O=W

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:I’m sorry you don’t understand any more about the economy than your hero does. Let me explain a few things for your edification:

You see, about 90% of the entire work force is employed by what we call “small business”. Small business is the very backbone of our economy, and when they slow or even stop their growth the economy is harmed.

When you say something like “I don’t know who their going to sell to since unemployment is past %10” you show your inexperience just like Obama.

Are you ready? Here it comes.

When millions of small firms expand they actually hire people to run their retail, service and manufacturing businesses. That means that more people do in fact have jobs and with those jobs they are able to spend money which also helps the economy.

There that was easy.[/quote]

Yeah, it was easy. And it’s wrong. You make the mistake BECAUSE it’s easy, and you want an easy, feel-good solution. No one is going to hire people if they have nothing for them to do and no money to pay them with. They have no business. Do you understand this? You’re going at this entirely backwards. Unemployment is always a lagging indicator [as the bullish stock market now illustrates], but here you are saying that it leads a recovery. You are wrong.[/quote]

No, my young inexperienced friend, you are wrong. Currently, there are millions of small businesses across the country that would love to expand, take a chance and grow. But, because of the vast credit crunch, and the ineffectual bail out of our banking system, there is no money available for small business to expand.

I’m not claiming that small business is in a major growth pattern right now, but there are millions who would expand, buying real estate, machinery, equipment and yes hiring people to help run this expansion. But, because no one in washington understands this and focuses on helping small business (remember they employ about 90% of the work force) they sit there stagnant and so does the economy.

[quote]But, if you’re in Obama land you think of ways that the government (using taxpayers money) can directly help the economy. That means “make work” jobs like digging ditches and creating things that need not be created just so there will be a pay check. This artificial stimulus does nothing to help the economy long-term and may in fact harm it.

Questions?

The rest of this is irrelevant and incorrect, as it based on your previous error.[/quote]

The only “error” that has been made was electing an inexperienced, unqualified ultra liberal as President. The man does NOT understand business or the economy and he’s proven it time and again. You do NOT bring the economy around with “make work” jobs paid for from government dollars raided from the taxpayer. IT DOES NOT WORK, just ask those who have written about the great depression. Roosevelt tried it and failed. If it were not for WW II we would not have gotten out of the depression even as quickly as we did.

This is all history that you disregard. Your hero is treading well failed path.

[quote]Trying to push through government run health care does not strike you as something a socialist would just love?

The rest of the world loves single-payer health care.[/quote]

Do they? Why don’t you ask Canadians who cross the border in droves to see American doctors why they’re doing it?

Government run anything is inferior to private enterprise and competition. Yes, we need to change our health care system, but modifying it is the answer. The only thing government does correctly is wage war, and even then they sometimes screw that up, (see Vietnam).

Actually, it’s been quite effective, but I guess they didn’t tell you on Fox News.[/quote]

That’s gotta be the biggest liberal talking point as of late.

Why don’t you explain how Obama has succeeded in turning the economy around. Unemployment is higher than it ever was at 17% (real number).

Tell us how the stimulus he passed is helping, I’d love to read your answer to this because most of the country, about 65% thinks that we are in dire straights relative to the economy and what Obama has or has not done. And I really doubt that they all watch Fox News. Some might even watch Chris Matthews.

[quote]and stand by and watch unemployment rise to about 17% (counting those who no longer qualify for benefits>

Hmmm, here’s another place you get yourself into a jam. He cold potentially do something about unemployment, but you don’t really care, do you? He could pass some jobs bill or another stimulus, and it would help unemployment, but THEN you’d complain about the deficit, and these socialistic monstrosities. Again, you engage in rabid partisan criticism, with no consistent set of standards.[/quote]

I already told you why “make work” jobs don’t work. Why do you want to increase the burden on an ever decreasing tax base? Will that encourage or discourage economic growth?

You’re not thinking clearly at all.

[quote]I told you how to solve it and many others have offered similar plans.

Yes, and you were wrong. Moving on…[/quote]

But history says that we’re correct. That’s how we climbed out of recession each time we were in it regardless of who the President was and regardless of the seriousness of the recession. But Obama, he’s too smart to do things the way that actually works. He wants to grow government and this is the place to do it he’s surmmized. What a dreadful circumstance for our country.

[quote]Bush was feared among the bad guys of the world, and there are lots of them.

I’d say we are the principle bad guy in the world.[/quote]

There you go, solid anti-Americanism nonsense, just like your hero. You and he both hate the US. He hid his dislike long enough to achieve power and try to tear down what we’ve built.

[quote]Obama IS a disgrace, but I don’t recall hearing that on Fox News, not that someone might not have said it as there are many others who feel as I do. In fact Obama’s popularity is below 50%. Can you imagine that? And that’s with the main stream liberal media kissing his ass daily and Obama giving a speech every time you turn around.

Can you imagine what will happen if the press ever actually turns on him and begins to report the (GASP) truth?

There’s not a shred of rational thought here, so I’ll just ignore it.[/quote]

Ask Hillary Clinton how fair the press was during her debates with Obama. The questions were so lopsided that SNL did skit after skit about how the press favors Obama. And that was against another democrat. Check some of what was written in “fairness in media”. The positive stories about Obama were about 2-1 over McCain.

You’re a funny guy, everyone knows that the press has been in the tank for Obama like no other President in modern day. But, I think that could come to an end, it’s possible. If it does Obama will find his positive poll numbers even lower than 48% he currently enjoys. I’d wager that he could wake up one day and be in the low 30’s. In their heart Americans don’t really like big government and they will wake up when they are informed by a fair media.

[quote]Tell me if it’s good to have zero executive experience, and only two years in the senate before running for President your argument must be the less experience the better. If that’s true why don’t we find someone who is younger, more liberal and has even less experience than Obama.

You don’t need any experience.

Okay, I give up who wouldn’t be better?

None of those people you listed would be better.[/quote]

Why is that? Is it because none of them taught at Harvard? You are much like your hero. You’re both young, inexperienced, think you’re smarter than you are and not quite up to the task.

[quote]Not at all true. Most have been Governors and their executive experience has greatly help them as President.

You don’t need “executive experience,” this is just something made up that people have used forever to criticize their opponents.[/quote]

But that’s not logical is it? If you want to hire a manager for your store what’s the first thing that you look for? Right, experience in running a store. It’s not at all out of the queston to expect someone to have executive experience when asked to lead the largest and most important organization in the world.

You’re not really thinking are you?

[quote]Okay, in all honesty what else would you call a man who is trying his hardest to push through national health care at a cost of about 900 billion and also cap and trade which will cost people tens of millions in taxes IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LONGEST NASTIEST RECESSION IN HISTORY!
Many other western countries have national health care systems. It’s a fairly moderate thing to do. Cap and trade will NOT cost people tens of millions (that’s pure right-wing agitprop), and it’s a sensible thing to do in light of the threats of global warming. It’s not even that helpful, because in case you haven’t noticed, it’s pretty much been neutered. Once again, these things the right is afraid of are mainly sensible, moderate things.[/quote]

Where to begin?

First of all there is a question of whether global warming is real or not. Did you miss the email scandel that was on every news channel including FOX NEWS (I know you like to mention Fox so I did it for you, did you get a tingle up your leg? No, wait that only happens for you when Obama gives a speech right?).

Secondly, national health care is not a success in most of the rest of the world. That’s why you have Canadians crossing over into our country for medical attention and long lines in other courntry’s

Thirdly, even if those two things were good ideas, which they are not, THIS IS NOT THE PROPER TIME TO PURSUE THEM! We’re in a major recession how about focusing the attention where it’s most needed. A good executive would understand this, an ideologue would not.

Your hero is NOT up to the task of turning this economy around any more than you are up to the task of defending him or your backwards views.

[quote]You actually favor smaller government less taxes. Good one. Thanks for the laugh

I’m not really sure why you’re laughing It’s true. Just because you don’t actually know anything about communism isn’t my fault. Why don’t you take your own advice and crack a book?[/quote]

You’ve been schooled by three or four others on this thread regarding communism, I won’t bother to go down that road. Suffice it to say that you are young, impressionable and in 10 years or so when you grow up you’ll no longer be thinking the way you do now, I’d bet on that.

[quote]I think there’s hope for you, you’re trying to understand what’s going on politically, you’re trying, yes, you are trying. I just think that you need that smack in the face that only reality and about 10 more years of experience can deliver.

You might want to stop making 6th grade economics mistakes and learn a little bit of history before you accuse me of being ignorant.[/quote]

Look, I’ve lived it. I’m not bragging but I’ve worked hard for several decades, saved money, took out a bank loan, started my own business and actually employd people. I understand how the system works. I’ve been poor and I’ve made money as well. In short, I’ve lived.

Go do some living, pay the government half of what you make, come back in 10 years and tell me how good big government is.

I think getting an education is a great thing, but those institutions are liberal and push that very agenda in just about everything they offer. You think you have all the answers because your liberal profs have stuck book after book in your face from liberal authors bent on telling their opinions over the truth, you’re in for a rude awakening. If you think that the answer is in reading about other peoples opinions without ever having lived long enough to understand what they’re actually saying then you are even younger than I thought.

82

Once again. this is the economic situation:

Obama certainly knows economics, but hes is a definate Keynesian and we all know how that turned out during the commodity supply shocks and stagflation of the 1970’s. This is why they redid keynesianism to “New Keynesiam”, same flawed system, different name, which Obama is purporting. Case in point, stimulus package, TARP etc… under Keynesian thought this would be the delta G multipler and stimulate the economy by that factor. The flaw with this is it assumes high velocity of money and does not assume that people will hoard it against inherent and uncertain risk. This is precisely what the banks have done because the administration is so mercurial with its policy, and small busineses are the real casualty. No matter what economic school of thought one follows, uncertainty and opaqueness of government policy WHEN fiscal policy plays a big role in the Economy creates huge problems and stagnation. With a minor government role, their flucuations and flightyness would create much LESS problems…its really a dependancy issue.

Since you said you never took any economics classes Ryan, theres a small lesson for you. I dont mean that in any sort of snarky tone what so ever, just it seems you dont understand different schools of economic thought and I should at least use my degree to enlighten some people.

Russias industrialization was greatly helped by HEAPS of natural resources, put present day Brazil to shame. It took so long to achieve chronologically because of the backwards feudalism and isolated environment that russia has from the rest of the world. This also helped foster the idea for Marx and Engels vision due to the inability to engage in trade with the backwards ass government they had. Just like a kid rebelling against over strict parents. I would be more than happy to discuss Soviet and pre soviet russian history, facts and figures with you and have a few good books on the topic.

For anyone intrested in the industrialization of Russia in a descriptive novel that shows the feudal plots going to kolkohz’s and factories and whatnot being built. Read Behind the Urals.

83

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:False. 13-15 million died in the Great Terror alone, and that was only a small period of Soviet History. We haven’t even gotten into the things Lenin did:
Conquest claimed that the trials and executions of these former Communist leaders were a minor detail of the purges, which, together with man-made famines, had led to 20 million deaths according to his estimates. In the preface to the 40th anniversary edition of The Great Terror, Conquest revised his estimate downwards to 13-15 million.
[/quote]

Conquest’s numbers are well-known to be flawed. While I’m not disputing that millions died, your numbers are off.

But then again, it doesn’t matter. How many have to die before the economic system (which was not even socialist) is irrevocably tainted? Tens of millions died due to the USSR’s actions, and tens of millions have died due to our actions and those of other capitalist countries. Yet I see no weeping for these victims. The bottom line is, if the number of deaths caused by an economic system is grounds for its dismissal, you’ll have no economic systems left.

Hmmm…disease was responsible for slavery and the Indian genocide? I see. I suppose it was also responsible for our imperial adventures, where we’ve racked up quite a bodycount. I don’t care if you disagree with me, but get real, and quit being a sniveling apologist who ignores inconvenient facts and employs two different sets of standards.

And again, exactly who is the bigger propagandist? The physics department, or the math department? You’ve been regurgitating right-wing propaganda for so long you’ve forgotten that they’re lies.

I always am.

Haha, you really make this too easy. You admonish me for ignoring the other side while you name an author criticial of the Soviet Union. Why don’t you take your own advice some time.

Irrelevant, and a cover for the stupid mistake you made earlier. The year in which industrialization started has nothing to do with the discussion. The rate does.

1917 is early in the 19th century.

Wrong. What you mean to say is, I present no facts which are appealing to you. If you want to dislike communism, that’s fine and your business, but your constant errors and logical fallacies clearly indicate that you have no idea what you’re talking about. So since you’re so concerned about the “projection” of faults, why don’t you start a little closer to home?

[quote]You just attempt this lame snarky condescension in telling people to “read something” or that we’re “ignorant of the facts.” Obviously, the facts are not on your side or you’d be able to answer so simple a question as “What was the GDP of Russia during the Soviet period?”
But you’ve dodged this question like all the others but held me to a different standard. I’m expected to answer all of your questions, but you answer none of anyone else’s.[/quote]

You haven’t answered the simplest question I’ve asked you: who is the bigger propagandist: the physics department or the mathematics department? I know you don’t want to address this issue, as your ramblings seem much weaker without your conspiracy theories to buttress them, but in order to avoid being a total hypocrite, you might want to make some attempt.

As to GDP, I assumed that you were smart enough (there was the mistake) to translate qualitative facts (such as their incredibly rapid industrialization, their integral role in defeating Hitler, and their leadership in the space program) into a quantitative estimate. I also thought these were pretty benign, noncontentious statements, as most of the USSR’s bitterest detractors will admit that their industrial progress was impressive. Since you in effect ask me to document my claim that the sky is blue, I’ll list some accomplishments. First, a word: attempting to ascertain reliable GDP numbers (in units of currency, of course) is very difficult, for a variety of reasons, therefore the most illustrative approach is to examine physical accomplishments. During the second Five Year Plan, electricity output nearly tripled, from 13.4 million kwhrs to 36.2. Coal output doubled, from 64.3 million tons to 128 million. Steel production tripled, from 5.9 to 17.7 million tons. Grain harvest increased by just over a third, from 69.9 million tons to 96 million tons. Etc.

Regrettable, but no different than conditions here in the United States during the analogous portion of our history (and maybe slightly better).

84

No, actually the situation is more along the lines of RETURNING to what has worked, and abandoning the religion that got us here. It’s clear that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

That’s one of my main points: NONE of us have much effect on government policy. Which makes it a huge waste of time to rant till you’re blue in the face about how “Obama’s destroying the country!” (when, in reality, he’s doing the things that it takes to stabilize capitalism [sorry, I know you don’t want to hear it, but it’s true]; not to mention you imply that we could have elected someone who would have done a better job, which I needn’t tell you is definitely not the case).

“Hey! That question is no fair!” Pretty much what I thought. To answer your question, it doesn’t necessarily mean that capitalism doesn’t work (and I hate to do this, but it does sort of depend on what you mean by “work”), but it does mean free-for-all capitalism doesn’t work that well. If not for government actions, 10.2% official unemployment would sound great right now.

Last time I checked, it was YOU getting economics wrong.

85

I was wondering what strategy you’d take here. Continuing to pound your head into the wall is not the course I expected you to take, but in retrospect I ought not to have been surprised. Have you ever read an economics book in your entire life? If so, you’d know that you’re wrong according to all of them.

“Employers are reluctant to lay people off when the economy turns bad, and even more reluctant to hire them when the economy improves. For that reason, the unemployment rate can only confirm what the other indicators are showing. For example, if the other indicators show a quickening economy, and the unemployment rate is declining, then you know for sure businesses are confident enough to start hiring again. Since it is a lagging indicator, unemployment can worsen even after the economy starts to improve. For example, unemployment went from 5.6% in 2002 to 6% in 2003, even though the recession ended in 2002.”

Basic stuff.

Aw, no one understands it. You’re so much smarter than everyone else. Except for Obama, who is agitating for the elimination of capital gains taxes on small businesses, as well as extending credits for acquiring capital and hiring employees. Do you ever turn on the news when they’re talking about the economy? You’ll hear “small businesses” about once every couple of minutes. No one is ignoring them.

Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth regurgitation of right-wing talking points. Inexperienced? As being president? That’s EVERY president before they’re elected? Unqualified? He taught law and was a senator. You were ready to hand over the nuke codes to someone who claims the being able to see Russia from her house counts as foreign policy experience. Obama is far more qualified to be president than McCain or Palin. They couldn’t even run a decent campaign, let alone the country. How’s that for unqualified?

Well, that’s true. It

Except that it did and does. Sack up and face reality.

[quotejust ask those who have written about the great depression. Roosevelt tried it and failed. If it were not for WW II we would not have gotten out of the depression even as quickly as we did.[/quote]

…So, except for the Keynesian spending on WW II, which got us out of the Depression, Keynesian spending doesn’t work? There there, that’s a good party member. Tow that line, baby.

If you actually READ the history that you refer to, you’ll realize that you’re exactly 180 degrees wrong. As usual.

Whenever you ask Canadians about their health system, they’re very pleased with it. While we’re talking about it, why do you ask the over 1,000,000 Americans who leave for MEXICO for medical care every year. Yep. People leave the US for MEXICO.

Unless you actually look at the facts, which clearly show single-payer systems deliver better outcomes and are FAR more efficient.

Every single answer you’ve given thus far is empirically, objectively wrong, so forgive me if I’m skeptical of your opinion on health care.

How many more baseless libertarian slogans do you have stuffed up your ass?

Again, shut your eyes if you want, the world is still there.

Why don’t YOU explain how anything less would have done better? I’ll give you time to consult Wikipedia.

News flash, it’s saved over a million jobs. That unemployment number you keep whining about? Why do you whine about it, and then propose measures that would drastically increase it?

Yes, that is something else you got wrong.

Why do YOU want to increase the burden? What? Do you think the deficit stays neutral during a recession if you don’t tack any spending on? NOT stimulating the economy is usually costlier in the long run because of the massive drop in tax receipts.

Wow, I forgot how static and one-dimensional the typical right-wing thought process is.

HAHA!

When the market fails, the government needs to step in. Pretty simple, though unpalatable for a zealot such as yourself. Maybe you’ll eventually grow up and realize that the veracity of a statement does not depend on your emotions.

Oh, I forgot, you don’t read history, so you don’t know…

I hate murderers, thieves, and parasites. Their country of origin makes no difference to me.

I take it then, that you didn’t see McCain’s campaign. 2-1 positive ratio, in this instance, is called objectivity in journalism.

Ah yes, “everyone knows.” Boy, that’s funny.

Wake up! C’mon people, wake up! You guys are always counting on people to “wake up!” Maybe it’s you that needs to wake up.

No, it’s quite simply because all of those people ARE THE SAME. They would do the same things.

But he DOESN’T run the store. That’s painfully obvious to anyone whose tinfoil hat doesn’t cover their eyes.

Yet somehow, all the critiques of Sarah Palin oh-so-unfair!

Yes. You don’t get it, but it’s not my fault.

How about reading a book? Oh, you’re not talking about that, sorry.

I know that news in your parallel universe is delayed, but no, there’s not.

No, but apparently you DID miss the fact that their data was essentially exactly the same as NASA and other organizations. In other words, there really is no scandal.

Again, not much to say here, you’re just getting basic facts wrong.

So again, why do we have Americans going to Mexico for medical care if our system is so great?

Now is not the proper time? When the economic conditions call for substantial increases in federal spending to make up for private losses? When we have to spend a lot of money, we DON’T want to put ourselves in a good position for future growth? You don’t even think before you write this crap, do you?

Keep repeating that. Maybe you’ll convince someone else some day. In the meantime, continue to disregard all evidence. Like (whoever that was) said (paraphrased), “You never really convince people to give up their outdated views, you just wait until they die and properly instruct the next generation.” We can’t count on you, but eventually some people will learn.

Good thing for you, because you’d be hard-pressed to find those threads. Like I said, just because people here don’t know anything about communism, it’s not my fault.

He says, eagerly lapping up the slop that Fox News feeds him. I know critical thinking is not exactly your thing, but don’t try to drag me down while you wallow around in ignorance.

Good for you, I’m very proud of you, but it does nothing to hide or remedy your chronic ignorance.

Boy, you’ve really got a one-track mind, don’t you? “Big government!” “Socialism!” “Fascism!” Your style of “debate” reminds me of something I’ve read by John Locke. What was it? Oh yeah:

“Yet this insignificancy in their words, when they come to reason concerning either their tenents or interest, manifestly fills their discourse with abundance of empty unintelligible noise and jargon…”

[quote]I think getting an education is a great thing,[/quote

Apparently, you don’t.

[quotebut those institutions are liberal and push that very agenda in just about everything they offer.[/quote]

Hey, believe whatever you’ve got to believe to make it through the day.

Hmmm…which book would it have been? Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers? Stewarts Calculus? I hate to debunk another one of your conspiracy theories that stands in so well in the place of rational argument, but you’ve got to learn sometime.

So I guess what you’re saying is “Go with your gut! Believe what is comfortable, not what is correct.” No thanks. We’ve got enough of you as it is.

86

Ryan, have you ever visited a Socialist country?

87

You said it was only “about a million.” Now it’s “millions?” Do you have proof that Conquest’s numbers are wrong, as you put it, or is this another of your “facts” we’re all supposed to blindly accept without any substantiation on your part?

In other words, you don’t like the facts. Your line of reasoning was actually started by a guy named Ward Churchill.

Why is the rate more impressive to you? We, in the West, were inventing industrialization back in the 1800s. They only had to take what we invented and employ it. China industrialized even faster than we did in the 90s. That’s not particularly impressive if you understand the mechanism for their industrialization: American businessmen moving manufacturing to China.

What is more impressive to you: invention or copying?

Still, you’ve provided no proof that the rate was even greater, just like your bald assertions about Russian GDP that you still haven’t substantiated. Moreover, you’ve provided no proof that industrialization even waited until 1917 to occur in Russia. One wonders how the Tsarist Russian empire grew to its extreme size with no modern machinery and processes by which to generate war materiel. One further wonders how they fought WWI under Tsar Nicholas II without the benefit of industrial processes. Well, everyone wonders these things but you.

LOLwut?

Sorry, I’m just too stupid. You’ll have to do it for me. Where are those charts we’re all waiting to see? It should be a trivial exercise for you to produce them given your vast knowledge on the subject.

[quote]Since you in effect ask me to document my claim that the sky is blue, I’ll list some accomplishments. First, a word: attempting to ascertain reliable GDP numbers (in units of currency, of course) is very difficult, for a variety of reasons, therefore the most illustrative approach is to examine physical accomplishments. During the second Five Year Plan, electricity output nearly tripled, from 13.4 million kwhrs to 36.2. Coal output doubled, from 64.3 million tons to 128 million. Steel production tripled, from 5.9 to 17.7 million tons. Grain harvest increased by just over a third, from 69.9 million tons to 96 million tons. Etc.
[/quote]

All this in a place with “no natural resources” as you put it? Where’s they get the ore to make the steel? Where’d they get the coal to run the power plants? Where’d they get the fertile land to plant crops? Did you just get trapped in another lie?

Oooh, look what I found:

[quote]In 1927 Stalin’s advisers told him that with the modernization of farming the Soviet Union would require an extra 250,000 tractors. As well as tractors there was also a need to develop the oil fields to provide the necessary petrol to drive the machines. Power stations also had to be built to supply the farms with electricity.

Since the October Revolution industrial progress had been slow. It was not until 1927 that production had reached the levels achieved before the start of the First World War. Stalin decided that he would use his control over the country to increase production.

The first Five Year Plan introduced in 1928, concentrated on the development of iron and steel, machine-tools, electric power and transport. Joseph Stalin set the workers high targets. He demanded a 1115 increase in coal production, 200% increase in iron production and 335% increase in electric power. He justified these demands by claiming that if rapid industrialization did not take place, the Soviet Union would not be able to defend itself against an invasion from capitalist countries in the west.

Every factory had large display boards erected that showed the output of workers. Those that failed to reach the required targets were publicity criticized and humiliated. Some workers could not cope with this pressure and absenteeism increased. This led to even more repressive measures being introduced. Records were kept of workers’ lateness, absenteeism and bad workmanship. If the worker’s record was poor, he was accused of trying to sabotage the Five Year Plan and if found guilty could be shot or sent to work as forced labour on the Baltic Sea Canal or the Siberian Railway.

With the introduction of the Five Year Plan, Stalin argued that it was necessary to pay higher wages to certain workers in order to encourage increased output. His left-wing opponents claimed that this inequality was a betrayal of socialism and would create a new class system in the Soviet Union. Stalin had his way and during the 1930s, the gap between the wages of the labourers and the skilled workers increased. [/quote]

So it looks like Stalin’s 5 Year Plan of 1927 managed to get production back up to Tsarist levels through the use of brutal oppression. He also caused massive famines in the process. Yay?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSfive.htm

88

Back to the thread topic.

Here’s a Neocon basically identifying BHO as one of them. Obama = Bush:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2Y3ODE2OTQ0MjAxZTI4Y2UxYmQ1ZmFkOWRmMTQyZTY=

89

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

I was wondering what strategy you’d take here. Continuing to pound your head into the wall is not the course I expected you to take, but in retrospect I ought not to have been surprised. Have you ever read an economics book in your entire life? If so, you’d know that you’re wrong according to all of them.[/quote]

Good point, the economy gets better by over taxing small business and preventing them from getting loans so they can’t hire anyone, nor expand.

Why didn’t I see that before, you’re making perfect sense, for a 20 something know nothing.

You’ve tried really hard to respond to my facts by not saying anything other than, “no, no you’re wrong.” It’s old kid, start presenting a real argument or I’m not wasting my time any longer.

You’ve got nothing, so far.

[quote]I’m not claiming that small business is in a major growth pattern right now, but there are millions who would expand, buying real estate, machinery, equipment and yes hiring people to help run this expansion. But, because no one in washington understands this and focuses on helping small business (remember they employ about 90% of the work force) they sit there stagnant and so does the economy.

Aw, no one understands it. You’re so much smarter than everyone else.[/quote] Certainly I’m smarter than you.[quote]Except for Obama, who is agitating for the elimination of capital gains taxes on small businesses, as well as extending credits for acquiring capital and hiring employees.[/quote] When those things are passed by his prompting I’ll give him plenty of credit, but I won’t be holding my breath.

[quote]The only “error” that has been made was electing an inexperienced, unqualified ultra liberal as President.

Rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth regurgitation of right-wing talking points.[/quote] Yet, apparently all true as you’ve not yet been able to refute any of it.

No, some actually have executive experience as I explained to you earlier.

You’re kidding right? Come on say you’re kidding. Teaching law? That’s a good prelude to becoming President? WOW.

And as for his two years as a senator that doesn’t amount to nearly enough experience to become President.

But he is charismatic and can give a good speech, yea, that’s good right?

I’m not and never was, a big fan of John McCain, but I choose him in a heart beat over the inexperienced, lefty Obama. McCain actually has a resume, was a Lt. in the Navy and Sen. for many years.

hey wait, Obama was a community organizer, that’s good right? Isn’t it?

[quote]You do NOT bring the economy around with “make work” jobs paid for from government dollars raided from the taxpayer. IT DOES NOT WORK,

Except that it did and does. Sack up and face reality.[/quote]

I gave you one very important example where it did NOT bring the economy around. Now do you think you might be able to come back with something better than “YEA IT DOES sak up and face it”.

Granted, that might be how you win arguments with your little buddies when you’re pulling all nighters, but it just doesn’t play well here.

[quote]just ask those who have written about the great depression. Roosevelt tried it and failed. If it were not for WW II we would not have gotten out of the depression even as quickly as we did.

…So, except for the Keynesian spending on WW II, which got us out of the Depression, Keynesian spending doesn’t work? There there, [/quote]

You are not the sharpest tool in the box, but you’re a tool none the less. WW II got us out of the great depression and just about everyone who has ever thought a coherent thought knows it. ha ha, “keynesian spending” ha ha ha.

All you do is preach the lefty agenda. I give you facts and you simply say “nuh uh”.

[quote]Do they? Why don’t you ask Canadians who cross the border in droves to see American doctors why they’re doing it?

Whenever you ask Canadians about their health system, they’re very pleased with it. While we’re talking about it, why do you ask the over 1,000,000 Americans who leave for MEXICO for medical care every year. Yep. People leave the US for MEXICO. [/quote]

Then why is it that in a recent poll about 65% of Americans said they were very happy with their health care?

But, Obama doesn’t care what they think does he?

[quote]Government run anything is inferior to private enterprise and competition.
Unless you actually look at the facts, which clearly show single-payer systems deliver better outcomes and are FAR more efficient.[/quote]

If you want the Gov. picking your doctor and telling you what operation you can and can’t have yea, I guess it’s pretty good.

[quote]The only thing government does correctly is wage war, and even then they sometimes screw that up, (see Vietnam).

How many more baseless libertarian slogans do you have stuffed up your ass?[/quote]

You could have actually answered that question and given me a long list of government run success stories. BUT, you couldn’t! That tells us all something doesn’t it? You’re quick with a put-down, but slow on factual retorts. I understand why, but it needs to be pointed out in case anyone else is reading your nonsense.

[quote]Why don’t you explain how Obama has succeeded in turning the economy around. Unemployment is higher than it ever was at 17% (real number).

Why don’t YOU explain how anything less would have done better? I’ll give you time to consult Wikipedia. [/quote]

Let’s see how is anything less than 17% better? Hmm, hey I got it! When more people are working more people are spending and then even more people become employed. Yea, that’s why it’s better to have lower unemployment (eye roll).

[quote]Tell us how the stimulus he passed is helping, I’d love to read your answer to this because most of the country, about 65% thinks that we are in dire straights relative to the economy and what Obama has or has not done. And I really doubt that they all watch Fox News. Some might even watch Chris Matthews.

News flash, it’s saved over a million jobs.[/quote]

Yea, that’s what Obama has said over and over and over again. Funny thing about that though, it can never be proven. Hey maybe it saved 10 million jobs right? What a joke.

[quote]I already told you why “make work” jobs don’t work.

Yes, that is something else you got wrong.[/quote]

Easy to say, but I’ve given you my explanation as to why it never works, yet you just post “nuh uh”.

You know that college your going to? Get your money back.

[quote]Why do you want to increase the burden on an ever decreasing tax base? Will that encourage or discourage economic growth?

Why do YOU want to increase the burden? What? Do you think the deficit stays neutral during a recession if you don’t tack any spending on? NOT stimulating the economy is usually costlier in the long run because of the massive drop in tax receipts.[/quote]

But growing the deficit is the wrong answer and Obama is spending us into oblivion.

And I forgot how much hubris that an inexperienced young collge guy has. But, you’ll learn, you will.

[quote]But history says that we’re correct. That’s how we climbed out of recession each time we were in it regardless of who the President was and regardless of the seriousness of the recession. But Obama, he’s too smart to do things the way that actually works. He wants to grow government and this is the place to do it he’s surmmized. What a dreadful circumstance for our country.

When the market fails, the government needs to step in. Pretty simple,[/quote] Says who? business can fail, that’s what’s it’s all about, but not in obama land.

[quote]The positive stories about Obama were about 2-1 over McCain.

I take it then, that you didn’t see McCain’s campaign. 2-1 positive ratio, in this instance, is called objectivity in journalism.[/quote]

It’s nice to meet that last person on earth who actually thinks that the media didn’t favor Obama. I could call you dumb, but I think it goes deeper than that. Truly self-deception of some sort. Even Chris (there’s a shiver up my leg) Matthews has said that Obama was favored. But you, you know better. Why? It’s because you are in COLLEGE.

:slight_smile:

[quote]In their heart Americans don’t really like big government and they will wake up when they are informed by a fair media.
Wake up! C’mon people, wake up! You guys are always counting on people to “wake up!” Maybe it’s you that needs to wake up.[/quote]

And you could have given examples of how Americans hate small government. BUT, once again no serious retort. Old kid, getting old.

[quote]But that’s not logical is it? If you want to hire a manager for your store what’s the first thing that you look for? Right, experience in running a store.

But he DOESN’T run the store. That’s painfully obvious to anyone whose tinfoil hat doesn’t cover their eyes.[/quote]

But, he is the chief executive and THAT’S painfully obvious to anyone who knows how the government actually runs. AND, Obama has NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE.

A third grader would understand this by now.

[quote]It’s not at all out of the queston to expect someone to have executive experience when asked to lead the largest and most important organization in the world.
Yet somehow, all the critiques of Sarah Palin oh-so-unfair! [/quote]

First, Palin was not running for President.

Secondly, Obama IS President and you have nothing to say about his lack of executive experience other than to attack Palin?

Weak, and getting weaker.

[quote]First of all there is a question of whether global warming is real or not.

I know that news in your parallel universe is delayed, but no, there’s not.[/quote]

No, actually there are thousands of credible scientists who question global warming. They decided not to swallow the politically correct pill, like you, and your hero have.

[quote]Thirdly, even if those two things were good ideas, which they are not, THIS IS NOT THE PROPER TIME TO PURSUE THEM! We’re in a major recession how about focusing the attention where it’s most needed. A good executive would understand this, an ideologue would not.

Now is not the proper time? When the economic conditions call for substantial increases in federal spending to make up for private losses? When we have to spend a lot of money, we DON’T want to put ourselves in a good position for future growth? You don’t even think before you write this crap, do you? [/quote]

The time to focus on the economy is NOW. If you think that spending 900 billion on national health care is going to help the economy you better have a sit-down with someone much samrter than the fools you’ve been taking notes from.

[quote]Your hero is NOT up to the task of turning this economy around any more than you are up to the task of defending him or your backwards views.

Keep repeating that.[/quote] I will until you can actually refute it, which you’ve yet to do.

Spoken by someone who thinks communism is COOOOOL —LOL you little nitwit.

[quote]Look, I’ve lived it. I’m not bragging but I’ve worked hard for several decades, saved money, took out a bank loan, started my own business and actually employd people. I understand how the system works. I’ve been poor and I’ve made money as well. In short, I’ve lived.

Good for you, I’m very proud of you, but it does nothing to hide or remedy your chronic ignorance.[/quote]

Not having lived very long, or done very much and being so filled with your self-importance causes you to say things like this. This will change too when you actually have to (here comes an ugly word watch out) WORK!

[quote]Go do some living, pay the government half of what you make, come back in 10 years and tell me how good big government is.

Boy, you’ve really got a one-track mind, don’t you? “Big government!” “Socialism!” “Fascism!” Your style of “debate” reminds me of something I’ve read by John Locke. What was it? Oh yeah:

“Yet this insignificancy in their words, when they come to reason concerning either their tenents or interest, manifestly fills their discourse with abundance of empty unintelligible noise and jargon…”[/quote]

Here’s one for you by Ben Franklin: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” You’ll learn kid…you’ll learn.

[quote]If you think that the answer is in reading about other peoples opinions without ever having lived long enough to understand what they’re actually saying then you are even younger than I thought.

So I guess what you’re saying is “Go with your gut! Believe what is comfortable, not what is correct.” No thanks. We’ve got enough of you as it is.[/quote]

No, actually that’s not at all what that means. I’ll spell it out for you since you seem lost. It means that it almost doesn’t matter what you read, or how much you read, if you don’t have the experience to understand the authors perspective and the general background of why it was written, well, you’ll simply be gullible enough to believe anything. Take your avatar for example. And yes, you’re even younger than I thought.

90

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You are not the sharpest tool in the box, but you’re a tool none the less. WW II got us out of the great depression and just about everyone who has ever thought a coherent thought knows it. ha ha, “keynesian spending” ha ha ha.

[/quote]

Well, I do not know this.

So you say his type of government spending was useless whereas yours was a resounding success?

91

Wow, orion you read that lengthy post? Hey thanks man!

92

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, orion you read that lengthy post? Hey thanks man![/quote]

Yes, and did you notice how I am instinctively drawn to the point I disagree with?

93

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Except for Obama, who is agitating for the elimination of capital gains taxes on small businesses, as well as extending credits for acquiring capital and hiring employees.[/quote]

When those things are passed by his prompting I’ll give him plenty of credit, but I won’t be holding my breath. [/quote]

Actually this – while it is correct that Obama said he was pushing for this – is an example of his incompetence and lack of economic knowledge, as well as of course Mr McCarter’s.

Because capital gains taxes are taxes paid by investors on the difference between sale price of stock and price paid.

Small businesses do not pay capital gains taxes: they pay income taxes.

94

True, it was a sloppy statement. Slightly over a million died in the Gulags. Millions died in the USSR.

Another? Sorry, mine are documented. Official Soviet data shows his numbers to be incorrect in many places. There have been quite a few people who have called his numbers into question.

So in other words, you’re attempting to dodge the question. I’ll allow it, but I’m taking a note of it.

Because the rate is a function of productivity. The year industrialization starts is not. China industrialized faster for the same reason: state planning and guidance of the economy.

Besides the fact that we copied the British in several important industries (which would make our subsequent performance unimpressive by your standards), this is again irrelevant. It’s not like copying an answer off of a test. You still have to do all the physical work of actually building an industrial economy.

More flights of fantasy: I did substantiate it. “Proof” the rate was greater? If the mass of literature on WWII and the rise of the USSR is not enough for you, then I am at a loss.

Of course they were not without any industry of any kind, but they were far behind the advanced powers in most respects. More importantly, the civil war and WW I destroyed much of the infrastructure and left the economy in the toilet.

See above.

That’s what I thought.

Once you’re done amusing yourself, you’ll notice that I gave you some figures.

I didn’t put it that way. I’m beginning to think you simply read what you want to read.

Aside from the fact that you haven’t “caught” me in the first lie, let alone another, this error is also based on your inability to read.

Back up to and then far past. Yes.

Of course not, but then I never apologized for Stalin’s crimes.

95

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:Actually this – while it is correct that Obama said he was pushing for this – is an example of his incompetence and lack of economic knowledge, as well as of course Mr McCarter’s.

Because capital gains taxes are taxes paid by investors on the difference between sale price of stock and price paid.

Small businesses do not pay capital gains taxes: they pay income taxes.[/quote]

Not quite, Bill. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes on the purchase of “qualified small business stock.” I didn’t know I had to spell everything out for you.

96

[quote]
PRCalDude wrote:
So it looks like Stalin’s 5 Year Plan of 1927 managed to get production back up to Tsarist levels through the use of brutal oppression.

Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Back up to and then far past. Yes.[/quote]

Sounds wonderful.

97

Well, no it doesn’t, but then no one ever said that. I know, I know, you’re pouting because a “20-something know-nothing” is calling you on your basic economics mistakes, but trying to put words in my mouth is not the way to go.

Waaaaaahhhh!!!

Well, when you call on Little Johnny, and ask him what 2+2 equals, and he says “Five,” do you pull out Principia Mathematica and take him through the formal proof that 2+2 = 4? Or do you just tell him, “No, that’s not right. It actually equals 4?” You claimed that 2+2 = 5, and I don’t want to pull out Principia Mathematica.

You’ve got nothing, so far.

OK.

Why? What if they’re voted down in spite of his efforts? If he tries to get them passed, why wouldn’t you just say, “That’s a good idea, he’s doing the right thing”? You said “He should do X,” he did X, and now you’re trying to get out of acknowledging it. Could it be because you actually don’t care what he does, you’re just a partisan hack who boos and hisses when his party tells him to?

Unfalsifiable claims are just that.

He had just as much executive experience as McCain.

Why? It’s a lot of hard work and you come out purty smart. His senate experience gives him practical experience in government. You’re just desperate for an excuse to not like him.

Whatever you say.

Compared to the last president, who couldn’t even give a good speech.

So you liked inexperienced McCain over inexperienced Obama?

Which has fuck-all to do being president.

It’s as good being in the Navy.

No, you didn’t. Sorry. Quit whining.

[quote]just ask those who have written about the great depression. Roosevelt tried it and failed. If it were not for WW II we would not have gotten out of the depression even as quickly as we did.

Way to go, shit-for-brains. Call me stupid and then make the dumbass mistake of not even realizing WWII WAS Keynesian spending.

When did this happen? You haven’t mentioned a single fact yet.

I don’t know. Ask them. But then again, that’s not really what we’re talking about. See if you can spot your mistake.

Not really in general, but in this case, Americans HAVE supported universal health care for at least 20 years.

You don’t even know what single-payer is, do you?

I’ve given you many, many factual retorts. They don’t faze you. You simply won’t accept that you get basic facts wrong. Government-run success stories? Off the top of my head, how about the atom bomb? Since we were talking about it, how about the most rapid industrialization in history (Soviet Russia and Japan)? You don’t want to hear it, but single-payer health systems in other countries.

Ah, trying to dodge the question. I agree, it was your best move in this case, but it’s not going to work. I’m not asking you why unemployment is bad. The question is: what SHOULD have been done that would have been better? Before you answer, bear in mind: in your answer, the government can’t spend any money, because you’re against that, and you claim it doesn’t work. So what exactly are you faulting Obama for not doing? Have fun with this one.

Um, no, wrong again. It was actually the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that said that.

Are you schizophrenic or something? No you didn’t. You just said “Nuh uh! It doesn’t work!” You never gave any reason or facts. Just like usual.

You must have misunderstood: I’m not going there to get a degree I can use in your parallel universe. I’m staying here in the real world.

Again, shithead, that’s what you don’t get. The deficit grows regardless.

Maybe after the republicans sweep Congress and make labotomies mandatory, so that no one will question their policies, but if that doesn’t happen, then I’d best against my coming around to your opinions.

See, that’s why I think you’re really two different people who compose different parts of your posts without talking to each other. That’s fine, but then what are you complaining the jobless rate for? If that’s how you feel, then it’s not the government’s job to do anything. That’s why you’re so upset: I’ve exposed you for the braindead partisan zombie you are, who criticizes Obama for what he does, and what he does not do. For acting, and for not acting.

I’m sorry I don’t buy into the whole right-wing mythology that you require in order to keep yourself from committing suicide due to chronic cognitive dissonance.

Oh yeah, self-deception for sure. But not on my end.

No, it’s actually because I have my own eyes and my own brain. But thanks for playing.

But I don’t have to. Why respond to your made-up statistics with real ones? Why not let you continue to hang yourself?

But it doesn’t matter.

My advice is to keep chanting that to yourself, like a mantra.

Yet if, in the admittedly wildly unlikely scenario that McCain had died, she would have been the president. Don’t pretend it’s unreasonable.

No, I just enjoy pointing out how you voted for a guy with no more experience than the man you’re complaining about.

I agree.

Oh, OK! That’s good enough for me! I’ll just put this:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php

into the bin full of facts that I’m supposed to ignore so that you can be right.

Ah, politically correct, empirically correct, what’s the difference?

Why? According to you there’s nothing they should do about it. What would be the point?

I’m sorry, I’m just looking at the statistics on the rapid rise of health premiums, and concluding that reducing them could help the economy. I’m sorry, I’m using economics again. I know you don’t understand.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/healthcosts_09-15.html

Yeah, I’ll get right on that, as soon as I prove that God doesn’t exist.

Why? Because I advance views you don’t like with evidence you can’t disprove?

Listen, I am under no illusions about my importance, but that’s not the issue. You are getting very basic facts wrong. I know it makes you mad, but it’s not my fault, and not something that name-calling will help. You’ll accept it in time.

gasp I DO work! I guess that means I win the argument, or something.

What am I learning? Groupthink? Doublethink? How to efficiently discard unpalatable information?

Haha!

Oh, so I should just use “experience” to get a feel for the relative effectiveness of private insurance versus single-payer system? I should just live longer to form a coherent opinion on macroeconomic policy. In short, to arrive at your favorite conclusions, I should basically just shut off my brain? It’s funny how that’s usually necessary to understand right-wing arguments.

98

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, orion you read that lengthy post? Hey thanks man![/quote]

Yes, and did you notice how I am instinctively drawn to the point I disagree with?

[/quote]

You have the best argument radar on the site. :wink:

How are things in Austria this time of year?

99

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Except for Obama, who is agitating for the elimination of capital gains taxes on small businesses, as well as extending credits for acquiring capital and hiring employees.[/quote]

When those things are passed by his prompting I’ll give him plenty of credit, but I won’t be holding my breath. [/quote]

Actually this – while it is correct that Obama said he was pushing for this – is an example of his incompetence and lack of economic knowledge, as well as of course Mr McCarter’s.

Because capital gains taxes are taxes paid by investors on the difference between sale price of stock and price paid.

Small businesses do not pay capital gains taxes: they pay income taxes.[/quote]

If your small business was incorporated and you sold it you would be responsible for paying capital gains taxes. I thougtht that’s what he meant, but really who knows what he meant, he’s so busy pretending to be a communist and sucking up all of Dads cash I don’t think he really knows his ass from first base.

100

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, orion you read that lengthy post? Hey thanks man![/quote]

Yes, and did you notice how I am instinctively drawn to the point I disagree with?

[/quote]

You have the best argument radar on the site. :wink:

How are things in Austria this time of year?

[/quote]

Two weeks before Christmas?

Cold and commercialized.