• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

World Politics

Page 301 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
OK Scott, I give, you win. This free market thing is really working, all we need is just a little less government interference and everything will be peaches.
And while I'm on the subject of your being right, you are perfectly right to slam Red for using the phrase "your kind" and then come back and use the same phrase multiple times yourself. Gosh it just works when you use it.

So let's give no more money to bad government, but instead finish up the job of concentrating it in the hands of a very few who must be smarter than us because they are the successful ones. Then we will all just wait for them to build roads, schools, hospitals and so on which they will then charge us to use. If they charge too much and we can't afford it, well that is just our fault for being so stupid and lazy.
Maybe we'll run into each other under the table waiting for scraps.
you are perfectly right to slam Red for using the phrase "your kind" and then come back and use the same phrase multiple times yourself. Gosh it just works when you use it.
I reserve the right to communicate with him with terms he's fond of using. If I have offended you then I apologize.

I don't recall stating the free market or capitalism to be anything other than the least worst system for a society. If you are looking for perfection you will not find it in our system or any other. If you've got suggestions for another (better) system I'd love to hear it.

If you think road systems, schools and hospitals don't have a govt price tag associated with them then I just don't know what else to say (what's the gasoline tax up to in Cali.... $.45 per gallon??? Which, BTW, is a regressive tax that really guts the poor more than any other group, as does $4.00 per gallon at the pump... oh, and the State taking their share which is significantly higher than the profit made by the maker of the fuel.... and the maker of the fuel is of course the evil enterprise meanwhile the State just simply cannot ever do with less... because it would be soooo unfair).

Imagine where Mark Zuckerberg would be today if he sat around waiting for 'scraps'. You act as if your fate is sealed and there is no possibility for you to achieve your goals, whatever they may be. I find that sad but common thinking on the left. So rather than appreciate people being allowed to go out and do their thing you going to lump as criminals those that have been extremely successful... as if everything that they accomplish has been on the backs of other people. Okay...
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Imagine where Mark Zuckerberg would be today if he sat around waiting for 'scraps'. You act as if your fate is sealed and there is no possibility for you to achieve your goals, whatever they may be. I find that sad but common thinking on the left. So rather than appreciate people being allowed to go out and do their thing you going to lump as criminals those that have been extremely successful... as if everything that they accomplish has been on the backs of other people. Okay...
It isn't even successful people but just common republican WT that think if only for those that impose upon them they would do much better.. It is "THOSE PEOPLE" who put upon me every day OMG!! It is my neighbor who GOD DAMMIT didn't pay as much as I did for that pot hole to be filled. I had to wrrrrork! to buy these groceries! AND ARRHHHHGHHHH somebody in there is getting theirs with FOOOODSTAMPS !!!! I just KNOW IT >>>OH GOD!!!!!!THOSE GD PEOPLE!! TAKING FROM ME EVERY TIME I TURN AROUND>>FOR GODS SAKES I"M A PRODUCER.....
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
BUT, If you think for one second that the USA can repair the budgetary damage done in terms of debt by taxing people and corporations you are crazier than Batman. This Country is in serious fiscal trouble based on the explosion of debt and the most serious problem we have has to do with entitlements that are simply out of control.
Just wanted to reply to this, because it's wrong.

The 'explosion' of debt over the last couple of years is not at all due to entitlement. In fact, entitlements (I assume you mean Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) are changing very slowly and predictably from one year to the next. It is the complete opposite of an explosion, it's a slow creep and therefore it can be treated by small incremental fixes (contrary to what the tea party is claiming).

The increase in debt comes from a good old fashioned Keynesian program (the stimulus), plus a direct bailout of financial institutions. The latter was a bipartisan effort under GWB which everybody said was absolutely necessary (I have my doubts, but whether that's true or not isn't relevant to the point). The former is fairly standard economic textbook policy to avoid the worst effects of an economic downturn.

One problem is that during the previous years of relative economic prosperity, the debt had also increased substantially (the wars, the unpaid tax cut, and the unpaid prescription medicine benefits), while Keynesian economics would have dictated to accumulate surpluses (or at least not to accumulate debt in such quantities). But enough of that.

Anyway, the upshot is that we know precisely why the debt has become so large, and it is decidedly not due to social programs. The numbers simply do not support that. It's factually wrong. Never mind what the tea party is telling you. The correct way to handle this debt is to increase revenue from parts of the economy which are doing fine. Cutting some discretionary spending would also help, in which case it pays to take on the 800 lb gorilla in the room, which is military spending.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
Now you exemplify what utter nonsense that comes out of the mouths of people who think that human innovation only began with the free market system.

And you use as an alibi the many innovations (many of dubious value like Facebook) and technologies that have been generated within the capitalist markets, as a means to not face the issues of social inequalities and injustices that they have also produced.

And you also provide the typical and rather puerile explanation as to why some of us have serious issues with the gargantuan private wealth that has been concentrated into the hands of just a few: namely, that we are envious and only desire what we don't have. Of course nothing could be further from the truth, but you keep on believing your own delusions, which are our collective tragedy.
(many of dubious value like Facebook)
As you sneer in a jealous fit.... "it's such a simple idea... why didn't I think of it?"

The next thing I expect to hear from you is "he doesn't deserve this... he's done nothing for it.., it doesn't really help society." Which, of course, is blather.

technologies that have been generated within the capitalist markets, as a means to not face the issues of social inequalities and injustices that they have also produced.
Oh, the HORROR. What about the benefits, conveniences, niceties and other things that capitalist markets have provided that you yourself use every day? Only the most ardent hypocrite would benefit from all the capitalist system makes available to you while castigating that very system. Or, maybe you live in a mud hut and you are not really a hypocrite at all? Please clear this up for me...

that we are envious and only desire what we don't have. Of course nothing could be further from the truth
Ummm, really? No, really?
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Oh, the HORROR. What about the benefits, conveniences, niceties and other things that capitalist markets have provided that you yourself use every day? Only the most ardent hypocrite would benefit from all the capitalist system makes available to you while castigating that very system. Or, maybe you live in a mud hut and you are not really a hypocrite at all? Please clear this up for me...
Thank god for unfettered capitalism otherwise we would have never come up with indoor plumbing.
 
Scott SoCal said:
As you sneer in a jealous fit.... "it's such a simple idea... why didn't I think of it?"

The next thing I expect to hear from you is "he doesn't deserve this... he's done nothing for it.., it doesn't really help society." Which, of course, is blather.



Oh, the HORROR. What about the benefits, conveniences, niceties and other things that capitalist markets have provided that you yourself use every day? Only the most ardent hypocrite would benefit from all the capitalist system makes available to you while castigating that very system. Or, maybe you live in a mud hut and you are not really a hypocrite at all? Please clear this up for me...



Ummm, really? No, really?
I don't live in a mud hut, nor a castle. But I don't think wealth is a blessing from God.

I don't think I'm a hypocrite either, because I pay all my taxes,
live within my means, and don't aspire to much else materially.

We all live in the world in which we live, but this doesn't change the debate. Don't try to change the topic under discussion by your non consequential points.

Ps: I live in a 60 sq m apartment and don't own a car, and ride my bike everywhere. Cheers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Just wanted to reply to this, because it's wrong.

The 'explosion' of debt over the last couple of years is not at all due to entitlement. In fact, entitlements (I assume you mean Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) are changing very slowly and predictably from one year to the next. It is the complete opposite of an explosion, it's a slow creep and therefore it can be treated by small incremental fixes (contrary to what the tea party is claiming).

The increase in debt comes from a good old fashioned Keynesian program (the stimulus), plus a direct bailout of financial institutions. The latter was a bipartisan effort under GWB which everybody said was absolutely necessary (I have my doubts, but whether that's true or not isn't relevant to the point). The former is fairly standard economic textbook policy to avoid the worst effects of an economic downturn.

One problem is that during the previous years of relative economic prosperity, the debt had also increased substantially (the wars, the unpaid tax cut, and the unpaid prescription medicine benefits), while Keynesian economics would have dictated to accumulate surpluses (or at least not to accumulate debt in such quantities). But enough of that.

Anyway, the upshot is that we know precisely why the debt has become so large, and it is decidedly not due to social programs. The numbers simply do not support that. It's factually wrong. Never mind what the tea party is telling you. The correct way to handle this debt is to increase revenue from parts of the economy which are doing fine. Cutting some discretionary spending would also help, in which case it pays to take on the 800 lb gorilla in the room, which is military spending.

This is what I wrote;

This Country is in serious fiscal trouble based on the explosion of debt and the most serious problem we have has to do with entitlements that are simply out of control.
This Country is in serious fiscal trouble based on the explosion of debt (fact) AND the most serious problem we have has to do with entitlements that are simply out of control.

