[hcap]

You were doing okay just calling Tea Partiers dumb, but now that we're doing comparisons... I really would like to see some of those classic examples of voters counting on hope and change...
Or compassionate conservatism or on trickle down economics. Each group has it's own set of myths granted.

The tea party just has a lot more

[bigmack]

Or compassionate conservatism or on trickle down economics. Each group has it's own set of myths granted.
The tea party just has a lot more
The intellect & % of blacks amongst your comrades is non-existent, and you fools have been around for decades. :eek:

You & your kind are racist dolts.

http://zombietime.com/sf_anti-war_rally_3-20-2010/IMG_3077.JPG

[boxcar]

Typical of simple-minded pacifists. The depth of their understanding of human nature runs as deep as their skin.

Boxcar

[Tom]

The tea party just has a lot more

I doubt that very much. :lol:

[mostpost]

A tea party intellectual critique of health care....

[YT=""]<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pilG7PCV448&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pilG7PCV448&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
I think the interviewer on this is excellent. He let's the people talk. He doesn't ridicule. He courteously points out where their views are not supported by reality. he steps back and allows them to expose their own lack of knowledge. Chase Whiteside is his name.

[boxcar]

I think the interviewer on this is excellent. He let's the people talk. He doesn't ridicule. He courteously points out where their views are not supported by reality. he steps back and allows them to expose their own lack of knowledge. Chase Whiteside is his name.

You mean his version of reality. ;)

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/real-tea-party

The Washington Post, after a massive effort to contact every tea party group in the nation, says their activism has probably been overrated:

Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.

....The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research.

....In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist.

In other words, the grassroots tea party movement (lower case) is a lot less important than most people think. Conversely, Tea Party Inc. (upper case) is considerably more important than it's usually given credit for

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_tea_party_inc.jpg

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/files/managed/TeaPartyInc.pdf

[boxcar]

Hey, 'cap, be sure to remind us AFTER the upcoming elections just how overrated the TP was. Okay?

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

I think the interviewer on this is excellent. He let's the people talk. He doesn't ridicule. He courteously points out where their views are not supported by reality. he steps back and allows them to expose their own lack of knowledge. Chase Whiteside is his name.

Yes and no.
Yes he steps back and allows them to expose their own lack of knowleedge.
No, he doesn't get it that they don't want medicare from the Government no matter what is in the bill.
By the way, how many Senators and Congressmen actually know what is in the bill?

[Tom]

Since the BITCH became SOH in 200 and declared no more deficit spending, the deficit has grown 5 trillion dollars.

As this BS these progressive pupperts here arae spoihting about the TP is just smoke - we all know who the REAL liars and thieves are - and that's the bottom line.

hcap's delusions about the TP and mostie's delusions about reality notwithstanding.

[PaceAdvantage]

Helps to be the monitor, doesn't it? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :ThmbUp:Guilty as charged your honor.

[PaceAdvantage]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/real-tea-party

The Washington Post, after a massive effort to contact every tea party group in the nation, says their activism has probably been overrated:

Seventy percent of the grass-roots groups said they have not participated in any political campaigning this year. As a whole, they have no official candidate slates, have not rallied behind any particular national leader, have little money on hand, and remain ambivalent about their goals and the political process in general.

....The findings suggest that the breadth of the tea party may be inflated. The Atlanta-based Tea Party Patriots, for example, says it has a listing of more than 2,300 local groups, but The Post was unable to identify anywhere near that many, despite help from the organization and independent research.

....In all, The Post identified more than 1,400 possible groups and was able to verify and reach 647 of them. Each answered a lengthy questionnaire about their beliefs, members and goals. The Post tried calling the others as many as six times. It is unclear whether they are just hard to reach or don't exist.

In other words, the grassroots tea party movement (lower case) is a lot less important than most people think. Conversely, Tea Party Inc. (upper case) is considerably more important than it's usually given credit for

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_tea_party_inc.jpg

http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/files/managed/TeaPartyInc.pdfWell then...sucks to be you even more than...

Now you know how it felt during the days of "MoveOn.org" :lol:

[mostpost]

Since the BITCH became SOH in 200 and declared no more deficit spending, the deficit has grown 5 trillion dollars.

As this BS these progressive pupperts here arae spoihting about the TP is just smoke - we all know who the REAL liars and thieves are - and that's the bottom line.

hcap's delusions about the TP and mostie's delusions about reality notwithstanding.
You are becoming incoherent. Who is the BITCH? What is SOH? And do you mean 200AD or 200BC?
......deficit spending, the deficit has grown 5 trillion dollars.
Have one of your smarter friends explain the difference between deficit and debt. In any case, your numbers are incorrect. On Jan. 20, 2009 the debt stood at $10.626T. On Oct 22 2010 it stands at $13.667T. $3T is still too much, but 3/4 trillion of that was caused by a reduction in revenue which can be traced to the Bush tax cuts and to the economic recession caused by supply side economics. Another 3/4 trillion can be traced to various bailouts all of which were unanimously supported by Republicans. Add to that the 3/4 trillion dollar stimulus which was necessary to combat the recession and you see most of that $3T could have been avoided.

While researching this reply, I ran across this video which will greatly aid you in understanding this subject. :lol: :lol: Who am I kidding? You are not capable of understanding.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[JustRalph]

You are becoming incoherent. Who is the BITCH? What is SOH? And do you mean 200AD or 200BC?

You really couldn't figure that out? Explains your thinking completely

[bigmack]

Who am I kidding? You are not capable of understanding.

Good point. T is an idiot.

With that in mind, pick a subject and we'll open a thread that only you & T can debate. Ya know, like selections, but with a subject at hand.

What do ya say? Would you like to debate T on a subject, Man to Postman?

[Greyfox]

Good point. T is an idiot.

With that in mind, pick a subject and we'll open a thread that only you & T can debate. Ya know, like selections, but with a subject at hand.

What do ya say? Would you like to debate T on a subject, Man to Postman?

Couldn't that be achieved by PM one another back and forth if it's a private debate? Otherwise, the board is open to members as I understand it.

[Tom]

This idiot says to mosite - check the facts - 5 trillion it is.
And SOH is speaker of the house, and the bitch is Pelosi.

If you have that much trouble keeping up, try OT Sports for a while.

[boxcar]

Yes and no.
Yes he steps back and allows them to expose their own lack of knowleedge.
No, he doesn't get it that they don't want medicare from the Government no matter what is in the bill.
By the way, how many Senators and Congressmen actually know what is in the bill?

You nailed it! There are people like myself who are opposed to socialized medicine in principle. Therefore, such people don't give a flip what's in the bill. Some don't want government meddling and intrusion into a very personal and private area of their lives. Period. Others see wealth redistribution schemes as morally reprehensible. End of story. And others, yet, for both reasons.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Oh, 'cap, where art thou? Are you hiding under a rock? Playing possum? I couldn't help but notice this morning, as I'm sipping on my great cup of java, your deafening silence to the question I posed to you in #115. Puddy have your tongue?

Don't go belly up on me, 'cap. Just make that concerted effort to be honest with yourself for a Change. (I can only Hope, right? :rolleyes: ) Just come out and answer the question, and if you don't agree with the Marxist Creed, then explain to me how you can at once disagree with it but yet support wealth redistribution schemes, as you have already admitted.

Boxcar
P.S. Of course, other libs can feel free to jump in here too. I can handle being outnumbered in any water balloon fight. After all, I have a perfect Dry Spell record -- not a drop on me. ;)

[mostpost]

This idiot says to mosite - check the facts - 5 trillion it is.
And SOH is speaker of the house, and the bitch is Pelosi.

If you have that much trouble keeping up, try OT Sports for a while.
Now that I know what SOH is, your figures are correct. National debt on 1/1/07 was $8.677T; today it is $13.677T. Two problems though; the house appropriates money it does not formulate policy. The budget is proposed by the White House. It can be modified by Congress, but most of what it is in the budget as passed is what the President requested. Second thing is George W. Bush was President during Pelosi's first term as Speaker. Democrats did have control of Congress, but they did not have a veto proof majority. Why didn't Bush use the veto?

[mostpost]

Oh, 'cap, where art thou? Are you hiding under a rock? Playing possum? I couldn't help but notice this morning, as I'm sipping on my great cup of java, your deafening silence to the question I posed to you in #115. Puddy have your tongue?

Don't go belly up on me, 'cap. Just make that concerted effort to be honest with yourself for a Change. (I can only Hope, right? :rolleyes: ) Just come out and answer the question, and if you don't agree with the Marxist Creed, then explain to me how you can at once disagree with it but yet support wealth redistribution schemes, as you have already admitted.

Boxcar
P.S. Of course, other libs can feel free to jump in here too. I can handle being outnumbered in any water balloon fight. After all, I have a perfect Dry Spell record -- not a drop on me. ;)
I know why he didn't answer. It's a stupid question.

Marx wanted everyone to be exactly equal, with nobody owning anything. Theoretically a classless society. In reality it turned into a two class society.
The Party on top and very rich and powerful, and everyone else on the bottom and very poor and powerless. This is the society which you want, except the Communist Party is replaced by the Corporate power structure; on top Wall Street, on the bottom everyone else.

In Marx's ideal scenario (which never came to fruition) there was only one class. In Communism as it developed and in your ideal scenario, there are two classes and a very distinct line between them.

I'm not speaking for Hcap, but my ideal scenario is the one that propelled this country to the heights it once achieved. A scenario which you and your cohort have never understood. A strong middle class is absolutely essential to a successful nation. Requiring businesses to adequately compensate their employees is not redistribution of wealth it is proper distribution of wealth. Requiring society to care for the unfortunate is not redistribution of wealth it is common decency.

You want to keep certain elements in a position of impotence, because that allows you to feel superior. All your braggadocio and name calling are sure signs of a insecure and inadequate person. But as long as there is someone who is struggling, there is someone you can look down on and say, "I'm better than that." The truth is the better person is the one who can say, "I want that unfortunate person to be as good as I am"

Now go grab a towel; you all wet.

[hcap]

Oh, 'cap, where art thou? Are you hiding under a rock? Playing possum? I couldn't help but notice this morning, as I'm sipping on my great cup of java, your deafening silence to the question I posed to you in #115. Puddy have your tongue?

n, and if you don't agree with the Marxist Creed, then explain to me how you can at once disagree with it but yet support wealth redistribution schemes, as you have already admitted.
.................................................. ...........

PST#

...Just for the record: So, you're in you're in full agreement with the cornerstone of Marxist ideology that says, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"? Without question Marx had redistribution of wealth in mind when he penned those words.
No. You just rephrased the old question "Do you still beat your wife?" I HAVE ANSWERED MANY MANY TIMES THAT I FAVOR A MIXED ECONOMY BASED ON REGULATED CAPITALISM. I DO NOT WORSHIP AT THE FEET OF YOUR FALSE IDOLS UNREGULATED FREE MARKETS AND A DIVINE INVISIBLE HAND.

[boxcar]

No. You just rephrased the old question "Do you still beat your wife?" I HAVE ANSWERED MANY MANY TIMES THAT I FAVOR A MIXED ECONOMY BASED ON REGULATED CAPITALISM. I DO NOT WORSHIP AT THE FEET OF YOUR FALSE IDOLS UNREGULATED FREE MARKETS AND A DIVINE INVISIBLE HAND.

You haven't answered the question. Nice deflect. You stated earlier that you are in favor of wealth redistribution schemes, as Karl Marx was also. The Marxist Creed is "from each to according to his ability to each according to his means". How does your support of state-mandated wealth redistribution schemes materially differ from this Marxist creed? Simple question.

I already know you're a socialist, which is communism lite -- even if you don't want to admit it or are reluctant to admit this. Socialism is a form of Communism.

Boxcar

[hcap]

All men have 2 legs. All men are mammals.
All ostriches have 2 legs. All ostriches are mammals.

All egotistical men are convinced they are always right. All egotistical men are full of shit.

Boxcar is convinced he his always right

........fill in the rest

[Greyfox]

All ostriches have 2 legs.

Whew. You corrected that. For awhile I thought 1 legged ostriches were in.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AwkzJi_-hyk/SqVbnZZ6HyI/AAAAAAAAGcI/B3pfR_O4_78/s320/lone+ostrich.JPG.

[hcap]

Box, you use all of these logical fallacies AlL the time

1-Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"

2-Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. For example, "All chairs have four legs." Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair ?

3-Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as "Taxation is theft" fall in this category.

4-Argument By Dismissal:
an idea is rejected without saying why.

Dismissals usually have overtones. For example, "If you don't like it, leave the country" implies that your cause is hopeless, or that you are unpatriotic, or that your ideas are foreign, or maybe all three. "If you don't like it, live in a Communist country" adds an emotive element.

5-Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)

there is an old saying about how if you allow a camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow.

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.

[boxcar]

I know why he didn't answer. It's a stupid question.

Marx wanted everyone to be exactly equal, with nobody owning anything. And what does your heroine Pelosi want!? Has she not bemoanded the disparities in wages, equity and ownership? Is she not alluding to a "classless society" -- a society with equal outcomes? A society with a completely level playing field? :bang: :bang:

This is the society which you want, except the Communist Party is replaced by the Corporate power structure; on top Wall Street, on the bottom everyone else.

Just remember: It's the Private Sector that creates, generates and produces wealthy. The Public Sector has never done this and never will.

I'm not speaking for Hcap, but my ideal scenario is the one that propelled this country to the heights it once achieved. A scenario which you and your cohort have never understood. A strong middle class is absolutely essential to a successful nation. Requiring businesses to adequately compensate their employees is not redistribution of wealth it is proper distribution of wealth. Requiring society to care for the unfortunate is not redistribution of wealth it is common decency.

I have a sidekick? Pray tell, who may that be? :D I don't think I have too many friends on this forum. Trust me on that.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of free-market Capitalism. Companies do not PRIMARILY exist to provide people with jobs, benefits or retirement programs. Business owners primary objective is to sell a goods or service at attractive prices in the market place in order to realize a profit for the business, and if it's a public corporation dividends for its investors, as well. The nature of the business world, however, is such that the vast majority of businesses employ people out of necessity. And in a free-market, the market itself will largely determine employees' wages, benefits, etc. (It's called competition.) But the employment of people per se, is not the primary reason businesses exist.

You want to keep certain elements in a position of impotence, because that allows you to feel superior. All your braggadocio and name calling are sure signs of a insecure and inadequate person. But as long as there is someone who is struggling, there is someone you can look down on and say, "I'm better than that." The truth is the better person is the one who can say, "I want that unfortunate person to be as good as I am"

Now go grab a towel; you all wet.

No! There you go projecting again. Liberalism wants to keep certain elements in society impotent and dependent. This works to the advantage of dishonest, deceitful, greedy and power-hungry politicians at election time.
The Poor and the Ignorant and the Naive are Liberals' voting base.

Then indeed I am the better person by far -- by grace of the Almighty! For when I want to help my NEIGHBOR, I will take the steps necessary (to the best of my ability) to lend him a helping hand up -- as opposed to making perpetual handouts. I will do it the biblical way.

And I will also "brag" of my morally superior position by pointing to the bible and how the Word of God supports my case against Socialism or Communism, and what it means to truly means to love your neighbor as yourself..

And finally, I will also "boast" of my morally superior position by pointing to the the fact that I do not support Double Standards. Nor do I talk out of both sides of my mouth. I don't condemn all the supposed corporate thieves out there and then praise and support the state for engaging in the same thievery, under the color of law, I just condemned! :bang: :bang: Two wrongs do not make a right -- and never will! I do not, nor ever will, advocate or support state confiscation of the fruits of hard working people's labors in order to redistribute those fruits to faceless, nameless, questionably worthy human beings for the ultimate benefit of crooked politicians. How dare you try to force you perverse ideas of morality upon me and anyone else who instinctively realizes how depraved these social engineering or wealth redistribution schemes are. Most conservatives on this forum are not Christians -- but even so -- they intuitively sense how morally wrong Marx's Creed of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is. It's an exceedingly wicked, godless creed -- therefore by extensiion the methods governments use to implement it, e.g. wealth redistribution and social engineering programs! Communism or Communism Lite (Socialism) will never, in a thousand years, engender anything godly, righteous virtuous or good in man. Any of these forms of government can only appeal to and feed the base, dark, evil side of human beings -- both the Takers and the Givers (the state and all those who approve)

Boxcar

[hcap]

Oh yeah, one more logical fallacy
All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge...Jer 51:17 How can you know this?

[boxcar]

Box, you use all of these logical fallacies AlL the time

1-Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"

2-Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. For example, "All chairs have four legs." Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair ?

3-Reductive Fallacy (Oversimplification):
over-simplifying. As Einstein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Political slogans such as "Taxation is theft" fall in this category.

4-Argument By Dismissal:
an idea is rejected without saying why.

Dismissals usually have overtones. For example, "If you don't like it, leave the country" implies that your cause is hopeless, or that you are unpatriotic, or that your ideas are foreign, or maybe all three. "If you don't like it, live in a Communist country" adds an emotive element.

5-Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camel's Nose)

there is an old saying about how if you allow a camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow.

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.

Thanks for the lecture on "logical fallacies", although you're hardly qualified to be lecturing on this subject. But most of us, I think, see through your deflects. You cannot give a direct answer to a pretty simple question. But since you're now all but a self-proclaimed expert on logic, why don't you give us a demonstration of said expertise? Why don't you explain to us how social engineering or wealth redistribution schemes (of which you approve) are not legitimate and practical ways of implementing Karl Marx's Creed of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his means"? Explain that us, Mr, Einstein. :rolleyes: Show us clearly how your Means for achieving "social justice" does not also fulfill the creed's Ends. I'll be waiting....

Boxcar

[hcap]

Thanks for the lecture on "logical fallacies", although you're hardly qualified to be lecturing on this subject. But most of us, I think, see through your deflects. You cannot give a direct answer to a pretty simple question
-Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"

Why don't you explain to us how social engineering or wealth redistribution schemes (of which you approve) are not legitimate and practical ways of implementing Karl Marx's Creed of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his means"? Explain that us, Mr, Einstein. Show us clearly how your Means for achieving "social justice" does not also fulfill the creed's Ends. I'll be waiting....

2-Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. For example, "All chairs have four legs." Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair ?

[boxcar]

Oh yeah, one more logical fallacy
How can you know this?

I will answer, but first tell me this: How do you know that Jesus spoke truthfully or that he even uttered these words, for that matter, which are popularly attributed to him in this passage:

Matt 5:1-9
1 And when He saw the multitudes, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 And opening His mouth He began to teach them, saying,

3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

5 "Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
NASB

Boxcar

[boxcar]

-Argument By Question:
asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. (Or anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.) Your opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long-winded. For example, "How can scientists expect us to believe that anything as complex as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes ?"



2-Fallacy Of The General Rule:
assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. For example, "All chairs have four legs." Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair ?



Thank you for clearly demonstrating your cowardice. My question was not complex. It wasn't complicated. That wasn't the problem at all. The problem you really had with it is that you would not be able to show how Marx's Creed and your affinity for Wealth Redistribution Schemes does not materially fulfill Marx's ideal. You cannot show us how Wealth Redistribution schemes are not the Means to achieving the creed's End.

So...that's too tough for you, is it? Why don't you try to tackle what you think Marx's Creed means. It's a very simple, one liner Creed. No dissertation is necessary. No convoluted, twisted, elaborate explanations. Marx was very succinct. You, too, can be if you choose.

And quit with your stupid chair analogy. You're way over you head with this stuff, 'cap. Quit now and cut your losses! We're not talking about two chairs. We're talking about Means and Ends. Two very different things. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[Greyfox]

You two are funnier than the Kramdens of Honeymooner days. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

You two are funnier than the Kramdens of Honeymooner days. :lol: :lol:

I never realized that I was that funny. Maybe you can explain why. I mean...'cap has admitted that he's in favor of Wealth Redistribution because in his mind that's a way to achieve "social justice", which everyone knows he champions. :rolleyes: Plus we also know that he's a huge fan of the Progressive Income Tax system, as was Karl Marx. Therefore, why are my follow-up questions pertaining to Marx's ideal or creed so funny? My pointed follow up questions seem eminently logical, reasonable and suitable in wake of 'cap's most recent confession.

However, I will concede that his refusal to answer in a straightforward manner would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. It's sad, because 'cap just can't wax honest at any time on anything.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Thank you for clearly demonstrating your cowardice. My question was not complex. It wasn't complicated. That wasn't the problem at all. The problem you really had with it is that you would not be able to show how Marx's Creed and your affinity for Wealth Redistribution Schemes does not materially fulfill Marx's ideal. You cannot show us how Wealth Redistribution schemes are not the Means to achieving the creed's End.You just don't get it.

1- Mixed economies are not Marxist anymore than 2 legged men are ostriches.

2-Socialism is not an ostrich either

2-I am not or ever have been a member of the Communist party.

Thank you Mr McCarthy and your fellow investigators on the House Committee of Un-American Activities.

And you never answered this.
Oh yeah, one more logical fallacy
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
All mankind is stupid, devoid of knowledge...Jer 51:17
How can you know this?

[Tom]

You two are funnier than the Kramdens of Honeymooner days. :lol: :lol:

You don't say.....

[boxcar]

You just don't get it.

1- Mixed economies are not Marxist anymore than 2 legged men are ostriches.

2-Socialism is not an ostrich either

2-I am not or ever have been a member of the Communist party.

Thank you Mr McCarthy and your fellow investigators on the House Committee of Un-American Activities.

I fully understand "mixed economies" are usually socialist in nature (i.e. communism-lite). I have repeatedly stated this. And I have acknowledged that there are degrees of communism or Marxism. Thanks for nothing. :rolleyes:

Now, why don't you answer my question: How doesn't your affinity for Wealth Redistribution Schemes (a/k/a Means) materially fulfill Marx's creed, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (a/k/a Ends? How doesn't your love for a Means not materially fulfill Marx's Ends?

Or as asked previously, if this is too tough for you, please explain to us what you think Marx's creed means?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You don't say.....

No, it's not. It's 'cap in drag. :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

Now, why don't you answer my question: How doesn't your affinity for Wealth Redistribution Schemes (a/k/a Means) materially fulfill Marx's creed, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (a/k/a Ends? How doesn't your love for a Means not materially fulfill Marx's Ends?Give it up already

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Why didn't Bush use the veto?

Maybe he was afraid of being labeled an obstuctionist, partier of NO.

[mostpost]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of free-market Capitalism. Companies do not PRIMARILY exist to provide people with jobs, benefits or retirement programs. Business owners primary objective is to sell a goods or service at attractive prices in the market place in order to realize a profit for the business, and if it's a public corporation dividends for its investors, as well. The nature of the business world, however, is such that the vast majority of businesses employ people out of necessity. And in a free-market, the market itself will largely determine employees' wages, benefits, etc. (It's called competition.) But the employment of people per se, is not the primary reason businesses exist.
In other words, according to you, if a business could operate using robots, or slave labor, that would be the ideal form of free market capitalism. No need for a salaried work force; all the more profit for the business' owner. But since we no longer countenance slavery and Robbie is not a real robot, we have to use human beings to make our product. That doesn't mean we have to treat them like human beings. According to you.


The problem with your, not so brilliant, theory is who is going to buy those products. You want to keep wages low to maximixe profits. But if no one is purchasing there will be no profits to maximize. I've explained this to you before. I have no greater expectation that you will understand it this time.

[Tom]

That is not what he said at all, mosite.



>> The point



.................................................. ...............................mostie <<

[mostpost]

No! There you go projecting again. Liberalism wants to keep certain elements in society impotent and dependent. This works to the advantage of dishonest, deceitful, greedy and power-hungry politicians at election time.
The Poor and the Ignorant and the Naive are Liberals' voting base.

Liberalism seeks to empower people. It does this through labor unions which enable workers to negotiate a just and equitable reward for their labors.
Conservatism seeks to disenfranchise people. It does this by destroying labor unions, leaving the individual worker to accept whatever pay and benefits his employer offers him.

Liberalism seeks to lift people up. It tries to help them through tough times. Liberalism understands that those people can be contributing members of society if only they are given the opportunity.
Conservatism sees people in trouble as weak or evil. Rather than help those people, Conservatism would prefer that their status remain quo. Better they don't share in the nation's wealth; that much more for me.

Liberalism desires an informed electorate. It understands that the more people know about the world, the more likely they will be to support liberal causes. Conservativism desires an uniformed electorate. It understands that the less people know about the world the easier it is to fool them into voting against their own best interests.

[mostpost]

That is not what he said at all, mosite.



>> The point



.................................................. ...............................mostie <<
Yes, he did. Now I did use hyperbole in talking about robots and slaves. I'm sure Boxcar does not wish to return to the days of slavery. (I think.)
But his theory that labor is an insignificant part of Capitalism is just plain wrong and I will call him on it every time. The purpose of capitalism is not only to produce products (services), sell those products (services) and make a profit for the owners. It is also, equally importantly, to provide jobs and livelyhoods for the workers.
Any business that does not do all these things should not exist.

[lsbets]

Liberalism seeks to empower people. It does this through labor unions which enable workers to negotiate a just and equitable reward for their labors.
Conservatism seeks to disenfranchise people. It does this by destroying labor unions, leaving the individual worker to accept whatever pay and benefits his employer offers him.

Liberalism seeks to lift people up. It tries to help them through tough times. Liberalism understands that those people can be contributing members of society if only they are given the opportunity.
Conservatism sees people in trouble as weak or evil. Rather than help those people, Conservatism would prefer that their status remain quo. Better they don't share in the nation's wealth; that much more for me.

Liberalism desires an informed electorate. It understands that the more people know about the world, the more likely they will be to support liberal causes. Conservativism desires an uniformed electorate. It understands that the less people know about the world the easier it is to fool them into voting against their own best interests.


Allow me to correct you. You made a few errors.

Liberalism seeks to empower the state. It does this by creating a ruling class which tells the masses what are best for them, and forces individuals to submit to the masses. Conservatism seeks to empower the individual - to achieve what he or she wishes to, limited only by the scope of their desire and abilities.

Liberalism seeks to elevate the state to a position of supremacy in society. It takes advantage of tough times by creating a permanent underclass, dependent on the government for its very survival. Conservatism seeks to empower individuals to lift themselves up when they are down, without the state keeping them down to perpetuate its hold over the people.

Liberalism can only exist with an uninformed populace that believes the state knows what is best, that believes government "assistance" is actually in their best interest, and that looks at those who have achieved as evil bloodsuckers who are the cause of their problems. Conservatism seeks to destroy the system of the looters and the moochers and create a system where the individual is the only member of society who matters.

Liberalism is evil. It depends on dopes who believe that it is somehow just to take by force from one man who creates and give to a moocher who waits with open arms for the generosity of the looters. Liberalism and all of its evil forms survive only with the consent of its greatest victims, the producers, those who have bought into the lie that the actions of the looters are somehow just and the inaction of the moochers is somehow okay. We will only be able to rid the world of the scourge of statism (liberalism), when the producers decide not to buy into the lie anymore. When they wake up and say enough, I will no longer sanction this evil system. Until then, we are doomed to live under the system of the looters, just as we have since civilization began. Until then, men will not be free.

[boxcar]

Allow me to correct you. You made a few errors.

Liberalism seeks to empower the state. It does this by creating a ruling class which tells the masses what are best for them, and forces individuals to submit to the masses. Conservatism seeks to empower the individual - to achieve what he or she wishes to, limited only by the scope of their desire and abilities.

Liberalism seeks to elevate the state to a position of supremacy in society. It takes advantage of tough times by creating a permanent underclass, dependent on the government for its very survival. Conservatism seeks to empower individuals to lift themselves up when they are down, without the state keeping them down to perpetuate its hold over the people.

Liberalism can only exist with an uninformed populace that believes the state knows what is best, that believes government "assistance" is actually in their best interest, and that looks at those who have achieved as evil bloodsuckers who are the cause of their problems. Conservatism seeks to destroy the system of the looters and the moochers and create a system where the individual is the only member of society who matters.

Liberalism is evil. It depends on dopes who believe that it is somehow just to take by force from one man who creates and give to a moocher who waits with open arms for the generosity of the looters. Liberalism and all of its evil forms survive only with the consent of its greatest victims, the producers, those who have bought into the lie that the actions of the looters are somehow just and the inaction of the moochers is somehow okay. We will only be able to rid the world of the scourge of statism (liberalism), when the producers decide not to buy into the lie anymore. When they wake up and say enough, I will no longer sanction this evil system. Until then, we are doomed to live under the system of the looters, just as we have since civilization began. Until then, men will not be free.

Excellent post. Excellent sets of contrasting parallels. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

And let me add this, Libs -- and what I'm about to say should not be construed as any insult to LS: LS gets it fully! Even as an unbeliever, he totally understands that socialism or communism, in any of its forms, is inherently evil. At the risk of putting words into LS's mouth, he may understand all this because he knows that liberalism does nothing to bring out the best in man. It does nothing to constrain man's sinful desires or inclinations (although LS probably doesn't think in terms of "sin"). But the point remains valid: Liberalism can only appeal to the worst in man. It can only encourage slothfulness and dependency. Liberalism does nothing to promote or support self-reliance, resourcefulness, motivation, ambition or entrepreneurship. Liberalism is an absolute killer of all these virtues. And the moral deficiencies mentioned above are only those relative to the Takers.

Liberalism also has adverse moral impacts upon the Givers of this "charity" -- i.e. the State. Politicians see liberalism as the ideal political vehicle for perpetuating their power and their wealth. Liberalism appeals equally to the base, dark side of leftist politicians. It appeals to their greed and their unending lust for power. There are very, very few poor or even middle income politicians. Most of the them are wealthy in their own right. And most of them desire to make politics a career. Therefore, these corrupt politicians very rarely have the best interests of their constituents at heart. They can't because most politicians' self-interests take precedence over what the The People desire. In fact, these clever politicians will use and dupe the electorate at every turn in order to realize their ambitions. They play the masses like a fiddle. We are merely pawns in their power and money games.

But most conservatives also realize that there is about as much corruption in the private sector as there is in the public one. Man is man. We are what we are, no matter our calling. But we also realize who ultimately wields the bigger stick in society. Ultimately, the State does for reasons that should be obvious to everyone. The State giveth rights and can taketh them away. The State can make laws and it can repeal them. The State with a stroke of a pen can confiscate as much our hard-earned fruits of our labor it wants through the progressive income tax system. And the same State can intentionally leave loopholes in those tax laws to protect them from over-taxation. The State (through corrupt courts) can also alter laws' intents to further their agenda. The State can choose which laws it will enforce vigorously, and which it won't. The list is endless. At the end of the day, the State is a far more powerful entity and to be greatly feared.

Conservatives understand that the people need to be vigilant -- always, always, always and constantly vigilant of our freedom and personal liberties because the State wants more power, not less. And the more power the State has, the less empowered The People become. We understand this fully. Liberals accuse us, on the other hand, of undue, unjustified paranoia because they do not have the balanced view of Man that most conservatives have.

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Any business that does not do all these things should not exist.

Which came first the business or the jobs it provides. I don't know one business that was started for the purpose of providing or creating jobs - it was started to provide a living for its founder. Jobs were a by-product of that business success and the decision by its founder to expand.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... I don't know one business that was started for the purpose of providing or creating jobs ...

Contemporary political parties may fit that description.

[NJ Stinks]

Allow me to correct you. You made a few errors.

Liberalism seeks to empower the state. It does this by creating a ruling class which tells the masses what are best for them, and forces individuals to submit to the masses. Conservatism seeks to empower the individual - to achieve what he or she wishes to, limited only by the scope of their desire and abilities.

Liberalism seeks to elevate the state to a position of supremacy in society. It takes advantage of tough times by creating a permanent underclass, dependent on the government for its very survival. Conservatism seeks to empower individuals to lift themselves up when they are down, without the state keeping them down to perpetuate its hold over the people.

Liberalism can only exist with an uninformed populace that believes the state knows what is best, that believes government "assistance" is actually in their best interest, and that looks at those who have achieved as evil bloodsuckers who are the cause of their problems. Conservatism seeks to destroy the system of the looters and the moochers and create a system where the individual is the only member of society who matters.

Liberalism is evil. It depends on dopes who believe that it is somehow just to take by force from one man who creates and give to a moocher who waits with open arms for the generosity of the looters. Liberalism and all of its evil forms survive only with the consent of its greatest victims, the producers, those who have bought into the lie that the actions of the looters are somehow just and the inaction of the moochers is somehow okay. We will only be able to rid the world of the scourge of statism (liberalism), when the producers decide not to buy into the lie anymore. When they wake up and say enough, I will no longer sanction this evil system. Until then, we are doomed to live under the system of the looters, just as we have since civilization began. Until then, men will not be free.

Isbets, you live in la-la land and are welcome to it.

The conservative philosphy is great when running a football team. Only the best players can and should play unless the game is a blowout. In real life this 'survival of the fittest' simply does not work. Unless you really don't give a shit about people (think fellow American citizens here) who can't play 'football' for whatever reason. Like it or not, the havenots need assistance to get by. Whether it's Social Security, Medicare, or foodstamps, we either help each other or create a caste system bound to screw the majority of Americans who will eventually need to rely on some of these programs.

[Tom]

I t is also, equally importantly, to provide jobs and livelyhoods for the workers.
Any business that does not do all these things should not exist.

Your opinion. And wrong.
Those things are important, but not part of capitalism.

Should the Post Office be shut down because they have implement automation, thus taking away jobs? GM has many robots on-line...shut 'er down?

You must learn to think in term of facts, not feelings. Only after you understand the facts of life can you understand how things really work so you can improve them. It never happens out of unfounded feelings about things.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by delayjf
... I don't know one business that was started for the purpose of providing or creating jobs ...


Now one union that was started to protect workers.
Every union is a business. And a few people are getting very rich off of them.

[mostpost]

I

Your opinion. And wrong.
Those things are important, but not part of capitalism.

Should the Post Office be shut down because they have implement automation, thus taking away jobs? GM has many robots on-line...shut 'er down?

You must learn to think in term of facts, not feelings. Only after you understand the facts of life can you understand how things really work so you can improve them. It never happens out of unfounded feelings about things.
I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. A business does not have to hire workers just because they come looking for a job. But if a business determines that it needs a worker and hires him, then it has a responsibility to treat him fairly. Otherwise don't hire him.
If a business requires a dozen workers to function properly, but can only afford to pay for six, or if it can only afford to pay the twelve $3.00 an hour then that business should shut down. If a business can function with four employees who are fairly compensated there is no requirement that it hire more.

[JustRalph]

I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. A business does not have to hire workers just because they come looking for a job. But if a business determines that it needs a worker and hires him, then it has a responsibility to treat him fairly. Otherwise don't hire him.
If a business requires a dozen workers to function properly, but can only afford to pay for six, or if it can only afford to pay the twelve $3.00 an hour then that business should shut down. If a business can function with four employees who are fairly compensated there is no requirement that it hire more.

Amazing that you think that much control should be exercised over business. But then again, maybe not.

You are taking all the decisions out of the hands of the employees and the business owner. If an owner can find an employee who is willing to work for a smaller wage........then obviously the market is right.

[boxcar]

Isbets, you live in la-la land and are welcome to it.

The conservative philosphy is great when running a football team. Only the best players can and should play unless the game is a blowout. In real life this 'survival of the fittest' simply does not work.

It's been working fine in the Animal Kingdom for what....a gazillion years, according to evolutionists!? And according to the same evolutionists, we're nothing more than the ape's ancestors. Therefore, if Natural Revelation teaches us this about this portion of God's creation, would Special Revelation (the bible) teach us the same thing in the realm of Man -- the highest of God's creation? The answer to this a resounding yes -- which is exactly what we would expect. We would expect both types of revelation to harmonize, for the source of both is God. Consider this passage:

Rom 5:3-5
3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
NASB

So...what was Paul saying here to these Christians at Rome? He was saying that their sufferings, their trials, their struggles, their tribulations, etc. actually serve a purpose in life. It teaches them to persevere and through that perseverance, good moral character is produced! And the stronger that character becomes, the more hope is built.

Of course, I realize to the audience on this forum, this is all mumbo jumbo because most here cannot relate to what the apostle is saying because at the heart of all this and other scripture texts is faith in the living God. We are talking spiritual realities here. But even so...I again can appeal to Natural Revelation or Reality as we all know it in the human realm and point to innumerable examples of great tribulations and trials that humans have undergone and how people have survived those and persevered through them and become much better human beings because of it! Every single one of us could dig up incredible stories of human triumph over life's adversities and struggles -- and how such people became better human beings through those triumphs.

Conversely, people who give up, who surrender to life's struggles or whose struggles are eased only marginally by the State because the government has no vested interest in helping people rise to their feet, to walk independently on their own, will never experience the indescribable joy and immense personal satisfaction of victory. The State is not interested in building people's characters, Mr. NJ. Nor does the State have any desire to build people's sense of self-worth or self-esteem. The state only wants to perpetuate people's downtrodden plight for voting purposes. The want to create Welfare Addicts and Entitlement Junkies because the state knows it count on these votes come election time! The votes are virtually assured because are these people going to risk biting the hands that have been feeding them out of other people's money?

You and other libs continually erect this straw man that we conservatives don't care a whit about the poor or downtrodden. This is the farthest thing from the truth. We do care (at least the conservatives I know personally do). But we don't believe that the solution is perpetual "charity" through a welfare state. We don't believe in endless handouts. We do believe, however, in extending a helping hand to help someone rise to his or her feet.
We also believe strongly in personal responsibility and that people, generally, sow what they reap in this life (a rock-solid biblical principle!). Just as you firmly believe that the "haves" have this moral duty to support the "have nots", we conservatives believe just as strongly that the "have nots" have a moral obligation to fulfill to society, as well! It's a four letter word, called WORK. Conservatives do not believe that we have any duty toward ObamaBucks maniacs -- looking for the free money.

Conservatives also don't believe that people can be truly helped and that we can help them develop good moral character by constantly demonizing real or perceived enemies. The world, NJ, is loaded with predators -- in both jungles! It's best to teach fellow human beings how to ward off the attackers, how to protect themselves and how to survive in a world loaded with evil human beings.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

NJ ....MOST....
In not so many words, you two can continue all you want to talk about how conservatives are UN american.
Specifically NJ....show me ONE conservative who refuses to take care of a "fellow american", and I will show you one american who fails to take care of himself.
You can shout it all you want from the top of the rooftops...it doesnt make it so. but if it makes ya feel better, carry on.

Mosty...Business (I know the evil of all man kind) are NOT required to hire people based on what YOU believe is "just". Do you not understand that your fellow man and related business determine this? Its called a market!

When you get this, come back and lets talk.

If it was up to you, ALL business would be forced into unions. Please tell me thats not the case.
We have gone back and forth on unions more then I really care to. I know I will never change your attitude....just as you will NOT change mine.
Just ask yourself this....why is it that all of these governments (local and state) and having problems funding union pensions?
Please don't tell me that they are spending their monies in places they shouldnt.
Local and state governments are having problems meeting payrolls...(guess thats because they pay their employees "just"ly???).

Ever heard of a budget?? Might wish to look that up sometime.
Local and state governments have budgets. If they do NOT meet those budgets, something gets cut.
Cali is in serious deep doo doo just as NY and several other states....
Do you not attribute any of this too unions and pensions?
I know, its other things they spend on right?...Maybe you would care to elaborate.

[Greyfox]

You don't say.....

Great post Tom. This is what happened before yours.

http://combatblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ralphkramden.jpg

In the meanwhile how are Boxy and Hcap faring?:lol:

[delayjf]

If a business requires a dozen workers to function properly, but can only afford to pay for six, or if it can only afford to pay the twelve $3.00 an hour then that business should shut down.

The market takes care of any business that operates in this manner. High turnover rates and inefficancy would kill that business.

[boxcar]

Give it up already

Just as I would expect. Another non-answer. You're such a coward.

But allow me to lay it out for you and the rest of your self-deceived comrades:

Wealth Redistribution schemes are entirely consistent with Marx's Creed. In fact, so much so, this is what he had in mind when he championed the Progressive Income Tax System. In fact, Communism isn't really possible without this tax system! This system is to Communism what motor oil is to a car engine. Marx understood perfectly that with an elaborate, complex tax system that not only would give the state control over people's personal property, but would also allow it to literally restructure societies through social engineering and wealth redistribution schemes, a government could fundamentally transform the value systems of an entire society over time. (Most commies today probably favor this incremental, non-violent approach.) The Progressive Income Tax System, therefore, is the perfect Means to achieve Marxist Ends. After all, at the end the day the State gets to decide who has what "ability" in order to confiscate from them and give to those it deems as qualified to have legitimate "needs".

However, it's also imperative in the grand scheme of Marxism that the State successfully divides the people. Class Warfare and Identify Politics are also a legitimate Means to achieve the Ends of the Creed. Erect classes and pit them against one another. Pit Labor against Employers. Divide, divide, divide with the ultimate end in view to Conquer. To this kind of mean-spirited, angry, destructive and self-serving approach to politics, you libs also give your hearty approval.

In fact, when it comes right down to it -- when we get right down to the nitty gritty -- right down to the brass tacks -- liberals are in substantial and essential agreement with virtually all the planks of Marxism -- at the very least in principle. Oh sure...you and others will tell us that you're in favor of "mixed economies", etc. -- but at the end of the day, you have very little in common with the Founding Father's intent when they founded this Constitutional Republic wherein they gave more power to the people than to the federal government; but you have far more in common with Marxist ideals. You, Mosty, NJ, SL and others really want to see an even bigger and more powerful State. YOu guys share BO's vision of turning the Constitution on its head by seizing more and more power (i.e. FREEDOMS) from the people so that the State can have more. You'd much prefer a ruling state than a self-governing, free people.

And since I mentioned self-governance, permit to demonstrate how you libs hold this form of government in very low regard. For a people to successfully govern themselves (which was the intent of the Founders, i.e. very limited government which equated to more personal freedoms for the people), it needs to be understood that such people must place great emphasis on Personal Responsibility. True Freedom requires the constant, vigilant exercise of Discipline, Self-Control, Self-Reliance, Self-Sufficiency, Resourcefulness -- all values which you liberals glibly discount or sometimes even completely dismiss. For a self-governing society to survive and thrive, it's imperative that most people subscribe heartily to these values. These values are absolutely necessary in order for a Free, Self-Governing society to function properly,to grow, to flourish and to prosper. These Values are to a Self-Governing Society what life-gving rain water is to a parched earth. To the extent people abandon these values, this will work to a society's detriment; for nature abhors a vacuum. Corrupt politicians have long known that a sizable segment of all societies are weak when it comes to exercising their societal responsibilities. This gives crooked, career-minded, self-serving, greedy, power-hungry politicians all the opportunity they need to EXPLOIT THE HUMAN CONDITION. ("Evil" corporations, Mr. 'cap, do not have a mortal lock on the Exploitation Game, regardless of your naive beliefs to the contrary!)

You doubt all this: When was the last time you or any of your comrades here or any liberal politician preached to us about the tremendous importance of people assuming Personal Responsibility for their own lives!? When, Mr. 'cap!? Hardly anything is ever said about the slackers' personal responsibility to make positive contributions to the society in which they live. Only the moral responsibility of the water carriers in this society are ever stressed by you liberals. The Takers in society have virtually no responsibilities in the World of Progessivism. (Heck...Mosty could barely bring himself to call for the control of fraud within the welfare system! Barely! It probably killed him to finally do it after I called him on it.)

Therefore, in conclusion, liberals are no friends of Freedom, no friends to Personal Liberties, no friends to self-governance. But you libs are staunch, loyal friends of State Rule because deep down, you don't believe We the People are smart enough or moral enough or good enough, generally, to manage and control our own lives. So, now try and tell me that you and your comrades don't have more in common with Karl Marx than you do with this nation's Founders!

Hope you enjoyed this teachable moment. One day, you might even thank me for it. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

In the meanwhile how are Boxy and Hcap faring?:lol:

I just set Alice and all her girlymen straight. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yes, he did. Now I did use hyperbole in talking about robots and slaves. I'm sure Boxcar does not wish to return to the days of slavery. (I think.)
But his theory that labor is an insignificant part of Capitalism is just plain wrong and I will call him on it every time. The purpose of capitalism is not only to produce products (services), sell those products (services) and make a profit for the owners. It is also, equally importantly, to provide jobs and livelyhoods for the workers.
Any business that does not do all these things should not exist.

I never said that. You're stuffing your words into my mouth. What I said is that the PRIMARY reason businesses exist is to make a profit for the business owner(s) and stock holders, if a public company. That is not the same as saying that labor is an insignificant part of a capitalism, generally, or a any particular business.

But, yes, to answer your question: If a businessman could employ robots to make his widgets, why would this be morally wrong? His business overhead would be greatly reduced.

True story: Many moons ago when I was still working for other people, I had the good fortune to work for a mid-size corporation (sales around 12 million at the time of hire) that employed about 9 people for that kind of volume -- with only about 4-1/2 people performing the administrative and sales tasks n the office!. The rest of the personnel were in the warehouse and truck drivers. (The "half" person was the owner's mother who worked p/t in the office.) The owner of the company was a CPA, as was his Sales Mgr., who was my direct boss. Both were very sharp business people.

The owner was a staunch subscriber to Parkinson's Business Law which essentially states, Work tends to spread itself out over the amount of time allotted to it. (At least this is what Admiral Parkinson (an efficiency expert) concluded when he did his study in the Navy.)

People in the industry used to be awe-struck by how so few people in this company could generate that much sales volume, and yet service our accounts efficiently. We were quite the talk of the industry;for the owner of the business was way ahead of his time with his business philosophy. He was in business to make as much money as possible with as few people as possible. Did he pay all of us well? I think so. Did he pay each of us who busted our rumps every day the money he saved in wages and benefits by not hiring more (but really unneeded) employees? Of course not! Did we begrudge him that? No, we did not! If any of us wanted to make more, we'd have to produce more! In fact, yours truly, worked hard for about two years toward that end.

For the first two years, as a salesman, I spent a great deal of time out on the road meeting and getting to know my customers. This was my business relationship building period. After this period, I started to make fewer trips every month. Fewer trips equated to more efficient production time because I didn't have to spend nearly as much unproductive travel time on the road. That unproductive time was transformed into productive sales time over the very efficient telephone. This more efficient expenditure of time translated into more sales. And it also translated into lower business expenses (hotels, meals, entertainment, cars, gas, etc., etc., etc.) Guess what yours truly did after about a year of this? Nothing! My boss recognized and acknowledged the cold hard numbers on his accounting sheets. He gave me a nifty little raise for my fine efforts. He saw that I at once saved him money and also made him more money by generating more profitable sales.

When I left the company, our sales volume was up to nearly 17 million -- with the same 4-1/2 people in the office, but I think he did hire another driver and and warehouse person. Not too shabby. Most people would not know how to run a business that efficiently. And all that translated into bigger profits for the owner. And that's why he took over the business from his father -- to make as much money as he could.

Despite what you think, there was nothing evil or immoral or even inherently greedy about his motives for being in business. He was taking all the financial risks, so he wanted to reap as much reward as possible.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You want to keep certain elements in a position of impotence, because that allows you to feel superior. All your braggadocio and name calling are sure signs of a insecure and inadequate person. But as long as there is someone who is struggling, there is someone you can look down on and say, "I'm better than that." The truth is the better person is the one who can say, "I want that unfortunate person to be as good as I am"

Ahh...now that I have a free moment, I must reply to this. I saw your utterly stupid (if you don't mind me using a biblical term :D ) remarks yesterday but didn't have the time to address them.

Your argument is logically full of holes and, therefore, carries no water. So, I'm still quite dry, thank you.

No conservative (I know) believes the way you have portrayed me (us). Your argument is thoroughly self-defeating. What motive would I have for not wanting to see people improve their lot in life? Given what I have just written to 'cap about what makes a truly free society -- a self-governing society work -- all thinking conservatives would want more like-minded people within their ranks for voting purposes and for a unified socieity. And we know that these like-minded people are not going to come from the ranks of the professional slackers, ObamaBucks freaks, etc. The more people we can help up to eventually walk on their own, the better off we and society, generally, will be. The more people who understand and share our values for self-governance, the more likely it is that those values will be passed on to the next generation. Therefore, unlike liberals, we don't have the first motive to keep people down or to step on their necks. Quite the contrary. It is you liberals, however, who have every incentive to propagate the entitlement mentality and welfare state, and to turn as many of people as possible into welfare addicts. The dogs who feed the crumbs you liberals so generously give them with other people's money would be very reluctant to not return to the master's table for more on election day. And how could not more dogs be better for you liberals!?

Now go grab a towel; you all wet.

Not hardly! Not in this life or the next one. Not by you!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

NJ ....MOST....
In not so many words, you two can continue all you want to talk about how conservatives are UN american.
Specifically NJ....show me ONE conservative who refuses to take care of a "fellow american", and I will show you one american who fails to take care of himself.
You can shout it all you want from the top of the rooftops...it doesnt make it so. but if it makes ya feel better, carry on.

Mosty...Business (I know the evil of all man kind) are NOT required to hire people based on what YOU believe is "just". Do you not understand that your fellow man and related business determine this? Its called a market!
Business are not inherently evil, just as unions are not inherently evil. But an attitude has arisen in some sectors of the country that businesses should be allowed to do what they want and some magical force called the "Free market" will insure that they do nothing wrong and will fairly provide for their workers. Hasn't happened before; won't happen now.
I have never said that businesses should be required to hire people they don't need. Just that if they do hire them they should pay a just wage. I also think that if a business owner is allowed to unilaterally determine what is a just wage, they will invariably lowball the worker. It's just human nature, not necessarily something they do deliberately.

When you get this, come back and lets talk.

If it was up to you, ALL business would be forced into unions. Please tell me thats not the case.
We have gone back and forth on unions more then I really care to. I know I will never change your attitude....just as you will NOT change mine.
Just ask yourself this....why is it that all of these governments (local and state) and having problems funding union pensions?
Please don't tell me that they are spending their monies in places they shouldnt.
Local and state governments are having problems meeting payrolls...(guess thats because they pay their employees "just"ly???).
Don't forget those pensions and salaries were negotiated. That means both sides met, made proposals, made counterproposals, discussed things and evetually agreed to the final contract. Both sides. So the local and state governments are just as much to blame for the problem as are the unions.
I think what happened was the states made agreements based on projections which were valid in the past, but did not pan out in the future. Based on previous experience, unions did not ask for unreasonable pensions or salaries. The problem was revenues decreased. A number of factors contribued to this. The recession put a lot of people out of work. People out of work don't pay taxes. People out of work don't buy as much so sales tax revenue is affected. People out of work apply for unemployment compensation which puts a further burden on state finances. Personal income has not grown in the last thirty years at the same rate it grew prior to 1980. Therefore anticipated growth in tax revenues has not grown.
So we have labor contracts which were viable when negotiated that are no longer so.
Ever heard of a budget?? Might wish to look that up sometime.
Local and state governments have budgets. If they do NOT meet those budgets, something gets cut.
Cali is in serious deep doo doo just as NY and several other states....

California is a special case due to Prop13. Thanks to Prop13 it requires a 2/3 approval to raise taxes in California. I know you think this is a great thing. I think it's stupid. No matter how worthy a project is there will always be those who oppose it.
Do you not attribute any of this too unions and pensions?
I know, its other things they spend on right?...Maybe you would care to elaborate.

Pensions are a problem. For the workers and retirees who may never see the pensions to which they contributed all their working lives. You seem to think a pension is a gift from an employer. Not true. An employee contributes part of his salary towards that pension. As for the portion contributed by the employer, he does so in return for the labor of the employee. so the employee is responsible for that portion also.

[boxcar]

Pensions are a problem. For the workers and retirees who may never see the pensions to which they contributed all their working lives. You seem to think a pension is a gift from an employer. Not true. An employee contributes part of his salary towards that pension. As for the portion contributed by the employer, he does so in return for the labor of the employee. so the employee is responsible for that portion also.

So, let me see if I understand this: When the employer doesn't offer a pension plan, he is not to be applauded. And when he does offer one, he still doesn't deserve credit or acknowledgment.

Apparently in your pie-in-the-sky view of the business world, an employer can only do wrong -- just like government can only do right. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Pensions are a problem. For the workers and retirees who may never see the pensions to which they contributed all their working lives. You seem to think a pension is a gift from an employer. Not true. An employee contributes part of his salary towards that pension. As for the portion contributed by the employer, he does so in return for the labor of the employee. so the employee is responsible for that portion also.

What % of their total retirement package do CA State employees contribute? Personally I don't have a problem with pensions negotiated by Unions in the private sector - but I have a big problem when I'm told my taxes are going to have to be raise to support a State employee who retires at 55. That’s out of my pocket and you're damn right I don't like it. Thank God for Prop 13. Let the politicians go back to their constituents and tell them that the police force needs to cut in half to cover state pensions, (Long Beach cut 67 police / fire fighters last month) or that state parks will now have to be sold to cover the budget deficit. Let CA become the shining example of what Progressive ideology can do to a once great state.

[newtothegame]

Pensions are a problem. For the workers and retirees who may never see the pensions to which they contributed all their working lives. You seem to think a pension is a gift from an employer. Not true. An employee contributes part of his salary towards that pension. As for the portion contributed by the employer, he does so in return for the labor of the employee. so the employee is responsible for that portion also.

And I have been contributing to SS all of my adult life, and if nothing is changed it wont be there for my contribution...so what was your point??? :bang:

[hcap]

I just set Alice and all her girlymen straight. :lol: :lol:

BoxcarHey Ralphy boy. You could have saved yourself typing pages and pages of nonsense

All you really said was.....

"humina, humina, humma. yes it can core a apple"



You have portrayed 95% of the world as Marxist. Perhaps more. You may be the only rue capitalist left. Somehow the world ha become Communist. So let me get this straight. The Berlin wall never fell. The success of the wonderful Communist system transformed the world. THEY won the cold war through economic superiority. And insidious as it may be, the progressive income tax, social security, medicare and medicaid were the tools used to make over the entire world into a "workers paradise". Public school systems and government educational systems are further means of the transformation. Propaganda ministries of course that perpetuate the Marxist line and indoctrinate our young . Not only here but all of the world. The media is just another tool and extension of this process .

All of these " tools" of course existed in the Soviet Union and Chins before they surreptitiously convinced everyone else to adopt these social wealth redistribution systems

All Marxists have 2 legs. All men have 2 lrgs.
All men are Marxists

humina, humina, humma

[boxcar]

Hey Ralphy boy. You could have saved yourself typing pages and pages of nonsense

All you really said was.....

"humina, humina, humma. yes it can core a apple"

You have portrayed 95% of the world as Marxist. Perhaps more.

Alice, sweetie, you're catching on. I perceive the trip to the moon was what you needed to clear cobwebs. Congratulations! :rolleyes:

Yes! And you have boasted of this in the past about how socialism has swept Europe and other places, and all these nations that subscribe to it are so enlightened and advanced...and, oh yes..."progressive", I think you call it. Socialism, dear, is Communism-Lite. Period. End of Story. All countries (and indeed there are numerous of them) that have socialist forms of government subscribe to just about as many Marxist planks to one degree as another as we have been doing here in the U.S. since around the turn of the last century.

You see, Hcap, the world stage is being set for the "new world order". For Globalism. For The One World Government. After all, someone is going to have to pull it all together. Tie all the loose ends. Unify the Nations. Promise the world that he will usher in the Age of Peace and Prosperity. Someone....Guess who that will be! Virtually the entire world is already worshiping at the feet of Man due to socialism because Socialism is a godless, man-centered government. (Heck...The Greenies are already having half the world believing they can save themselves -- that Man can usurp the role of Christ. (Remember: Marx was no friend of religion or God!) Now all that's left is for "The Man" to appear on the world stage. And he will proclaim himself to be mankind's messiah.

Good night, Alice. ;)

Boxcar

[mostpost]

And I have been contributing to SS all of my adult life, and if nothing is changed it wont be there for my contribution...so what was your point??? :bang:
You're forty two. Assuming they don't change the retirement age you will be retiring around 2035. Most projections show the fund having a surplus to 2037. But that doesn't mean there will be no money coming in. Tax revenues will still be sufficient to pay 78% of benefits after that time. All this assumes nothing will be done too solve the problem. Several actions would solve the crisis. The least desireable would be to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age. Removing the cap on contributions would solve the problem completely. Improving the economy would be a big step. This would require never electing another Republican, but I could live with that.

[newtothegame]

You're forty two. Assuming they don't change the retirement age you will be retiring around 2035. Most projections show the fund having a surplus to 2037. But that doesn't mean there will be no money coming in. Tax revenues will still be sufficient to pay 78% of benefits after that time. All this assumes nothing will be done too solve the problem. Several actions would solve the crisis. The least desireable would be to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age. Removing the cap on contributions would solve the problem completely. Improving the economy would be a big step. This would require never electing another Republican, but I could live with that.

But why should I have to assume that risk? I mean YOU want public pensions guaranteed? Shouldnt mine be as well?

Or even better yet, since you libs are all for wealth distribution from those who make more to those who make less....try this on...
As it stands NOW, it is likely that SS won't be there when I retire (By the way based on your time frame thats FIFTY TWO YEARS of putting into SS).
So heres a thought...since I wont have much in the way of SS, and you will have that nice BIG fat pension...lets say we split it.? In my eyes, you will be the wealthy one and I will surely be struggling.

I mean after all, that is the plan right? I am sure if you PM me your address, I can have a lawyer drawing up the documents and we can meet, sign the paperwork entitling me to half of your benefits. Then, you could sleep better at night knowing you did YOUR part helping a fellow american. And, you don't even have to sleep with the thought of knowing if I am illegal or anything of the sort. Honest, tax paying citizen for over 52 years in the work force (at 2035).

[chickenhead]

there are some over-arching problems that unfortunately dominate where things are headed.

Roughly 2.5 billion low cost workers have come into the world economy in the last two decades as Eastern Europe, China, and India have opened up, and communications technologies have improved to the point of making things seamless.

Workers, normal everyday workers, the low and low-middle -- are screwed. There isn't a policy to fix it. Our low end was thrust up into the middle due to Europe and Japan being destroyed in WW2 and being forced to buy things from us, it gave us a golden era of widespread prosperity relative to other developed nations, because they were for a time, temporarily, undeveloped. We were left intact, unscathed, and got ridiculously wealthy, very quickly.

The tides have shifted back, closer to competetive parity when Germany and Japan rebuilt, and have now gone back over in the other direction, and that wealth is now being given to the new kids on the block, the new kids that have the temporary competitive advantage of billions of workers without expectations or protections. Hundreds of millions of every kind of worker, ready to go, cheaper than here. Hundreds of millions of hungry people looking to leave the farm -- just as bright and able as you, that consider our poor to be rich.

The Golden Age of our middle class may turn out to have been nothing more than a temporary bubble, caused by a strange confluence of world events.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You're forty two. Assuming they don't change the retirement age you will be retiring around 2035. Most projections show the fund having a surplus to 2037. But that doesn't mean there will be no money coming in. Tax revenues will still be sufficient to pay 78% of benefits after that time. All this assumes nothing will be done too solve the problem. Several actions would solve the crisis. The least desireable would be to reduce benefits or increase the retirement age. Removing the cap on contributions would solve the problem completely. Improving the economy would be a big step. This would require never electing another Republican, but I could live with that.

Voted #2 this week on the Top 5 Least Convincing/Encouraging Posts... :(

[newtothegame]

there are some over-arching problems that unfortunately dominate where things are headed.

Roughly 2.5 billion low cost workers have come into the world economy in the last two decades as Eastern Europe, China, and India have opened up, and communications technologies have improved to the point of making things seamless.

Workers, normal everyday workers, the low and low-middle -- are screwed. There isn't a policy to fix it. Our low end was thrust up into the middle due to Europe and Japan being destroyed in WW2 and being forced to buy things from us, it gave us a golden era of widespread prosperity relative to other developed nations, because they were for a time, temporarily, undeveloped. We were left intact, unscathed, and got ridiculously wealthy, very quickly.

The tides have shifted back, closer to competetive parity when Germany and Japan rebuilt, and have now gone back over in the other direction, and that wealth is now being given to the new kids on the block, the new kids that have the temporary competitive advantage of billions of workers without expectations or protections. Hundreds of millions of every kind of worker, ready to go, cheaper than here. Hundreds of millions of hungry people looking to leave the farm -- just as bright and able as you, that consider our poor to be rich.

The Golden Age of our middle class may turn out to have been nothing more than a temporary bubble, caused by a strange confluence of world events.

Good post chicken...couldnt have said it better myself. That is almost exactly what I was referring to with the INDUSTRIALIZATION of times gone by.
The only way to right this ship is to correct our bad policies such as trade agreements etc etc.
If we are going to have to compete with low cost workers (globalization) then sorry, but too compete would either require those countries to up the ante to their workers, or we have to lower ours. People do NOT want to hear that...but tell me how else?
I do NOT know enough to talk about Nafta in detail or tarrifs but those cant be a good thing when in essence they just support those low cost workers from around the world.
Its not a secret that we import most EVERYTHING now days. If we are going to continue that trend, we need to seriously look at how we do business overseas. Otherwise, we need to be competitive and reverse course and go back to our own industrial machine to support ourselves.
Personally...I like the self sufficient stance. There is NOTHING that Taiwan, China, or otherwise produces that we shouldnt be able to produce here reasonably! Just need laws and policies to support that.
With the ever increasing debt to china and japan though...puts us in a tough spot!