Printable View
As Romney said, the context is even worse than quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
by the way, how did govt pay for those roads and bridges? it's the money that people paid as taxes, so it's not a winning argument to say that you didn't build that
and there is a reason in this world, why there are fewer employers than employees, it's risk taking. Obama would never understand this.
he is a good person genuinely, but he never gets what it takes to run a business and tackle economy
Q
I have been following Krugman for long time, his idea is big government. it's definitely path to Europe it's not propaganda for sure.
There are people who get respect from both parties and they laugh at what Krugman proposes each time. if a new 5-6 T debt created less than 2% growth in GDP it doesn't take Nobel to acknowledge it's not working. administration borrows 40 cents on every dollar they spend, and the growth that comes out is less than a dollar, you can see where it's leading to (to maintain 1 dollar income, gdp needs to grow at 3%)
Q,
Ofcourse, i was looking out for whats good for me, when i said I'd vote republican.. But isn't it what an individual looks for when s/he votes...
Sure, through some of the Democtatic policies, the safety net for the poor/middle class exists.. And it is equally true that the Dems can never live within a budget.. When they run out of money alloted for a program they borrow from programs that they shouldn't or come back to the taxpayer for more.. Can any Dem politician guarantee that the Social Security and Medicare program would exist and i would get the same benefits that people are reaping today, If i pay the money i am paying today?
If not, why? Is it my fault that i'm in the back of the line and therefore i'm screwed?? Please don't tell me that its ok to get screwed, just because I can afford to pay a little bit more.. Given a choice, i'd much rather spend the money somewhere else or donate to a charity of my choice..
I agree stagnation of wealth, destroys it.. But its also true that those who know how to accumulate wealth, also know how to make it grow.... And to have 40% of the population not pay taxes and expect more and more off those who do isn't a sign of a healthy society.. To have millions of healthy individuals who are addicted to public welfare does not help a nation rise.. It just helps a politician get a vote.. Coz a vote by a thoughtless hungry man given a loaf of bread counts just as much as the vote of a person who works hard to earn it..except that the former is happy with the free bread and doesn't ask any questions..
I'll end my posts on this topic, with a video of what i truly believe in.. You may say i'm cocky, arrogant and don't care about the society/environment but its not so.. I just can't stand it when people blame everything on someone else and refuse to take responsibility for their actions..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
I'm sorry, if I might have across as someone who is imposing his personal opinions on a general discussion..
Q,
Republicans being antiimiigrant - I would stand by that. The amnesty is driven more by business lobbying rather than republicans love for immigrants. Dems on the other hand oppose immigration for fear of losing jobs rather than fundamentally being hateful of other cultures. Thats a crucial difference.
cbpds1----hey Q, Dems wud not care a rats ass if it wasnt for votes, they try to keep minority blocks as latinos are an every growing population, its pure votes nothing else, if this was the case why Harry reid is holding up on HR 3012?
One simple reason why anybody should vote Dem this time around is because republicans will destroy American fabric. They have become a party with narrow ideas, narrow identity and narrow interests. Dems are slight better in practice and a lot better in theory.But I do grant that they are nearly same.
Q---guess ur watching msnbc all the time, can you tell how repubs have become narrow on ideas, Pedro likes many of repubs ideas except for social issues, O spent 5 trillion and still the under- emeployment acc to gallup is 17%, its like talking and u still want to vote for him after the points below?
Obama said
“I promise that I support traditional marriage-1 man-1 woman.
“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”.
“I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year.”.
“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”.
“I will remove earmarks from PORK projects before I sign any bill.”.
“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”.
"I will bring ALL of our troops home within ONE year."
“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”.
“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration."
"I'll close Guantanamo."
"I'll resign if I don't cut the deficit in half by the end of four years."
"I'll unite the people of this great country."
It's like a comedy routine! But it's no laughing matter!
cbpds1 - i think swooning or not to obama is not a qualification or disqualification. That shouldn't matter. When I check the list of things you said above - its hard to argue since all of them are opinions at best and baseless accusations picked from right at worst. Instead if you write your analysis your words and your logic, it would be a better way to have a dialogue.
----THe news channels need to be independant and apply the same yardstick to Dems and rep, if its not happ then its purely biased, Oreilly tries to present both of them, u cant sit and tell me that msnbc is independant either.
MSNBC does not have the highest ratings like Oreilly and lots of independants watch his show, show some credibility for this man.
This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one
This is quite easy. First I appreciate and thank you for saying what you said. However, ... you yourself know that this website and forum is a collective effort. I am not going to name everybody .. but you all know the names who are heavy contributors here. So I rest my case on this one :)[/QUOTE]
Probably i gave the wrong example of your site, google or facebook did not build their business on govt' help, in terms of internet etc, the people paid the govt to invest in research, do u really say the govt built the internet?
Imagine the kind of HARD questions the prez gets to answer, and Q says the media is not in the tank for him
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...152537128.html
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by cbpds1
Imagine Paul Ryan saying Virginia in Carolina and 'back in chains' and media would cry like there is nothing else matters
on the other side, Obama called Bush unpatriotic for debt and promised he would cut it half in first term, otherwise he should not be contesting 2nd term (his own words, also before superbowl in 2009) and what happened
he added more debt than what Bush did in 8 years, no follow up
he told american ppl thagt HC law is not tax, his lawyers argued it's tax (not penalty) in SC, no follow up
he and his party repeatedly lies that Ryan plan would end medicare for seniors, the plan won't touch any body over 55 and Obama team took 700 billion from medicare to sponser HC reform and they don't talk a word about it
That's a weak cop out, brother. First, misquote the man, then when the lie is pointed out, make a tangential argument to try to distract the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
If you agree that Obama didn't say that business owners didn't build their business, you ought not to bring it up. Period.
As to your latest argument, of course, the government builds these through taxes. Not every country is a Norway or Saudi Arabia, rich in resources that it can exploit without taxing the public. The point is, if the government hadn't taxed and built this infrastructure, it wouldn't have got built.
I said no such thing. I like many Republican ideals. Unfortunately, except for Ron Paul, no Republican stands by your ideals anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbpds1
Of course the government built the internet. Who paid taxes for it is irrelevant. If the government hadn't funded it through DARPA it wouldn't have got built.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbpds1
When Dems say context is different, I talk about context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Now, after I talk about context, you say, because I talked about context, I lost mu argument on quote
Both the quote and context mean the same thing, you didn't build it, somebody else (govt) made it happen
Reading from Karl Rowe's talking points i see. Obama's campaign line is 'end Medicare as we know it', doesn't mention anything about who it will affect. The onus is on Ryan and Romney to clarify that it won't touch those who are 55 or over today. Also, would you like to check on what those $700bn of cuts are, and get back to us? Hint: They're not cuts to entitlement (if they had been, I'm sure you righties would have praised him to the moon).Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
In order to build the roads, govt taxed people. how did those people ran businesses before roads were built by govt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Pedro
I follow politics toomuch, don't just give all the credit to Karl Rove :D
heard, Axelord refer to Rove's playbook every now and then :D
Absolute rot. The quote was meant to portray Obama as saying that business owners did not build their businesses. He never said any such thing. The fact that you, as an educated, intelligent person brings it up without the context (apologies if it wasn't you, the original quote has gone to the previous page) makes you a party to Romney's lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
The context is that business owners didn't build the infrastructure. That remains true.
didn't build infrastructure, hence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
Quite simple actually. Tar Sands produce 15 to 20% more CO2 per barrel of crude vs. middle eastern oil, (that’s well to wheels as they say.). This is because the bitumen is highly viscous and needs to be heated (using steam produced by burning natural gas) in order to release it and permit it to flow. The net calorific value turns out to be barely positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
Climate change will affect a lot more than the purple assed crab. The current drought in the U.S. and India (two of the world’s top three food producers) is going to cause significant spike in food prices this year. People are going to go hungry. You may argue that this is one off and has nothing to do with global warming. Only time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
People who care for the environment absolutely live a more energy efficient life than others. I can tell you that I a) have solar panels on my roof in Phoenix that produces more electricity than I use most months, b) I never use the heat or air conditioning in my apartment in New York, c) I use public transportation in New York, d) I drive a hybrid in Phoenix (with a plan to switch to plug in hybrid in the near future), e) always check the option to buy offsets for my flights (it’s required by my employer for my official flights, but I do so for my personal flights too), f) use a clothes hanger (both in New York and Phoenix), and most importantly of all, g) stuck to my habit from childhood of switching off lights and air-conditioning when I leave a room/home. I’m still not living a carbon neutral life which most famous spokespeople for the environment do (Gore, Ed Baglely Jr, Di Caprio, Larry Hangman etc). All Dems wouldn’t do what I do because all Dems don’t care about the environment as much as you think they do. They ought to, as ought the Republicans, but they don’t. Most environmentalists are Democrats, most Democrats aren’t environmentalists.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
But most importantly, your whole argument is irrelevant. I could turn your logic around and ask that all conservatives not use medicare, public universities, libraries, postal service, or airports so that the government has to spend less on these thereby balancing the budget. There are a lot more conservatives in favor of small (read non existant) government than there are environmentalists. What I’m suggesting would make more of a dent in the US deficit that what you’re asking would do to sea levels.
Actually, CO2 is the largest GHG (after water vapor which is usually ignored given its generally temporary lifespan in the atmosphere). I think you’re referring to the fact that it’s not as potent as methane or NOx – but the reason we’re not as concerned about those two is because a) their volumes are lower (even after accounting for the higher potency) b) roughly half those are manmade and technology exists to control them and c) volumes have been decreasing steadily over the last 20 years in the West. Yes most CO2 generation is natural, as is practically all sequestration of CO2; but nature has been maintaining this delicate balance for millennia. It’s the manmade CO2 component that has exploded, increasing levels by 40% since the industrial revolution began. In other words, nature cleans up its own shit, we’re the ones that don’t clean up ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
Dude, now that’s just insulting. To suggest that we who care for the environment are doing it for personal gain is deeply offensive. It’s easy to invert cause and effect. These folks see the problems and are looking for solutions. They invest billions looking for a solution, knowing that the investment is highly risky. As an investment strategy, it would be incredibly stupid to make a risky investment with a plan of altering national opinion and effecting public policy so that that investment can then make you great returns. As an example, my solar panels are giving me a negative return on investment (in Phoenix, our utility does not net-meter). I’m a finance guy, I understood it when I made the investment but I made the investment despite that, not with the hope that it would somehow turn into an incredible investment sometime in the future. To attack with baseless allegations, an individual whose arguments you disagree with (Gore here, not me) instead of attacking their argument is typical of what I have seen on Fox and elsewhere. I think some of that might just be rubbing off on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
Pedro
If president chose his words carefully, nobody needs to defend him asking whether other side is educated/intelligent or not.
hence you are making use of common public goods that was built using taxes. Hence, taxes, are sometimes essential.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
That is unfortunately true in today's politics. Everything ought to be scripted. Otherwise a Presidential candidate will quote you out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
Over and out. I need a drink.
Its even more messy if you take the whole context, thats the reason the Mr O is still quiet inspite of Romney repeated reference to "you didnt build that", its the same reason many business folks are still angry.Please see the entire video.
So u are saying Obama shd get credit for Apple and not Steve Jobs, govt did not do on its own as well, it just spent the money that the people gave to the govt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Gonzales
On a lighter note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A1v4AkqYJE
have a good weekend
Bieber, what is "path to Europe"? Generally the critics of fiscal policy mean 2 things - 1) It means Europe's problems are result of big govt. 2) It also means Europe's inability to defuse the crisis steps from European governments' unwillingness to embrace austerity. Seen from both angles - neither of these two things are universally true in Europe.
The root of european crisis is "monetary base expansion without underlying real growth" which leads to bubbles and investments in non productive assets. When bubbles burst they jeopardize our ability to honor our liabilities. Same is true with Govts. However one must understand that root cause of the problem is 'more than necessary monetary expansion leading to bubbles'.
Mind you the problem becomes acute where capital can't be efficiently deployed. How do you solve bubbles? There are two ways. Let them correct themselves. Which means let them implode leading to huge losses to the rich who were asymmetrically benefitted from the bubbles. The second way is to increase inflation to the extent that the debt stays. The problem with second approach is that it creates other bubbles rather than solving problems. It is like giving more drugs to an addict. We already saw 2 cycles where stimulus resulted in further bubbles - first there was internet bubble which when followed by furthre stimulus resulted in housing bubble which when was followed by further monetary stimulus gave rise to recent commodities bubble. If monetary steroids are kept injecting the system, only world war III will stop this madness. Which is why monetary policy should be checked and let the debt destroy itself. Those who run bogey of path-to-euope are the creditors who want more monetary stimulus and don't want debt destroyed. Better yet they want govt to buy that debt which the govt actually did.
So again I repeat don't fall for the words path to Europe. That's a clever scare tactic and deflection from real problems.
Now you can also see why the trillions in stimulus didn't create more growth. Because the stimulus was monetary rather than fiscal. Get it? I don't read krugman and don't care what he says. But I am sure he is advocating fiscal as opposed to monetary stimulus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
Champu u r fine. No need to be sorry. As long as this is an objective logical discussion I will be happy to learn and share.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChampU
I don't dispute your right to advocate for republicans based on your personal interest. No problem.
To say 40% don't pay taxes is wrong. If nothing else they pay sales and property taxes.
Ayn rand was a phenomenal lady w fierce intellect. I admire her objective morality. I completely agree with stark speech. And by same standard debt must be allowed to destroy itself. Makes sense? Equal opportunity is what stark would have advocated. Right?
Today America is moving away from equal opportunity by creating too big to fail. This is socialization of debt and crony capitalism. Debt that is perpetual and unsustainable is antithetical to free societies. Ayn Rands views are more libertarian and even democratic than republican.
That certainly is NOT what I said. Please reread my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbpds1
they ran them with less profits. With all the infra in place today's businesses make far more money than any other businesses in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
Yes bieber but that is true universally. And hence not quite relevant to our discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bieber
With two days to take a deep breath, I am able to look back at this discussion with an avuncular, almost non partisan eye. One thing, that I think is increasingly evident is that politics today is devoid of information and analysis and is replete with falsehoods.
Taking a leaf out of this forums' original motive (that of providing some clarity to the immigration process), perhaps we could use this thread to provide some clarity to policy issues. That could perhaps help us better understand the differences between the right and the left.
I'll take the first step and post what I think is a good analytical read. Krugman clearly is a leftist, but that shouldn't take anything away from his arguments in this article. If any of you see a good counterpoint from the right (that actually answers the issues he raises, rather than vilifying Krugman, Obama or others), please let me know. I look forward (genuinely) to reading more about how people justify Ryan's plans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/op...-man.html?_r=1