Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    I know its very strange...

    But I find that spending money on education, that is, making yourself smarter, is well spent money.

    I also find that money spent on developing new technology and national infrastructure is also well invested. Sure, not every investment pays off, but all the informational economic events happened as a result of new technologies.

    I'm not fond of promising people retirement security and then yanking the rug out, but then again who is? Still, some compromises will get made to make it workable.

    And as an aspiring rich person (and already upper middle class) I don't mind chipping in a bit more to the pot to keep the richest nation in the world cranking away since its not going to impact my fairly luxurious lifestyle in any appreciable way.

    If the House isn't interested in negotiating or cooperating then Obama will have to use what power he has to do what he can. I wish him good fortune with that. I don't like what the opposition is doing, but respect their right to do it. Its a democracy after all. I'd rather we reach compromise, but if not, then fight well. The deficits are troubling, but they always have been. The economy has systemic problems no president can just fix. Its the growing pains of a global economy and an american worker who now has international competition. Its up to all of us to figure out how to overcome that.

    I'm not fond of everything Obama does. The kill list drones do not sit well with me, nor the extension of the patriot act. Gun control I somewhat oppose but not for any personal conviction, only general principle and law. But I sure like him better than Bush Jr or the other GOP offerings.

    I've listened to political DDOOOM!!!! from all sides for 20 years now, its pretty much never amounted to more than noise.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. Likes wakko liked this post
  3. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Based on what? There are only two options here, you are making an unsupported claim or you are spamming here. Which is it? This is a debate forum, answers should be focused on moving debate forward, not taking unsupported pot shots at someone.
    I did say I was basing my opinion off the same evidence you all were basing yours off of.

    Except Governor Romney had a successful track record of running private businesses and state budgets.
    If has had failures, how are you measuring success? According to many of you, Obama is a failure because a few companies failed out of how many that didn't.


    Candidate Obama had absolutely no experience in either of those areas and President Obama has shown an inability to make those kinds of decisions.
    You are correct, but I don't think that's a prerequisite to be president.

    This of course shows a profound lack of business insight. If I had a 99.99999% success rate for projects in which my successes made $1 and my one failure was $1B I would not be a success. Do you have any evidence that President Obama's investments have anything like an accounting profit? Let alone an economic one which is how virtually all private businesses are evaluated?
    I agree, which is why I made the comment pertaining to some of the posts in this thread.
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  4. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like
    I just read it... cops outgunned? By what and who?

    They have the exact same access, even better, than we do. If cops are outgunned then what are they carrying? A 10/22?

    Please. They have access to the same if not better... and fully automatic as well.

    Plus they cab carry anywhere without question. I'm left defenseless.

    The rest... same as any other Presidents State of The Union; puff and fluff.

    Buying more American cars? From who? Toyota? No Ford Chevy or Dodge has been made stateside recently.

    Nothing unexpected.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  5. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by seventy
    Yes, let look at the actions. He has ended the war that Bush started, troops are coming home
    Good Job I say. Never mind that spending the money on other things is what an ever growing gov does.. you know instead of stopping the "temporary" spending.
    All taxes are permanent, and all spending is permanent, that is how gov grows to be a burden to the people. But, as long as everyone has their heads buried in the public trough ... that is what we deserve.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    He caught a man that Bush said was unimportant.
    Good Job I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    He passed a bill that was based on freedom, something I here yelled many times on this board. He also passed a host of other things also, like promising to help Sandy storm victims. Damd that government, spending money to help out the needy when we don't have it.

    The first time he ran on "hope and ch
    Yes, and the second time he ran on not being Romney.
    He didn't pass any "freedom" anything. He passed "bigger gov" for his "government party" friends.
    Don't mistake what is passed off as being 'free" for 'freedom".
    It's wrong on both counts.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    People do have hope, and things are changing. Look at the stock market and job growth. Just because it's not what you expect it to be dose not mean it's not true.
    There is no "Job growth". There are "new jobs", in the sense that they are not the same as old ones.
    That is not the same as "more jobs". Again, you have to watch that gov math.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    Yes it is because it shows your bias. The tone is Obama is bad, stupid, and can't get anything done. While Romney is just opposite of all of that.
    False, I'm not campaigning for Romney, and my objection is ALL in Washington.
    Second, the bias blindness is yours because you didn't see that I was accepting what you said as true, and showing how Romney was simply guilty of it as well.
    Not excusing Romney as you think..

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    This is only said when one's bias is pointed out. Why not make it a systemic problem rather than a specific person's problem.
    That is my general objection, but Obama is the figure head of that problem, and he is spearheading the things that are examples of the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    If you mean secession,
    I do not. so I am ignoring what followed.. as it isn't directed at my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    Obviously you didn't read the link, also Romney is the smart one that makes all the right steps. This is how he was/is viewed by many of Obama's opponents. And yes, it is a good chance he did, like for his other ventures.
    And you didn't understand my post.
    I was answering as though the answer was "yes, Romney did use Gov money".
    You are operating under the false impression that I approved of it when Romney did it.. I do not.
    It is STILL an example of how Washington is broken.

    If the answer is "no", then you have no case and the two are not comparable.


    Quote Originally Posted by SEVENTY
    Who do you think paid for all of this? You and I, and every other working stiff. So lets drop this fallacy that Romeny is the cure all.
    Straw-man.. I never said he was.. I didn't bring up Romney .. you did. don't try to pass it off on me.
    I said you pointed out an example using Romeny that MADE MY POINT!

    So yes... lets drop this fallacy. Stop trying to give examples of a Gov party person with an R in front of his name instead of a D, as being a "counter".
    It isn't.
    Things like Solendra are still wrong/bad for the gov to be doing.

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    But I find that spending money on education, that is, making yourself smarter, is well spent money.
    I don't think so. I mean not inherently anyway. A "liberal arts degree" is not as worthy as say "Engineering degree". The gov shouldn't pay for or invest in degrees that have no job for it or no need.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    Sorry, not good enough
    I think that means you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit nicely into your little boxes of one side vs. the other.

    You have to tell me, it's your assertion that we have one side that is responsible, and one side that isn't.
    I didn't make the assertion about any political side. You're the one who seems to be stuck on sides. ("If the left says blue, the right says red.")

    So you have no proof to support that one side is responsible, and one side isn't.
    Do you want evidence that the federal reserve supports fiat money with little checks and balances?
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I know its very strange...

    But I find that spending money on education, that is, making yourself smarter, is well spent money.

    I also find that money spent on developing new technology and national infrastructure is also well invested. Sure, not every investment pays off, but all the informational economic events happened as a result of new technologies.

    I'm not fond of promising people retirement security and then yanking the rug out, but then again who is? Still, some compromises will get made to make it workable.

    And as an aspiring rich person (and already upper middle class) I don't mind chipping in a bit more to the pot to keep the richest nation in the world cranking away since its not going to impact my fairly luxurious lifestyle in any appreciable way.

    If the House isn't interested in negotiating or cooperating then Obama will have to use what power he has to do what he can. I wish him good fortune with that. I don't like what the opposition is doing, but respect their right to do it. Its a democracy after all. I'd rather we reach compromise, but if not, then fight well. The deficits are troubling, but they always have been. The economy has systemic problems no president can just fix. Its the growing pains of a global economy and an american worker who now has international competition. Its up to all of us to figure out how to overcome that.

    I'm not fond of everything Obama does. The kill list drones do not sit well with me, nor the extension of the patriot act. Gun control I somewhat oppose but not for any personal conviction, only general principle and law. But I sure like him better than Bush Jr or the other GOP offerings.

    I've listened to political DDOOOM!!!! from all sides for 20 years now, its pretty much never amounted to more than noise.
    This is a good point. Dr. Neil D. Tyson is a big advocate of spending money to educate the public, because he sees it as a way to keep us competitive.

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think that means you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit nicely into your little boxes of one side vs. the other.
    It's easy to make an off the top comment, and because it's against Obama, people will agree with it. But to define what you are talking about is a different matter.
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    It's easy to make an off the top comment, and because it's against Obama, people will agree with it.But to define what you are talking about is a different matter.
    I responded to your comment "If the left says blue, the right says red" which I thought was rather off the top.

    I brought up the issue or responsibility vs irresponsibly because beneath all the surface stuff of what you deem "right says red, left says blue," I think it's fundamentally about responsibly vs irresponsibly (fiscal and social) and what works, verses what red says is not what blue says.

    As far as your comment "If the left says blue, the right says red" ....

    1. Blue could say something irrational and red could respond with something rational, or visaversa.
    2. Blue could say something productive and red could present valid arguments of why it may not be so productive in the long run or visaversa.

    The beauty of a functional multi-party system is not that everyone should agree, or can't say red in response to blue,[hopefully that day will never come for America] but that differing view points be presented and that the most rational and responsible policies (both fiscally and socially) be implemented. And then if they don't work, they should be let go and not be forced to work because of political agendas.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  9. #28
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But I find that spending money on education, that is, making yourself smarter, is well spent money.
    But certainly not any type of education at any cost right? Certainly there is some level of minimum benefit/cost that is required.

    The same goes for the rest of the investments. It isn't just that money spent is therefore good. The question necessary to ask is, does the specific investment generate a sufficient return and is that return higher than where that money could elsewhere be spent?


    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    I did say I was basing my opinion off the same evidence you all were basing yours off of.
    No, you are attempting to overcome a de facto position. Private individuals in private companies do not use public money for their investments unless it is shown to be otherwise.

    Likewise, it was you who brought Romney into the discussion and therefore your burden of proof to show that that reference is relevant. Either you can support that he used public funds as you alluded or you admit that you made the claim mistakenly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    If has had failures, how are you measuring success? According to many of you, Obama is a failure because a few companies failed out of how many that didn't.
    You are conflating issues here. The question was why do we believe Governor Romney would have done a better job than President Obama? You attempted to dismiss Governor Romney's experience by saying that he was capable of making the same mistakes President Obama has. That position is invalid because Governor Romney has shown a successful history both as a private businessman (IE the businesses he ran were profitable) and as a Governor (he ran a net positive fiscal agenda and saw GDP increase under his Governorship).

    President Obama however has seen continued stagnation economically, a series of scandals with public investment and a large amount of waste via the various stimulative programs under his tenure. He has seen the deficit contract (in real terms) has seen the overall employed rate steadily decrease and has run an average deficit an order of magnitude larger than any of his predecessors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    You are correct, but I don't think that's a prerequisite to be president.
    Certainly not legally, and if the Government confined itself to the matters traditionally under its purview it would certainly be a smaller part of their role. However, the Government has expanded its action to regulate massive amounts of the economy at relatively personal levels. Given that he heads the management of that system, a basic understanding and experience with the way it works would seem to be prudent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    I agree, which is why I made the comment pertaining to some of the posts in this thread.
    But that still shows a profound lack of insight. Not only have Governor Romney's investments (in the private sector) shown an economic profit, his public investments appear to have done so as well in the accounting sense. You attempted to compare President Obama's record to that but provided no data. Have his investments made an accounting profit? An economic profit?

    ---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    Sorry, not good enough
    Why was eye's comment not good enough?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  11. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The River Styx
    Posts
    53
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Private individuals in private companies do not use public money for their investments unless it is shown to be otherwise.
    How can you say that when he used public money in his dealings with Steel Dynamics.

    Likewise, it was you who brought Romney into the discussion and therefore your burden of proof to show that that reference is relevant. Either you can support that he used public funds as you alluded or you admit that you made the claim mistakenly.
    Yes because the implication is that Romney would have been a better choice and did everything right. To be honest, the right needs to get over it, they lost.

    You are conflating issues here. The question was why do we believe Governor Romney would have done a better job than President Obama?
    You attempted to dismiss Governor Romney's experience by saying that he was capable of making the same mistakes President Obama has. That position is invalid because Governor Romney has shown a successful history both as a private businessman (IE the businesses he ran were profitable) and as a Governor (he ran a net positive fiscal agenda and saw GDP increase under his Governorship).
    This is why I brought Romney up, I just said what was being implied.


    President Obama however has seen continued stagnation economically, a series of scandals with public investment and a large amount of waste via the various stimulative programs under his tenure. He has seen the deficit contract (in real terms) has seen the overall employed rate steadily decrease and has run an average deficit an order of magnitude larger than any of his predecessors.
    Really?

    Archive for January, 2013
    Personal Income Rises in December
    Published January 31, 2013 BEA News , Personal Income Leave a Comment
    Tags: BEA, Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income

    PI_13113_1Personal income increased 2.6 percent in December after increasing 1.0 percent in November. Accelerated bonus payments of $30 billion (at an annual rate) in December and $15 billion in November boosted wages and salaries. Accelerated dividend payments of $291.0 billion in December and $25.8 billion in November, made in anticipation of tax law changes, boosted personal dividend income.






    Personal saving rate
    Personal saving as a percent of DPI was 6.5 percent in December, the highest rate since May 2009.


    http://blog.bea.gov/2013/01/

    Straight from the horse's mouth. Now I don't know what you call, or mean when you say stagnation, but this isn't it.

    Lets look at the stock market.

    Dow closes at highest level of year, nears record
    02/13/13 06:37EST



    NEW YORK -The Dow rose to its highest close of the year, putting it within 1 percent of its record. Stocks gained after impressive results from two big consumer brands.

    The Dow Jones industrial average closed up 47.46 to 14,018.70 Tuesday. That is 146 points from its record close of 14,164.53 set in October 2007. The Standard & Poor's 500 gained 2.42 points to 1,519.43, also close to its record.

    In a quiet day of trade, stocks were driven higher by beauty products maker Avon and luxury clothing and accessories company Michael Kors, whose results impressed investors. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity in the U.S.

    Financial and home building stocks also lifted stocks, led by Bank of America and Masco Corp, which notched some of the day's biggest gains.

    This is the problem when things get repeated just because it plays into what ever narrative we have. I constantly hear that we are losing jobs and that the market is failing badly. I've even heard that it is in the same spot as it was when Bush left office, really? Then I look and read for my self and find out the truth.
    Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding.It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
    Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility:

    Kahlil Gibran

  12. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I know its very strange...

    But I find that spending money on education, that is, making yourself smarter, is well spent money.

    I also find that money spent on developing new technology and national infrastructure is also well invested. Sure, not every investment pays off, but all the informational economic events happened as a result of new technologies.

    I'm not fond of promising people retirement security and then yanking the rug out, but then again who is? Still, some compromises will get made to make it workable.

    And as an aspiring rich person (and already upper middle class) I don't mind chipping in a bit more to the pot to keep the richest nation in the world cranking away since its not going to impact my fairly luxurious lifestyle in any appreciable way.

    If the House isn't interested in negotiating or cooperating then Obama will have to use what power he has to do what he can. I wish him good fortune with that. I don't like what the opposition is doing, but respect their right to do it. Its a democracy after all. I'd rather we reach compromise, but if not, then fight well. The deficits are troubling, but they always have been. The economy has systemic problems no president can just fix. Its the growing pains of a global economy and an american worker who now has international competition. Its up to all of us to figure out how to overcome that.

    I'm not fond of everything Obama does. The kill list drones do not sit well with me, nor the extension of the patriot act. Gun control I somewhat oppose but not for any personal conviction, only general principle and law. But I sure like him better than Bush Jr or the other GOP offerings.

    I've listened to political DDOOOM!!!! from all sides for 20 years now, its pretty much never amounted to more than noise.
    Education may be an investment, but at what point has the investment been saturated and overvalued? Are you telling me there is a significant numnber of kids wanting to go to college but unable to due to finanacial concerns? I find this hard to believe. Almost any kid can get a school loan to go to college. Are there not enough colleges? Again, I find this hard to believe. Looking at the quality of college student, I'd say there are too many colleges. Education is an investment, but like everything else, it has a finite ROI.

    Money spent on infrastructure is often money well-spent. Money spent on new technology is usually well-spent. Infrastructure is a legitimate governmental concern. New technology investment is usually best left for private investors who have the time and skill to make good decisions regarding which investments are worthwhile. Government money towards new technology is less money taken away from these private investors.

    When social security was created the average person's life expectancy was 62-ish. Today, it is 69. Shouldn't social security reflect this difference? People are healther longer and can work later in life. I don't want to pull the rug out from people but, as you noted, some comrpomises will have to be made.

    You are calling for Obama to cast more executive order to overcome a disagreeing Congress. Isn't Obama's own inability to bridge the gap between the two sides part of the problem? So, you are asking him to play semi-dictator because he sucks at his job. Interesting.

    The deficits have not always been troubling. Clinton, with a Republican Congress, balanced the budget and even had a surplus. It can be done. It is a matter of priority and compromise. The question is whether the Democrats will finally relent on their absolute refusal to permit meaningful cuts to entitlement spending. The Republicans have already relented on raising taxes.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  13. #31
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,329
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy View Post
    How can you say that when he used public money in his dealings with Steel Dynamics.
    Because I'm expressing a general rule. Using public money in private industry is a rarity. I didn't say it never happens, I said it is not the defacto situation, and if we are going to say that it did happen we need to provide evidence to that effect.

    On a side note, tax credits =/= using public money. Tax credits means that the government takes less of the money you earn. that money is not the government's by default.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    Yes because the implication is that Romney would have been a better choice and did everything right.
    I've tried to offer you a way out of it, but you insist on making the claim. So, Challenge to support a claim. Please support that Romney used public money as the basis for his investments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seventy
    Really?
    Yes,

    A couple of high level notes. These are terrible metrics to use to measure economic growth and development. All of them are subject to bubbles and policy manipulation. None of them reflect true standard of living and none of them counter the categories I mentioned above.

    Your Metrics:

    Personal Income:

    First, this data point doesn't really do much to tell me that the economy is growing. Personal Income could be up 1,000,000%, but if we only have one employee left that doesn't mean things are better. So this metric is, at best, insufficient by itself.

    Second, you are cherry picking a time period. Sure it was up in one quarter of one year. Here is what it looks for President Obama's tenure:




    Thats a 0.60% increase. I wouldn't go trumpeting that number personally.

    Here is a better graph referring to what income has been vs historical levels;



    Personal Savings Rate:

    Again, this isn't really a great number, we can be saving at 90%, that only means we are concerned about the future or have nowhere else to spend it because the economy sucks. It also means little if we are saving at 90% and inflation is at 110%. Lets take a look at what actual savings amounts look like.


    And that isn't even accounting for inflation. Factoring in that reality we've actually seen people's savings shrink since the President took office.


    Consumer Spending:

    This can be a good metric, if you are a Keynesian. I am not. High consumer spending can represent fear about inflation (buy it today, it will cost tomorrow), asset bubbles due to fiscal stimulus (more on this later) or a lack of viable investment alternatives due to low interest rates (ding ding ding).

    Notice the scale here:

    Compare that to the growth since the previous recession:



    No see that flat portion that has represented the last two years of President Obama's presidency? That is a large abnormality that represents some significant stagnation.



    Stock Market:

    Also a terrible metric. If you just follow the stock market there wasn't such thing as The Great Depression. The stock market is, in essence, the conglomeration of a large chunk of assets in the economy (that is after all what you are paying for partially). That rise represents an asset bubble, not a reflection of economic growth. The input of large amounts of currency into the economy in an attempt to create fiscal stimulus always results in a bubble somewhere (you can't put more money to cover the same number of total assets and not expect prices to increase). Here we are seeing an stock market bubble fueled by the trippling of the money supply in the last 5 years. This is especially clear when you compare net worth to GDP. Net worth increasing with out actual economic output going up tells you this is a price change, not actual growth.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/02/rec...omic-recovery/

    The metrics I (and most mainstream economists use) proposed above:

    GDP:

    When you look at GDP in real terms (I would rather remove G from this equation, but I imagine most would object) and compare that to working age adults you see some pretty poor data for the President's economy:



    Or you could look at GDP growth in comparison to previous recessions (some of which were initially worse than this one):



    Even better from the Commerce department, here is how the economy is doing in comparison to where it would have otherwise been. It compares it to the 81 recession in which a smaller government, no stimulus approach was taken:




    Employment:

    Employment does not begin and end with unemployment, which as we all know doesn't account for discouraged workers or part time shifts (which have accelerated due to Obamacare and other cost mandating programs).


    Lets start with the U6 figure, which accounts for some discouraged workers and part time workers:



    Better yet, lets take a look at what portion of the population has employment:



    Or we can look at the Labor Force Participation rate, which reflects that portion of the population that is seeking employment or attempting to get it shortly (including those who have sought education in order to get a job).



    How about we look at how long people who are unemployed have been so? This graph is best seen in historical perspective (that dip at the end? It represents people giving up looking for a job, see above graphs).




    Finally, we can do what we did above and look at the unemployment rate in comparison to earlier recessions (some of which started out worse);




    Deficit:

    There isn't much to narrate here, the deficit is a) unsustainable and b) a spending issue.

    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes wakko liked this post
  15. #32
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right... after years of self interested politicians pass laws/tax exemptions and spending projects that CREATED the debt.
    As though it was only the R's that did that and thus created the debt alone.
    I'm not talking about the debt per se, I am talking about defaulting on debts.


    Really.. do you think that 16T is less than 13.5T? You appear to be listening to Washington math. The only math that says such a thing. They call "reduced in future increased spending" as a "cut".... It is not, it is fantasy land math.
    Of course it's a cut. If you project your food-budget is going to be $2000 per month and then you decide that you will do without ice-cream then the $100 you decide not to spend is a actually a cut.


    Right.. but gun control was not what he ran on. It was never mentioned in the campaign. (correct me if I'm wrong). That is a bit of political bait and switch going on. Acting like a recent development is reflective of some election mandate. Another issue I will have to wait out. Even if that means burying my guns.
    You are correct. I misspoke about it being a campaign promise. I was recalling the debate where he talked about banning AK47's.


    Like that $9 an hour minimum wage... You realize.. I have one person I pay to work with me sometimes. If I had to pay him $9 an hour, I would have to fire him.
    Really? You probably have to pay him maybe $40 more a week and you cannot afford it? If your tipping point is that narrow then you shouldn't be hiring him in the first place and quadruple your profits immediately!

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You do know that during the first 100 years of this country, there was no State of the Union address as we know it. Until 1913, the State of the Union address was simply a letter written by the President. Now, it is a campaign speech. Just another thanks to old Woodrow for that one.
    And ...? It's wrong to change how the President reports back to the country? Perhaps you'd prefer this letter delivered by carrier pigeon or something.

    And we already knew his vague proposals for these things. He's been campaigning for them since the campaign ended.
    And fulfilling his promises is a bad thing?


    What, exactly, is the value of reading it if there is nothing surprising in it?
    It's a call to action for the next year.


    So, its the President giving himself a pat on the back??? Uh, ok. The SOTU is meant to fulfill a vague Constitutional requirement. How it is done is up the President. Considering how little information is conveyed in these speeches, I think we can go back to a nicely worded letter.
    Other than the call to action, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the country's successes.


    Technically. No. The treasury is not bankrupt. Considering we are 14 trillion in debt and something like 25% of our GDP goes to towards paying down the debt, we are sorta, kinda out of money.
    We're not running out of anything of the sort - you can't treat the country as if it were an individual. So long as America continues to pay it's shorter term debts in the form of Government Bonds, we can have as much money as we like.


    Exactly, it is an ROI argument and as I noted, Head Start has proven to be a terrible ROI.
    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/14/...-for-children/
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...081778,00.html
    Then it will just have to change. Just like Bush's terrible Leave No Child behind, didn't work, then this will have to change too. Like I said, doing nothing is not an option.

    If the choice is to follow Obama and his wild use of Obama-bucks to throw at every problem under the sun or to do nothing, I'll choose to do nothing. We know Obama's policies fail when it comes to fixing the economy. What more do we need to learn?
    Wrong, Obama's policies have already fixed the economy. We went from losing jobs at the end of the Bush presidency to gaining jobs - maybe not at the rate it could have been but that is more due to R's blocking his programs.

  16. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I'm not talking about the debt per se, I am talking about defaulting on debts.
    Right.. but the republicans are not seeking to 'default' any more than the dem's. It is political chicken.
    The reason the Republicans are standing their ground is because the spending cuts NEVER occurs. The whole point of
    "avoiding the fiscal cliff" last time was to buy time to "negotiate" a COMPROMISE. .. We didn't get it.
    So, here we are. It is wrong to blame one side.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Of course it's a cut. If you project your food-budget is going to be $2000 per month and then you decide that you will do without ice-cream then the $100 you decide not to spend is a actually a cut.
    It is not a cut in SPENDING though. It is an imaginary cut. Think about it.
    If I "plan" to spend 10billion dollars next month.(for my house of wife & kids), and then I decide to just go with my old budget of
    3-4K.. did I "cut" 9billion+ in spending? No.. it was all pretend. If I told you the next day that I cut 9billion from my house hold budget.
    you should laugh at me. If I bragged about it to my accountant, I know he would laugh me out the building... and he is family.

    So it isn't a cut in spending. When you say you "cut" something that means you spent less than you did before.
    I cut my electric bill, means I used less electricity or got the same cheaper. It never means the imaginary cut you are using it for
    and frankly that is just dishonest speech to the average American. Even if there were some fancy accounting terminology, that isn't how the
    average American understands it, that is why they abuse the words and ideas like that. Re-defining common concepts so that they mean the opposite then acting as though they have a mandate when the people vote for something(after being tricked)... same old, same old.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Really? You probably have to pay him maybe $40 more a week and you cannot afford it? If your tipping point is that narrow then you shouldn't be hiring him in the first place and quadruple your profits immediately!
    yes, because I am already overpaying to TRAIN someone who doesn't know anything. I made $10 an hour when I made my way, it's ridiculous to think someone should start at almost that.
    (I'm not so old so as to make inflation an issue)
    At some point asking me to pay $9 for what a monkey can do is not worth it... I'll work overtime and make the money for myself.
    What about when I have to pay a guy for 4 weeks to do what I could have done in 1week because I can't afford to get the guy who is at my level(I can't afford him) but I need some kind of help. He would make almost half of what I make but take 4xs as long. That makes the total job more expensive because there is only 1 of me that I can afford.

    No.. it isn't as easy as $40 more a week, it is about MY time that it costs me because min wage drives up the cost of all the other actually skilled workers.

    Look, a good carpenter(not the singing kind), is going to charge 3-5xs what the basic guy makes.
    Why is that? Because I have done this for the past 15 years and that guy is just starting and doesn't know which end of the hammer to use, or how to read a tape measure.
    I am worth 3-5xs him.. because if you got 3-5 guys like him you wouldn't get the job done at all, or it would cost you far more than just getting me to do it in the first place.

    So you exponentially raise the cost of all labor, because you are setting the bottom rate.
    So, when you have to pay $90 an hour for a plumber, or $100 an hour for an electrician to change your light-fixture
    or when you have to pay $400(minimum) just to have a hole in your sheet-rock fixed... you can thank your local congressmen for minimum wage causing it to be so high.(prices area specific).

    STORY TIME
    -- why I know min wage doesn't work and hurts everyone especially those it is supposed to help.
    Before my wife and I got married, she worked at a day care and I worked at a grocery store. That was our first jobs. We had no experience. Then min wag went up, not much just about 25 cents, but back then min wage was about $5. A funny thing happened, the law passed and the daycare raised their rates to compensate. The funny part was, the cost went up 6months before anyone got a raise(because the law wasn't in effect yet). Now, the thing about daycare is that if you are going to have a 2 income home then someone has to watch the kids. If you are struggling (and many people do) to pay daycare, if the price goes up before you get a raise.. how does that help you? (Again, think min wage jobs, and two income family trying to make it).
    O, but why did the daycare raise their prices before, and not after.. are they "evil". No, their profit margin is tight. Insurance kills them. Not only that, but the day care increase alone made up for a large portion of that raise.
    And they aren't a "special" business.. every business does that. Added all up, it is MORE than the wage increase pays for.

    So the there isn't anyone that it helps. Of course on the grocery side they just didn't hire as many bag boys, or buggy pushing people. Just one or two less maybe. But now years later you can really see it. The store I worked at used to have a bag boy for every open register.. now they have one for 5 open registers, or only 5 at the most busy times.

    True story.. but hey, maybe practical economics work different where you live. But I have never heard of a business say they were going to go out and hire MORE people because the wages went up.


    The problem IMO is that people think you should be able to make a living on a min wage job...
    You shouldn't. You shouldn't be able to support a family, pay rent, put food on the table for pushing buggies around, or stacking food in bags and putting them in a car. That is entry level jobs for people who have no skill. If you plan your life around it.. it should SUCK.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #34
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right.. but the republicans are not seeking to 'default' any more than the dem's. It is political chicken.
    The reason the Republicans are standing their ground is because the spending cuts NEVER occurs. The whole point of "avoiding the fiscal cliff" last time was to buy time to "negotiate" a COMPROMISE. .. We didn't get it. So, here we are. It is wrong to blame one side.
    I disagree. It was unprecedented to use the debt ceiling to play chicken - it's putting the entire American Bond Market at stake. It was wholly a 'manufactured crises' in today's parlance. And if their spending cuts never occur then they can change that by winning elections rather than blocking the will of the American people. And at the end of the day everyone did get something: R's got $450K instead of the $200K and the D's got their middle class pay cuts.

    Besides, the debt ceiling is raised on bills ALREADY passed so if they don't want to raise the debt ceiling they can not vote for the bills that raise them in the first place. It's like ordering the most food at the table and threatening to not pay your fair share because other people ordered too much.


    It is not a cut in SPENDING though. It is an imaginary cut. Think about it.
    If I "plan" to spend 10billion dollars next month.(for my house of wife & kids), and then I decide to just go with my old budget of
    3-4K.. did I "cut" 9billion+ in spending? No.. it was all pretend. If I told you the next day that I cut 9billion from my house hold budget.
    you should laugh at me. If I bragged about it to my accountant, I know he would laugh me out the building... and he is family.

    So it isn't a cut in spending. When you say you "cut" something that means you spent less than you did before.
    I cut my electric bill, means I used less electricity or got the same cheaper. It never means the imaginary cut you are using it for
    and frankly that is just dishonest speech to the average American. Even if there were some fancy accounting terminology, that isn't how the
    average American understands it, that is why they abuse the words and ideas like that. Re-defining common concepts so that they mean the opposite then acting as though they have a mandate when the people vote for something(after being tricked)... same old, same old.
    Well, it's not pretend because it's all based on actual income. So if you make $2000, and not spend that $100 on ice-cream, you should have $100 extra in the next fiscal year. So that money has not been spent. I think maybe a better way to put it is that we are not raising the debt further by that $100. Either way, it is realized because when you spend that money, you no longer have it or you have increased your debt by $100.

    Your scenario is not realistic because the $10b is imaginary to begin with whereas if the budget calls for $10, then those are actual dollars to be allocated, that have to be paid for at some point (or by raising the debt ceiling). So once those programs have been committed to then lots of things go into motion to spend it. And if those programs were cut (i.e. they will not get their money that year) then that spending is cut in actuality.

    I think the distinction you may be missing is that it is a cut in future spending and not a retroactive 'bill' for money needed.



    yes, because I am already overpaying to TRAIN someone who doesn't know anything. I made $10 an hour when I made my way, it's ridiculous to think someone should start at almost that.
    (I'm not so old so as to make inflation an issue)
    At some point asking me to pay $9 for what a monkey can do is not worth it... I'll work overtime and make the money for myself.
    Yes, but how did you come up with the $9 in the first place? Did you say the same thing each time it was raise and made do anyway? Or did you say that $9 is the absolute limit now?

    What about when I have to pay a guy for 4 weeks to do what I could have done in 1week because I can't afford to get the guy who is at my level(I can't afford him) but I need some kind of help. He would make almost half of what I make but take 4xs as long. That makes the total job more expensive because there is only 1 of me that I can afford.

    No.. it isn't as easy as $40 more a week, it is about MY time that it costs me because min wage drives up the cost of all the other actually skilled workers.

    Look, a good carpenter(not the singing kind), is going to charge 3-5xs what the basic guy makes.
    Why is that? Because I have done this for the past 15 years and that guy is just starting and doesn't know which end of the hammer to use, or how to read a tape measure.
    I am worth 3-5xs him.. because if you got 3-5 guys like him you wouldn't get the job done at all, or it would cost you far more than just getting me to do it in the first place.
    That's an interesting business problem:

    MT: Makes one chair in 6 weeks by himself
    MT+Help: Makes on chair in 4 weeks
    MT+GoodHelp: Makes two chars in 3 weeks

    I don't know the real parameters but I'm sure you can develop a spreadsheet to figure it all out. Either way, at some point, assuming the guy is smart, that original 4wks should be reduced to the level of your GoodHelp and you'll get better help at a much more affordable price. It's all ROI.

    So you exponentially raise the cost of all labor, because you are setting the bottom rate.
    So, when you have to pay $90 an hour for a plumber, or $100 an hour for an electrician to change your light-fixture
    or when you have to pay $400(minimum) just to have a hole in your sheet-rock fixed... you can thank your local congressmen for minimum wage causing it to be so high.(prices area specific).
    Then just pass the cost on then. I support paying people a decent living wage rather than squeezing people for as much as you can get out of them; I would always pay more than the minimum wage just to even remove the stigma of being on a minimum wage job. As a consumer, that probably just translates to a few cents.


    STORY TIME
    -- why I know min wage doesn't work and hurts everyone especially those it is supposed to help.
    Before my wife and I got married, she worked at a day care and I worked at a grocery store. That was our first jobs. We had no experience. Then min wag went up, not much just about 25 cents, but back then min wage was about $5. A funny thing happened, the law passed and the daycare raised their rates to compensate. The funny part was, the cost went up 6months before anyone got a raise(because the law wasn't in effect yet). Now, the thing about daycare is that if you are going to have a 2 income home then someone has to watch the kids. If you are struggling (and many people do) to pay daycare, if the price goes up before you get a raise.. how does that help you? (Again, think min wage jobs, and two income family trying to make it).
    O, but why did the daycare raise their prices before, and not after.. are they "evil". No, their profit margin is tight. Insurance kills them. Not only that, but the day care increase alone made up for a large portion of that raise.
    And they aren't a "special" business.. every business does that. Added all up, it is MORE than the wage increase pays for.

    So the there isn't anyone that it helps. Of course on the grocery side they just didn't hire as many bag boys, or buggy pushing people. Just one or two less maybe. But now years later you can really see it. The store I worked at used to have a bag boy for every open register.. now they have one for 5 open registers, or only 5 at the most busy times.

    True story.. but hey, maybe practical economics work different where you live. But I have never heard of a business say they were going to go out and hire MORE people because the wages went up.
    I don't completely get the math here - you shouldn't have to foot the cost of the entire raise of 25c for every employee for every hour they work. You should only have to pay whatever the fair proportion was split up amongst the other customers. As as you point out the day care didn't really raise their prices as a response to the min wage hike but some other unspecified reason that had nothing to do with it. I do see your argument - if a lot of businesses do this, then it absorbs whatever raise that you yourself might have got; I'm not sure whether that is entirely true since some businesses would probably keep their prices the same and not change at all.

    The problem IMO is that people think you should be able to make a living on a min wage job...
    You shouldn't. You shouldn't be able to support a family, pay rent, put food on the table for pushing buggies around, or stacking food in bags and putting them in a car. That is entry level jobs for people who have no skill. If you plan your life around it.. it should SUCK.
    I doubt people choose to be on a minimum wage and telling them they should suffer doesn't really resolve anything. I get it that poor people suck at life. The question is what do you want to do about it - make sure they die or their children die? Or do you believe that with a better education and more money to help them get on their feet might help?

  18. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,242
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I disagree. It was unprecedented to use the debt ceiling to play chicken - it's putting the entire American Bond Market at stake.
    I'm sorry.. does "debt ceiling" mean nothing?
    How can you blame the people of America for electing representatives that would be unwilling to endlessly raise the debt allowed?
    How else is it ever going to occur that the nation gets to a balanced budget OTHER than giving it the legal teeth of not allowing any more spending?

    No. the people putting it at stake are the ones spending more money than they bring in, not the ones saying that you can't do it anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    It was wholly a 'manufactured crises' in today's parlance. And if their spending cuts never occur then they can change that by winning elections rather than blocking the will of the American people.
    The People elected a republican majority house that controls spending bills. Also, unless you want to point to a MANDATE then you can not claim "will of the people" on this issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Besides, the debt ceiling is raised on bills ALREADY passed so if they don't want to raise the debt ceiling they can not vote for the bills that raise them in the first place. It's like ordering the most food at the table and threatening to not pay your fair share because other people ordered too much.
    Which will always be true no matter which party decides to start being reasonable about spending. Is a meaningless accusation, because eventually some party and someone will have to say "no more".


    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Well, it's not pretend because it's all based on actual income
    FALSE!!!
    Debt is not "income", and never ever will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    So if you make $2000, and not spend that $100 on ice-cream, you should have $100 extra in the next fiscal year.
    FALSE!!!
    Look, use real numbers or at least reflections of them.
    Right now the gov spends $3000 a month, and brings in $2000 in income (taxes).
    So next month when they "plan" on spending $4000, and end up spending $3500 instead, that is not a cut or reduction in spending.
    It is still an INCREASE from the $3000, and still $1500 more than they bring in. You can not run your house like that, and no bank will lend you money
    if you show that as your monthly standings.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    So that money has not been spent. I think maybe a better way to put it is that we are not raising the debt further by that $100. Either way, it is realized because when you spend that money, you no longer have it or you have increased your debt by $100.
    Debt is not money you have to begin with..... that is why it is called debt.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Your scenario is not realistic because the $10b is imaginary to begin with whereas if the budget calls for $10, then those are actual dollars to be allocated, that have to be paid for at some point (or by raising the debt ceiling). So once those programs have been committed to then lots of things go into motion to spend it. And if those programs were cut (i.e. they will not get their money that year) then that spending is cut in actuality.

    I think the distinction you may be missing is that it is a cut in future spending and not a retroactive 'bill' for money needed.
    eehhhh.. no.

    The imaginary part about it is that the spending is not real until they have done it. It is "imaginary" because it is all in the mind as it has to do with the future spending. So decreasing your "planed" spending is only an imaginary cut, it isn't a cut to what you HAVE spent in the past. Unless you are spending less real money than you did in the past, then you are not cutting anything.

    You are using "cut" in the sense of being "cut out of the bill", it is not a "cut" like your boss will "cut your salary".

    If I cut your hourly wage, I promise you, you will be getting less.


    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I think the distinction you may be missing is that it is a cut in future spending and not a retroactive 'bill' for money needed.
    No. that is my point. Unless future spending is LESS than past spending, then you are categorically by definition, unequivocally NOT, NOT, NOT "cutting" spending.

    You are in effect "cooking" the books.


    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    That's an interesting business problem:

    MT: Makes one chair in 6 weeks by himself
    MT+Help: Makes on chair in 4 weeks
    MT+GoodHelp: Makes two chars in 3 weeks

    I don't know the real parameters but I'm sure you can develop a spreadsheet to figure it all out. Either way, at some point, assuming the guy is smart, that original 4wks should be reduced to the level of your GoodHelp and you'll get better help at a much more affordable price. It's all ROI.
    Riiiight. Yea, first that isn't how it plays out. You have to pay a good worker what he is worth to keep him.
    Second, it was just an example you can't "fix" your way out of the basic problem.
    Third (and important), that isn't how the math would work from my example.

    MT= Paint house in 1 week.
    Help = Paint house in 4 weeks. + requires MT to go back and do another day of labor to "fix" f**k ups
    Good Helper = Paint house in week to week & half, requires no additional work by MT.

    That means I have to hire 4 "helpers" to do the job in the same time I would do it. Or pay someone who makes nearly as much as I do.
    bottom line, it costs money to train, and then you have to pay more to retain the trained person (because everyone wants "good" help).

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    Then just pass the cost on then. I support paying people a decent living wage rather than squeezing people for as much as you can get out of them; I would always pay more than the minimum wage just to even remove the stigma of being on a minimum wage job. As a consumer, that probably just translates to a few cents.
    It always gets passed on
    As for paying people... I want to pay them all a billion dollars an hour. .. I just can't afford it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I don't completely get the math here - you shouldn't have to foot the cost of the entire raise of 25c for every employee for every hour they work. You should only have to pay whatever the fair proportion was split up amongst the other customers
    Yea, except that isn't the only "cost" that they have to pay, and thinking it is is too simplified.
    Everything goes up. The end cost(that the min wage causes) has to be covered, not the simple "wage increase".

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    As as you point out the day care didn't really raise their prices as a response to the min wage hike but some other unspecified reason that had nothing to do with it.
    No, it was in expectation of it's effects. That their profit margin remained the same after those effects were actualized showed that those effects were real.

    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I do see your argument - if a lot of businesses do this, then it absorbs whatever raise that you yourself might have got; I'm not sure whether that is entirely true since some businesses would probably keep their prices the same and not change at all.
    Good.. then now it is all about it actually occurring on a large scale or not right?
    I can't support that here, all I can say it is what I have seen at every business that uses min-wage workers, that I have been involved in or that I was made aware of their situation.


    Quote Originally Posted by JIM
    I doubt people choose to be on a minimum wage and telling them they should suffer doesn't really resolve anything. I get it that poor people suck at life. The question is what do you want to do about it - make sure they die or their children die? Or do you believe that with a better education and more money to help them get on their feet might help?
    I believe in personal charity, not legislated well-fare.
    The former is freedom and liberty, the later is tyranny by the vast poor over the working.

    The thing is, as much as "good intentions" can carry you, it will never make a job pushing buggies produce a "living" wage. The dollars reflect the social importance of the Job.

    Say for example a job exists that you can't currently live on working 40 hours. Say a "living" wage is $400 a week, and the job currently pays $200 a week.
    If you pass a law that changes the income to be $400, then in time you will find that the job STILL doesn't pay a living wage.
    ... because you are only setting the bottom. Upon which all other prices are based. .. it is called "inflation".

    So, if their child was going to die before, they will die after as well and no "good" has been done.
    Rather great Harm has been done, because now the worker may think that he SHOULD get a living wage from pushing buggies. .. which is an economic impossibility.

    Some jobs simply are not WORTH a living wage to be done. ... That's the cold hard facts. No amount of wishful thinking, or miss-placed charity with other peoples money will fix it.

    It certainly isn't about me "making sure they die".. that is ridiculous.
    The question is.. does it REALLY help? .. If it does help, then what has caused the past versions to fail to help? Why is THIS time different? The truth is, it isn't different, and in a few years you will be forced to make the same argument again, because YOU inflated prices by raising the min wage to begin with.

    O .. and by inflating the prices.. you hurt the old people... do you really want to kill old people? *turn about is fair play right?*J* ... why do you hate old people so much?



    ----The problem---
    The problem I see is that you don't understand what money is. It isn't real value but a representation of labors value.
    All labor is not equal in value. So, changing the amount of money that is used to represent any given labor doesn't effect the labors value, and thus the new dollar amount changes the basic economic exchanges. There is a time laps, but as my personal example shows, it isn't always in favor of those getting the new dollar assessment. The entire process causes fluctuations that wouldn't exist otherwise, and that are (as far as I know) always bad. In that they increase costs and time or decrease past earning value.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 2013 State of the Union Address

    I think the best analysis of Obama SOTU came from, of all people Adam Carola (sp?). He tied together Obama's discusison of the minimum wage, cost of living and the fair share of taxation. Obama discussed how a family making minimum wage with two children is living below the poverty line. While Obama wants to raise the MW and Obama claims the wealthy aren't paying their fair share Carola noted the following:
    1. About half of all Americans don't pay federal taxes.
    2. Jobs that pay the MW wage aren't meant to be careers. The crappy MW job should be an incentive to work hard and get a better a job.
    3. If you're making MW, why the heck do you have to two kids? Who is the person really not paying their fair share?

    I loved the above points. Overly simplistic? Sure. If you feel the urge to give me the anecdotal sob story of the guy with a good job and family who, after being unemployed found MW employment, keep it to yourself. There are exceptions to every rule. The point is that people without an education and/or a career should not be having children (let alone multiple children). Telling the wealthier people that they aren't paying their fair share and bringing up an example like Obama's is just maddening. If you think a job at McDonald's should be giving you a great income and allow you to buy a house and raise a family, then you're absolutely retarded and should be sterlized before polluting the world with more of your idiotic offspring that I'll be having to pay for. I've made this request before, but we should shame impoverished families that insist on having children. For mother's day and father's day the children of these families should have to write special cards to all the tax payers in America, thanking them for the food, housing, clothing, and education that their own dumb-ass parents couldn't provide for them. Hell, maybe they should have to write thank you notes after xmas and birthdays as well.

    I want to be perfectly clear here (stealing a tired line from Obama), I don't have anything against poor people. I have deep disdain for poor people who expect charity not only for themselves but all of their stupid mistakes. I have a deep disdain for those who expect the public to care for them and refuse to go the extra mile to care for themselves and who refuse to take responsibillity for their own actions.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. Likes Sigfried, Squatch347, wakko liked this post
 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. 300 Hours more School in 2013?
    By Libertarian in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 4th, 2013, 12:34 PM
  2. Gettysburg Address
    By Turtleflipper in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 27th, 2007, 07:01 PM
  3. State of the Union 2006.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2006, 12:14 PM
  4. State of the Union
    By sbgtfJC in forum Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: February 9th, 2005, 05:14 PM
  5. State of the Union -- Healthcare
    By Eva in forum Politics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2004, 04:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •