Not sure if MDR is kidding
Usually it's the other way around.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Yay! Republicans!!
- Thread starter TheGreatSatan
- Start date
Usually it's the other way around.
Unfortunately it's very hard to tell which will be the lesser, and the lesser is still an evil mother fucker out to screw the people and line their own pockets.
Either way, we're fucked.
many don't realize that eventually the US is going to crash just as hard to the bottom as fast as it rose to the top. people forget that the US is only 300+/- years old and eventually will go the way of much older countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. it is inevitable. American Exceptionalism, etc. is all bullshit. the super rich on both sides are basically acquiring massive amounts of wealth to pass onto future generations because they know the direction that the country is going in and it can not be stopped. the economic policies of the democrats are trying to slow this process down so more people have the opportunity to acquire wealth while the economic policies of the GOP are going to expedite this. so basically pick your poison slow or fast.
Nightowl
Registered
Man, were so broke, that I don't even think we own the house...
I think they traded it for stuff made in China, and I think China owns the house now.
I think they traded it for stuff made in China, and I think China owns the house now.
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Yes, there will always be programs to help poor people so that their kids are not starving or going without clothing and medical care. This is true regardless of which party is at the helm. We're not Mexico or India. The best way to help is to provide assistance whilst promoting personal responsibility, rather than encouraging dependence on govt. It sounds like "progressive thinking towards minorities" is a euphemism for capitalizing on racism and wealth envy for political gain.
If I were Sarah Palin's running mate, I'd be banging her in the bus before and after every campaign stump.
Helping the poor while encouraging personal responsibility. Now that's progressive!
Nothing wrong with encouraging personal responsibility. I'm all for that. People who come from disadvantaged backgrounds should be encouraged to be personally responsible. So I agree with you completely about that. I think where we differ is which party is most able to achieve these goals. Conservative republicans are not known for helping the poor, but instead for blaming them for their plight and labeling them as lazy and irresponsible. I don't buy it.
conservative republicans. (the people, not the politicians) are known for helping out the underprivileged with personal donations of time and money through private organizations. fuck the government. the government helps out the poor slowly and ineffectively regardless of which party is in power. thats why I want them out of that business all together. the democrats had control for a full 2 years. you think the poor are feeling better about themselves right now?
Conservative are known for helping themselves, and making donations to THEIR organizations, usually religious based. If you want to count on Conservative Republicans to help the disadvantaged, then that is your right. I do not think they are really interested in helping anyone but themselves.
Bu the way, two years in office is nothing. Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight. Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction.
Feel free to continue the debate folks-I'm off to watch football.
GearsMcGilf
Registered
All right! You have convinced me. I am now a liberal and I will vote for Obama in 2012.
GYCH!
GYCH!
race is the fundamental difference between our 2 political parties, people have forgotten history. the US is the only new nation in the world which actively participated in slavery on the mainland of the "mother country" while the other European nations etc. only did this in the outlying territories and settlements off the mainland. The Civil War polarized our country and that divide is still growing as we see in politics today. The US has just elected it's first African American POTUS and the country is on the brink of a double-dip recession there is no way in hell the GOP is going to allow economic policies to be made which allow "this" president to make any progress. their voting record on all major legislation proposed by the House& Senate shows this, it is the sad and disgusting truth.
The link below shows the voting tally between the parities on all pieces of legislation proposed by the House & Senate...the GOP has voted NO across the board for everything.
Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com
GearsMcGilf
Registered
When it comes to race, let's don't forget who tried to stop the civil rights act from passing. It was not the repubs. The dems had to bribe members of their own party to pass the recent healthcare debacle. Cap & tax will destroy what's left of the economy and will NOT save the planet. It's horse shit and everyone with any sense can see it. The admin also passed the most bloated budget in history with 3.8 trillion in new spending, 40% of which is borrowed. This is unprecedented and reckless. We're going to borrow from tomorrow to make today look a little better, capitalize the interest, and saddle our grandkids with the bills. Great economic policy isn't it? I hope the repubs will continue to neuter "this" president, as long as he continues with the irresponsible policies that are detrimental to the future of the country. That's why they were sent to DC. It simply isn't sustainable, regardless of how much you like his liberal ideology.
Sometimes, voting no across the board is exactly the right thing to do.
JUST SAY NO!
Sometimes, voting no across the board is exactly the right thing to do.
JUST SAY NO!
it is the same exact economic policy and pattern of spending and borrowing that EVERY SINGLE POTUS has done for the past 40 years so how exactly would this change because Obama is POTUS? we have been running a large deficit since WWII. logic tells that of course the annual budget grows for the Federal Government, it's called inflation do the yearly expenses at your house not grow anually?
the GOP preaches about less spending and growth of the government yet every single time they control the White House the deficit grows as does the size of government it happened under Reagan and both Bush's.
GearsMcGilf
Registered
3 wrongs don't make a right. Just coz Bush et all did it doesn't mean it's okay to kick it up to unprecedented levels. Hence:
RAND PAUL 2012!!!
RAND PAUL 2012!!!
please elaborate...so how exactly do we get the money for the upcoming budget if we are to change this system of borrowing today under Obama?
I think what people are alluding is that Obama's deficit spending and portion added to the governments debt (in turn passed onto the us via taxes) is the worst ever its ever been...what most people don't realize is that Bush's was the worst ever seen when he was president...and believe it or not, before him it was Clinton (it is just overshadowed by the fact our economy expanded at an unprecedented level as well).
One point to mention though is that Obama portion of record government debt and deficit was done in 2 years instead of 4-8...a bit alarming.
The bigger point you make though LAM, which I agree with, is that there is one thing that never changes from party to party. Monetary policy (I would place foreign policy in their as well).
And today, monetary policy has become a tool of foreign policy, via monetary expansion (or what the public relations people at the FED call Quantitative Easing or Stimulus). We are reducing our the value or our national debt through inflation. The intent is devalue our currency (through a "free and fair" floating currency market) thus reducing the value of our outstanding treasury securities. Thus making the US more competitive in the export market, bring jobs back to the US, and shift the consumer economy (that drive the global market) from the US to Asia (China first, then India second). Its not a bad strategy, but in the near term (less than 50yrs) it will decrease the purchasing power of the USD and if you're not holding a decent amount of wealth....you're in for a very very rough ride. Only time will tell if the middle class in the US will survive this.
There is a lot of "prepositioning" going on right now on the global chess board...China has resisted to float its currency (the first step they took was one in principle, but won't account to anything quantitatively meaningful). The US has "resisted" officially calling China a currency manipulator (those Congressman screaming for us to officially say this are clearly not "in the know" of the grand strategy). Trichet from the ECB just came out yesterday to announce the use Quantitative Easing is in the world's best interest and we are not manipulating the floating currency market. Europe will support the shifting consumer market (US-->Asia) b/c they will greatly benefit from the export advantage as well.
ECB's Nowotny: Euro is not Fed's easing victim | Reuters
Emerging markets on the other hand have a stacked deck against them in the longer term (50yrs+). They are stuck holding US and Euro treasury securities that are going to plummet in value. They are legally bound to let their currency float (per the WTO, WB/IMF memebership) and do not have enough economic power (and global currency demand of their indigenous currency) to print more Reals, Rupees, Renminbis, etc.
Emerging market policymakers slam Federal Reserve move | Reuters
The US is already a step on creating a new leader as the global consumer market (Asia). Think of all the cultural pop culture we export (movies, clothes, music, software. Are you aware of the new credit card problem in China?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/global/14card.html
The US quality of life is expected to be the norm there soon...and Chinese citizens are spending to get their.
FT Alphaville » Chinese consumer credit binge begins
China must be very careful if they don't want to out manuevered the same way Japan was in the 70s and 80s. Japan's growth alarmed everyone in the US (those of us old enough can probably remember hearing about Japan was going to take over the global economy at one time). Then their growth hit a brick wall...then retracted. All b/c they were aggressively influenced to float their currency and their competitive monetary advantage disappeared. China has understands this, which is why they aren't going to follow in Japans footsteps...but the US (Western world in general) is just creating a different tool as discussed above.
Lots of wild cards in the equation though...will petro dollars remain the norm? Will China's regime stay in power? Can the USD handle the amount of downward pressure and not scare off its global demand? difficult to quantify and plan for sociological turns and bends.
sorry if there are some weird typos or miswritten phrases...I"m not proof reading that post
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Trim that fucker down. No question there's bound to be plenty of pork in it, just like the 737 bill spending package. Cutting spending is the first step. If we could just do that and cut out waste where it's found, the deficit could probably be closed w/out any increase in taxes.
He comes off as a less polished copy of his old man...
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Right. I would've said Ron Paul 2012, but he's already old as fuck.
the biggest "waste" in spending is with the military, we spend more than all of our allies combined, we are the only nation that does this.
cutting "taxes" is a slippery slope as they increase the budget deficit. so when that is done there has to be a big return on those monies. poor people that champion for tax cuts for the reach are true economic idiots. the rich spend less of their after tax incomes on living expenses and more on savings and investments the exact opposite spending of the middle class. so when they get tax breaks they simple get taxed less on the returns on their various investments, they do not spend or consume more. a much better solution would be to let those tax breaks expire and use those monies to help states fund unemployment benefits and create greater tax incentives for job creation in small businesses.
but even still with economic changes in spending at the top (government) the other issues with our extremely "id" based society (decline of the family, etc.) and spending are just as big a problem. Obama inherited the US with the poorest middle class since after the great depression. there is no direct or indirect way to put money into the hands of these people. no doubt more tax cuts for families and low income earners will have to come in the future but this will further increase the federal budget deficit. tax incentives for small businesses eventually will put some back to work but those jobs don't pay much. with an average per capita income in the US of close to 45k, it's just not enough with average home prices at 150-170K, new cars at 28-30K and ever increasing energy costs. now factor in that the middle class of today can no longer afford to save and pay for their children's college education so the next couple of generations of middle class college bound students will have to incur debt for that education.
FinAid | Student Loans
people have to remember it's not how much you make but how much you have left after the average housing, energy costs in your area. so if an average person making the average wage in the area can not keep up with the average amount of expenses incurred, what does that tell us about the current "system" that is in place?
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Yes, we should GTFO of Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home from around the world. I'm on board with that. The military should be responsible for protecting the home front, not patrolling the rest of the world and nation building. The decline of the family is another problem in and of itself. Single motherhood is glorified. The traditional family is often poo-pooed. The wrong people are hjaving too many kids whilst people who can afford to raise them aren't having any. All sorts of problems. Western civilization is def on the decline.
Pussy
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Originally Posted by KelJu
I didn't even vote. I don't think I will ever vote again or take part in American politics.
Good! You shouldn't.
I love how there is all of this worry about cutting the deficit/gov't debt, but extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the debt by $3.9 Trillion over the next decade. People are worried about the economy, but maybe the economy needs to take a hit for a few years to get us back on track as a nation. In most scenarios that a person will go through in everyday life, making stupid decisions typically leads to some sort of bad times, we are just currently going through those bad times. Besides, tax cuts are just about the worst bang for the buck you can get to stimulate the economy. Extending the Bush tax cuts will increase the GDP $.31 for every dollar spent, while unemployment, food stamps, spending on infrastructure increase it $1.60+ per dollar spent. This data is readily available, yet completely ignored.
The data (From a conservative website)
Spending vs. Tax Cuts, Bang for the Buck | The Next Right
From what I have seen, if we do these tax cuts and fail to cut military, medicare or social security our debt is going to increase anyway, no matter what ancillary spending we try to cut. The National Endowment for the Arts?????? That'd be like trying to blow up a tank with a firecracker, we need more firepower.
And don't give me the line that tax cuts aren't spending, they amount to the same thing, those tax cuts were set to expire by Bush because they weren't funded.
The data (From a conservative website)
Spending vs. Tax Cuts, Bang for the Buck | The Next Right
From what I have seen, if we do these tax cuts and fail to cut military, medicare or social security our debt is going to increase anyway, no matter what ancillary spending we try to cut. The National Endowment for the Arts?????? That'd be like trying to blow up a tank with a firecracker, we need more firepower.
And don't give me the line that tax cuts aren't spending, they amount to the same thing, those tax cuts were set to expire by Bush because they weren't funded.
GearsMcGilf
Registered
The govt wastes so much $, they could probably "pay for" the tax cuts simply by cutting out all of the waste and pork. The should stick to pay as you go.
Check the Links for the "Key Votes" for the House and the Senate. the GOP voted no across the board on every single key piece of legislation in both. kind of hard to get anything done when the GOP wants the economy to continue to tank to use that against the Dems in 2012.
Congressional votes database | washingtonpost.com
GearsMcGilf
Registered
The dems have had enough votes to get anything done that they wanted. Therefore, the republicans have not been able to stop a single piece of legislation, unfortunately. The healthcare disaster is a perfect example. Not one repub voted for it, thankfully, and only thru bribes and sweetheart job offers, were they able to get enough dems to vote for it. Nancy Pelosi promised that once it was passed, we could find out what was in it, yet still no one seems to know exactly. The giant $787 billion earmark package was supposed to stimulate the economy. Yet, it was just a giant waste and unemployment is still pushing 10%, when Obama's peeps said it wouldn't get past 8%. Just a few of many good reasons to clean house last tuesday. Thank god we have enough votes now to actually kill some Obama legislation. If they will just keep voting no thru 2012, we'll be A-okay! 
funny every non-partisan economist says the exact opposite about the stimulus. we need an excess of 100k jobs a month just to keep up with population growth so it should no be a surprise that the unemployment rate is higher than expected. job creation is always slower than job loss as employers wait to the last possible minute to re-hire to insure the added payroll costs will be covered by productivity. the stim also gave record monies to many states to help fund state unemployment funds but you are on Sharon Angles side w/ this and think that unemployment benefits = welfare.
don't you have some sort of business degree? you should know this stuff it's basically business history and is the same cycle that follows all recessions
Last edited:
GearsMcGilf
Registered
What non-partisan economists, Krugman? lol If the stimulus package was working, then jobs would be getting created and they are not. Since it is not, it failed. If it were going to make a difference, they would have needed to get the $ out the door quickly. Yet, only about 40% of it has even been spent two years after it was passed. What are they waiting for, 2012? Perhaps it will do a better job of stimulating their chances for re-election if they spend the bulk of it closer to the next election season. The majority of what was in the package was just garbage and pork anyway that had nothing to do with stimulating anything. I'm not 100% against spending some $ to stimulate the economy, but this monstrosity was not going to do it. The proof is in the puddn'.
Last edited:
GearsMcGilf
Registered
Doesn't he have some kind of degree? He should know some of this stuff.
Brandibeth
Registered
"Conservative are known for helping themselves, and making donations to THEIR organizations, usually religious based. If you want to count on Conservative Republicans to help the disadvantaged, then that is your right. I do not think they are really interested in helping anyone but themselves.
Bu the way, two years in office is nothing. Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight. Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction".
I think it was ghandi who said the most selfish act of all was giving. Regardless of what organization you're giving to, you are still giving. I grew up poor, and was on welfare. But because I knew I didnt want to be there anymore, I went to school, made good grades, went to college...without anybody paying for it but me, worked 2 full time jobs and changed my future. Anybody who says they cant do that is doing something wrong. Even if you aren't buying the best things or the name brand stuff, you can still get throught it. If it takes putting your gym membership on hold, walking to a few places instead of driving or what not. Its not an easy road, but you have to realize you are in charge of your life.
Bu the way, two years in office is nothing. Bush couldn't accomplish anything of value in eight. Takes longer than two years to fix eight years of destruction".
I think it was ghandi who said the most selfish act of all was giving. Regardless of what organization you're giving to, you are still giving. I grew up poor, and was on welfare. But because I knew I didnt want to be there anymore, I went to school, made good grades, went to college...without anybody paying for it but me, worked 2 full time jobs and changed my future. Anybody who says they cant do that is doing something wrong. Even if you aren't buying the best things or the name brand stuff, you can still get throught it. If it takes putting your gym membership on hold, walking to a few places instead of driving or what not. Its not an easy road, but you have to realize you are in charge of your life.