This is what you wrote;

Just wanted to reply to this, because it's wrong.

The 'explosion' of debt over the last couple of years is not at all due to entitlement.
These are not the same as I did not state the explosion in debt was due to entitlement spending.



I take offense to this but I'll get over it;

Never mind what the tea party is telling you.


Here's last years budget;




Over 67% of the budget is spent on entitlements and welfare. While I agree with you on the point that the entitlements are predictable the trends are horrifying and there seems to be little political will to address these issues. Meanwhile, largely due to unemployment benefits/unemployment rate, welfare is now the third largest entitlement.

And I take issue with your assertion that our budget woes (spending side) can be taken care of by tightening up discretionary spending. Military spending amounts to a large sum... discretionary spending does not.



The increase in debt comes from a good old fashioned Keynesian program (the stimulus), plus a direct bailout of financial institutions. The latter was a bipartisan effort under GWB which everybody said was absolutely necessary (I have my doubts, but whether that's true or not isn't relevant to the point). The former is fairly standard economic textbook policy to avoid the worst effects of an economic downturn.
The above accounts for about 1.8 or 1.9 Trillion in spending. What about the 1.5 Trillion we will be upside down this year? Our deficit grew by 220 Billion in February alone (annualize this number if you want to turn your hair gray). The spending has not even slowed down a little bit, so while one can argue the bailout and stimulus has added to the debt (it has) you can't continue to say that's our problem now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Thank god for unfettered capitalism otherwise we would have never come up with indoor plumbing.
Or tons of varieties of really great beer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
rhubroma said:
I don't live in a mud hut, nor a castle. But I don't think wealth is a blessing from God.

I don't think I'm a hypocrite either, because I pay all my taxes,
live within my means, and don't aspire to much else materially.

We all live in the world in which we live, but this doesn't change the debate. Don't try to change the topic under discussion by your non consequential points.
But I don't think wealth is a blessing from God.
This, I think, may be the second thing we agree upon. I don't remember what the first was.

Perhaps calling you a hypocrite was not accurate. I do find it odd you only recognize the down side of a capitalist system without even a cursory acknowledgement of the upside (which you certainly benefit from).

All of our arguments are non consequential so don't let that bug you now.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
It isn't even successful people but just common republican WT that think if only for those that impose upon them they would do much better.. It is "THOSE PEOPLE" who put upon me every day OMG!! It is my neighbor who GOD DAMMIT didn't pay as much as I did for that pot hole to be filled. I had to wrrrrork! to buy these groceries! AND ARRHHHHGHHHH somebody in there is getting theirs with FOOOODSTAMPS !!!! I just KNOW IT >>>OH GOD!!!!!!THOSE GD PEOPLE!! TAKING FROM ME EVERY TIME I TURN AROUND>>FOR GODS SAKES I"M A PRODUCER.....
Life is too short to be this unhappy Red.
 
Scott SoCal said:
This is what I wrote;



This Country is in serious fiscal trouble based on the explosion of debt (fact) AND the most serious problem we have has to do with entitlements that are simply out of control.

This is what you wrote;



These are not the same as I did not state the explosion in debt was due to entitlement spending.



I take offense to this but I'll get over it;





Here's last years budget;




Over 67% of the budget is spent on entitlements and welfare. While I agree with you on the point that the entitlements are predictable the trends are horrifying and there seems to be little political will to address these issues. Meanwhile, largely due to unemployment benefits/unemployment rate, welfare is now the third largest entitlement.

And I take issue with your assertion that our budget woes (spending side) can be taken care of by tightening up discretionary spending. Military spending amounts to a large sum... discretionary spending does not.





The above accounts for about 1.8 or 1.9 Trillion in spending. What about the 1.5 Trillion we will be upside down this year? Our deficit grew by 220 Billion in February alone (annualize this number if you want to turn your hair gray). The spending has not even slowed down a little bit, so while one can argue the bailout and stimulus has added to the debt (it has) you can't continue to say that's our problem now.
The debt increases by 4 billion per day. That's creative financing (and wars) for you.
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
redtreviso said:
9..... but don't worry I live in texas so my vote didn't count all 9 times.
How bout you?. "OLD"man.. Did you vote for Nixon in 72 when you were 18?
Nope. My Dad had a high-security clearance (defense contractor) and knew more about the war than any of us. Neither of us wanted me to die like some of my relatives and friends.

Second question, open for further disappointment: do you have offspring?
 
Scott SoCal said:
This, I think, may be the second thing we agree upon. I don't remember what the first was.

Perhaps calling you a hypocrite was not accurate. I do find it odd you only recognize the down side of a capitalist system without even a cursory acknowledgement of the upside (which you certainly benefit from).

All of our arguments are non consequential so don't let that bug you now.
What you don't get is that I live beyond the capitalist system, in the sense that I'm a teacher. Benefits? I wonder every time I think about how good I have it in terms of health care. Bye-bye.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Oldman said:
Nope. My Dad had a high-security clearance (defense contractor) and knew more about the war than any of us. Neither of us wanted me to die like some of my relatives and friends.

Your relatives and friends wanted you to die? I know that is true today..Republican types would love to lose a child in a war so they can brag about their victimness at work or with neighbors..
 
Jun 19, 2009
4,841
0
0
redtreviso said:
Your relatives and friends wanted you to die? I know that is true today..Republican types would love to lose a child in a war so they can brag about their victimness at work or with neighbors..
Perhaps I could state it clearer as your impairment seems more convenient than actual: relatives and friends died in Vietnam. My family didn't want me to die. As for your comments about anyone losing a child you answered my other question: no way you have children, Thankfully.
 
May 23, 2010
2,409
0
0
Oldman said:
Perhaps I could state it clearer as your impairment seems more convenient than actual: relatives and friends died in Vietnam. My family didn't want me to die. As for your comments about anyone losing a child you answered my other question: no way you have children, Thankfully.


""now come on mothers throughout the land, pack your boys off to vietnam,
come on fathers don't hesitate, send your sons off before its too late,
be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box
""---Country Joe
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Okay guys, complete disagreement on issues is fine, but let's not make this personal, trying to define others by attacks or insults.
Yeah no worries. Anyone who makes a sideways comment about any liberal ideas I will be on them like white on rice.

Those old poor *******s in that redtreviso clip ..you know the one where he says everyone is a Tim McVeigh fan etc... that was really well spirited and all. I feel so good about taking up for stuff like that attack that I want to personally endorse all raking and scolding of anyone who has a view that is not like the norm.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
This is what I wrote;

This Country is in serious fiscal trouble based on the explosion of debt (fact) AND the most serious problem we have has to do with entitlements that are simply out of control.

This is what you wrote;

These are not the same as I did not state the explosion in debt was due to entitlement spending.

I take offense to this but I'll get over it;

Here's last years budget;

Over 67% of the budget is spent on entitlements and welfare. While I agree with you on the point that the entitlements are predictable the trends are horrifying and there seems to be little political will to address these issues. Meanwhile, largely due to unemployment benefits/unemployment rate, welfare is now the third largest entitlement.

And I take issue with your assertion that our budget woes (spending side) can be taken care of by tightening up discretionary spending. Military spending amounts to a large sum... discretionary spending does not.

The above accounts for about 1.8 or 1.9 Trillion in spending. What about the 1.5 Trillion we will be upside down this year? Our deficit grew by 220 Billion in February alone (annualize this number if you want to turn your hair gray). The spending has not even slowed down a little bit, so while one can argue the bailout and stimulus has added to the debt (it has) you can't continue to say that's our problem now.
Ok, seems we agree on the facts more or less.

1) Social programs have not contributed to the recent 'explosion' debt. These things change slowly and very predictably.

The outlook in some models look horrific when you look 30 years forward in time WITHOUT ANY adjustments. Because it is so predictable, we can calculate fairly precisely what kinds of adjustments keep it working for 30-50 years. In fact very moderate increases in revenues and/or means testing will do the trick very easily.

2) Military spending IS a part (the by far largest part) of discretionary spending. On your piechart it's second only to social security. We should have had a huge peace dividend from the decline of the Soviet Union, but we didn't. We have more military spending than the next 10 or so countries together.

3) You are right that we are still accumulating debt. And you are right that it is no longer due to the bailout or stimulus. The problem right now is a revenue problem. Spending is flat/decreasing a bit, but revenues are falling off. It was a huge mistake to keep the (unpaid) tax cuts in place. In particular for the highest income brackets. That's really driving the deficit right now. Lack of revenue. This was a bipartisan vote in the lame duck session.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Off Topic DIscussions 12
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS