Darunia, you're so obviously so (willfully) ignorant about even the most basic economics that I don't know if there's much point in even talking to you...
Explain yourself. While resorting to childish mud-slinging is quite in character with you, I still think it would be decent of you to tell me the base for such an accusation. Where have I demonstrated such a terrible ignorance of economics? And, supposing that I weren't gifted by the Christian Deity with a firm grasp of economics, is that really such an insurmountable obstacle to us fighting about politics? Obviously economics is closely tied to politics, but to argue that you need not talk to me because of a supposed lack of knowledged regarding economics would be like me saying to you, "You know so little about law, (or Dutch grammar for that matter) there's not point in even talking to you." The fact is, I know at least as much about economics as the next asshole, and probably a little more. The fact that you resorted, as I previously said, to more of this characteristic holier-than-thou egoism does nothing to aid your argument. In fact, it's a diversion... e.g., "ABF, the sky is blue!" "Nah-ah! You know so little about medieval Japanese theater, I don't even see a point in discussing the sky with you."
The above rant summarized:
Shut up and stay on topic.
I'm not good at economics and don't like them very much, but at least I can understand some of the basics. You obviously don't have any interest in even going that far. It makes debating somewhat pointless...
Explain yourself. Don't just make accusations, child. I thought we were talking politics, but if you want to fling mud about (of all things) economics, back yourself up. Where have I demonstrated such ignorance? Your argument seems to be, that if I don't agree with you, I know nothing about economics and am not worth talking to. Is that it?
Over the past thirty years, Reagan/Bush economic policies have led to a nearly unprescedented in American history level of separation between the rich and the poor. The rich have gotten richer, and richer, and richer, while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. Clinton slowed down this curve for a few years, but it jumped right back after Bush took over, as expected. Obama's now trying to reduce it again, and give the poor and middle class a chance again,
First of all, this total equality of society you're toting sounds an awful lot like communism to me. While I hate rich people, I have to admit that there must be a social hierarchy. Rich assholes, and poor, dumb clots is the way the world always has been, and always will be. This dream of your's... this dream your share with Marx, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Castro, of a totally equal society is, firstly, impossible, and secondly, bad for society. You want to tax and punish the rich and hard-working to play Robin Hood with someone else's money? Communism doesn't work. "Give the poor and middle class a chance"... what kind of chance do you mean? By taxing the fuck out of the rich? What chance does this afford the poor? By giving them hand-outs? What is the end-goal here besides spitefully attacking the more fortunate? Say you get your way and tax the rich, and give it to the poor, and then we have a totally equal GDP, and everyone earns exactly 20,000 a year. Is that really the kind of crazy fucked-up world you want to live in? No reason to work hard, you'll never get ahead. No incentive to open a new factory, you can't profit from it. On the other hand, since Messiah ABF demands a totally egalitarian society, in which all are equal, if I do nothing, I still get my share.
You like talking economics? Let's talk about how grand and wonderful your Soviet economy was in 1989.
But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.
Is that anything like people turning to the Democrats and pleading for economic recovery, and getting a trillion-dollar health-care-bill instead? But you're right. You can't trust Republicans with the economy. Why, if only we had a congress full of Dems, they'd get the job done! Oh, wait... we do... and what's that? Stagnation? Continued unemployment? Why--by golly, it's almost as though the Dem's are full of shit. But that can't be! Where was I.. oh, yea... DAMN REPUBLICANS HAVE NO PLAN HOW TO FIX ANYTHING!
Bottom line: It is HILARIOUS to bash the right about a theoretical ineptitude for solving the economy when your boys are in power, and have been for 2 years, and have gotten nothing done. Spending a trillion on economic stimulus sure did fuck up the deficit a bunch, and return no large-scale gains. YOU, as a self-proclaimed Socialist by-proxy, have NO right to LECTURE ANYONE on how to FIX THE ECONOMY.
the Republican platform is that ... it's not government's role to reduce suffering, save the economy, or anything else. You'd think they'd have learned better by now...
You're right in pointing out that that is, in fact their position. And they're right in that it is the correct method of government. The government should pave roads, regulate inter-state commerce, and provide for a common defense. This is where we disagree and go to different philosophies. You thinkg Fed Gov. should be ominous, all-powerful and all-doing. If taxes have to be exorbitant to feed this bureacratic juggernaut (and they would be,), so be it! I, on the other hand, think fed. gov. should be minimal. Cut the fat, trim the budgets, lower taxes, and put more in my pocket. This is also in-step with the Republican philosophy, no matter HOW much you bitch and whine about the GOP only being/caring for rich old white folk. I support small-gov't. And you, by your own admission, as quoted above, think it's the gov's place to end all evils and cure all wrongs. I say, pave my roads and leave me the fuck alone.
Explain yourself. While resorting to childish mud-slinging is quite in character with you, I still think it would be decent of you to tell me the base for such an accusation. Where have I demonstrated such a terrible ignorance of economics? And, supposing that I weren't gifted by the Christian Deity with a firm grasp of economics, is that really such an insurmountable obstacle to us fighting about politics? Obviously economics is closely tied to politics, but to argue that you need not talk to me because of a supposed lack of knowledged regarding economics would be like me saying to you, "You know so little about law, (or Dutch grammar for that matter) there's not point in even talking to you." The fact is, I know at least as much about economics as the next asshole, and probably a little more. The fact that you resorted, as I previously said, to more of this characteristic holier-than-thou egoism does nothing to aid your argument. In fact, it's a diversion... e.g., "ABF, the sky is blue!" "Nah-ah! You know so little about medieval Japanese theater, I don't even see a point in discussing the sky with you."
The above rant summarized:
Shut up and stay on topic.
I'm not good at economics and don't like them very much, but at least I can understand some of the basics. You obviously don't have any interest in even going that far. It makes debating somewhat pointless...
Explain yourself. Don't just make accusations, child. I thought we were talking politics, but if you want to fling mud about (of all things) economics, back yourself up. Where have I demonstrated such ignorance? Your argument seems to be, that if I don't agree with you, I know nothing about economics and am not worth talking to. Is that it?
Over the past thirty years, Reagan/Bush economic policies have led to a nearly unprescedented in American history level of separation between the rich and the poor. The rich have gotten richer, and richer, and richer, while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. Clinton slowed down this curve for a few years, but it jumped right back after Bush took over, as expected. Obama's now trying to reduce it again, and give the poor and middle class a chance again,
First of all, this total equality of society you're toting sounds an awful lot like communism to me. While I hate rich people, I have to admit that there must be a social hierarchy. Rich assholes, and poor, dumb clots is the way the world always has been, and always will be. This dream of your's... this dream your share with Marx, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Castro, of a totally equal society is, firstly, impossible, and secondly, bad for society. You want to tax and punish the rich and hard-working to play Robin Hood with someone else's money? Communism doesn't work. "Give the poor and middle class a chance"... what kind of chance do you mean? By taxing the fuck out of the rich? What chance does this afford the poor? By giving them hand-outs? What is the end-goal here besides spitefully attacking the more fortunate? Say you get your way and tax the rich, and give it to the poor, and then we have a totally equal GDP, and everyone earns exactly 20,000 a year. Is that really the kind of crazy fucked-up world you want to live in? No reason to work hard, you'll never get ahead. No incentive to open a new factory, you can't profit from it. On the other hand, since Messiah ABF demands a totally egalitarian society, in which all are equal, if I do nothing, I still get my share.
You like talking economics? Let's talk about how grand and wonderful your Soviet economy was in 1989.
But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.
Is that anything like people turning to the Democrats and pleading for economic recovery, and getting a trillion-dollar health-care-bill instead? But you're right. You can't trust Republicans with the economy. Why, if only we had a congress full of Dems, they'd get the job done! Oh, wait... we do... and what's that? Stagnation? Continued unemployment? Why--by golly, it's almost as though the Dem's are full of shit. But that can't be! Where was I.. oh, yea... DAMN REPUBLICANS HAVE NO PLAN HOW TO FIX ANYTHING!
Bottom line: It is HILARIOUS to bash the right about a theoretical ineptitude for solving the economy when your boys are in power, and have been for 2 years, and have gotten nothing done. Spending a trillion on economic stimulus sure did fuck up the deficit a bunch, and return no large-scale gains. YOU, as a self-proclaimed Socialist by-proxy, have NO right to LECTURE ANYONE on how to FIX THE ECONOMY.
the Republican platform is that ... it's not government's role to reduce suffering, save the economy, or anything else. You'd think they'd have learned better by now...
You're right in pointing out that that is, in fact their position. And they're right in that it is the correct method of government. The government should pave roads, regulate inter-state commerce, and provide for a common defense. This is where we disagree and go to different philosophies. You thinkg Fed Gov. should be ominous, all-powerful and all-doing. If taxes have to be exorbitant to feed this bureacratic juggernaut (and they would be,), so be it! I, on the other hand, think fed. gov. should be minimal. Cut the fat, trim the budgets, lower taxes, and put more in my pocket. This is also in-step with the Republican philosophy, no matter HOW much you bitch and whine about the GOP only being/caring for rich old white folk. I support small-gov't. And you, by your own admission, as quoted above, think it's the gov's place to end all evils and cure all wrongs. I say, pave my roads and leave me the fuck alone.
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST