Can Men & Women Get Along?
Quote: boymimboIf you define socialism as the "redistribution of wealth", then let's call capitalism the "hoarding of wealth".
Uh, let's not. No true capitalist hoards his wealth--he puts it to work. Thus the term, "capital".
Quote: mkl654321I hope you mean "wealthier PER CAPITA", because if you used total wealth, India would be "wealthier" than, say, Denmark. However, that would be the kind of gross distortion you seem to love (and you weasel out of defining the terms you use).
One such country is Norway, which has a highly redistributive, socialist, Godless pinko hippie commie economy. It can't possibly be "working". Yet, somehow, their GDP per capita is 125% of that of the US...strange....
Of course, I'm sure you have a "reason" why that is true that sidesteps the fact that theirs is a redistributive "yet" highly successful economy and society. (Or maybe we'll get to hear from you why Norway is a "failure". I can't wait.)
OK, now that I've done what you asked, please come up with some other asinine argument why distributive economies "don't work". By the way, your definition of "doesn't work" should be modified to "does not work as well as it could", but that's a pretty advanced English lesson that you might not be ready for.
Really? Teeny tiny Norway is your best example of a “major” economy?
Norway's GDP is about $250 billion, roughly the same as Peru, Romania, and Vietnam - none of which are considered "major." By contrast, the UK's is about $2.1 trillion (8.5x Norway's), Germany of $2.8 trillion (over 11x), France of $2.1 trillion (8.5x), Italy of $1.7 trillion (about 7x), and Spain of $1.4 trillion (about 5.5x). For the EU, it's $14.7 trillion, giving Norway less than 2%. So ... maybe not "major."
And BTW, the per capita GDP is about 13% to 19% higher, depending on whether you use 2009 IMF or World Bank measures. You really shouldn't make up numbers that are pretty easy to find.
So you chose an economy the size of Peru’s and Romania’s and Vietnam’s, something less than 1.5% of Europe’s economy, something about the same as Arizona or Colorado or Indiana or Tennessee, and not as big as Washington state or Minnesota or Maryland, less than half of Illinois or New Jersey or Ohio or Pennsylvania, about 1/5 of Texas or New York, about 1/7 of California.
In other words, you’re also prepared to label Peru or Vietnam or Indiana as major world economies.
Maybe you mean that teeny, tiny, Romania-sized Norway is the best POSSIBLE combination of free market and redistributionist. Maybe it is, but if Qatar is an indication, then it’s doing significantly worse than it otherwise would. That’s a “doesn’t work” = wealth is diminished by redistribution.
But okay, let’s go with it.
Norway's economy is largely energy-driven (oil, natural gas, etc.), and the price of energy has been high in recent years. Similarly, an economy 5x larger (Texas) is also oil-driven and has done better than the US as a whole. Qatar has a per capita GDP about 60% higher than Norway and a far less redistributionist government. So … it seems like the energy industry is the wealth creator. In fact, redistribution is diminishing potential wealth by more than half. Another one for “doesn’t work.”
Hey, if you get to hand-pick minor Norway with an economy less than 1/5th of truly major European economies, then I get to hand pick Qatar!
But relativity is not the measure. It’s “works” = creates wealth vs. “doesn’t work” = lessens wealth. The energy industry, and not redistribution, creates the wealth. By this measure, it’s a “doesn’t work.”
Redistribution in Norway takes two main forms, the SPU and SPN (sovereign wealth funds), and a pretty stout welfare system. The SPU is managed by the Norwegian national bank and works more like a pension fund than anything else. I would have to look it up, but I think its value is somewhere in the $400 billion range, or about twice the size of teeny-tiny Tennessee-sized Norway’s annual GDP, and about the same size as the largest fund here in the states ... forgot the name but it's out in California somewhere. Anyway, the SPU invests in ... ready for it ... international equities, bonds, and other instruments (that is, capitalist stocks)!
The SPN - the fund that invests only in Norway itself - is significantly smaller, about 5% as big, indicating that Norway itself has a lot more faith in investments outside its redistributionist system than within it. It further indicates that any “success” Norway has with redistribution is utterly dependent on capitalist economies, and is not self-sustaining. In other words, it “doesn’t work,” and it’s so clear to Norwegian investment managers that they only bother to invest 5% of their funds in Norway.
The SPU is funded by taxes collected, taking money out of the economy. Returns on the SPU is counted towards GDP but is not really earned by its workers. They don’t publish returns, so let’s just set up some benchmarks. Give it a return of 7% in 2009 (2009 DJIA increased 18.9%), and there's your 13% difference. If the SPU earned half of the DJIA 2009 return, then per capita GDP is about 10% less than the USA. But let’s assume they’re smart and got 80% of the DJIA return, or 15%. Now, it’s about 20% less. So we see that, apples-to-apples, the Norwegian workforce produces significantly LESS than the USA’s, even with its teeny-tiny size! This indicates that the axiom “if you overtax people and get them used to taking handouts, they wont’ be as productive” maxim. Score another point in the “doesn’t work” column.
But who owns the SPU? Not the Norwegian people, the Norwegian government. There’s a nuance that makes you want to say that, hey, the government is the people! But it doesn’t work like that, does it? For example, the US government bails out a company for, say, $100 billion. The company pays back the government at a 10% premium, making $10 billion. Did “we” make money? Is that $10 billion being given to the people in the form of a dividend? No, it’s not. “We” didn’t see a thing, and “we” are not richer for it. Another win for “doesn’t work.”
This is too long already, but I haven’t even gone into the current nature of the political debate over there and the movement to … wait for it … ROLL BACK the redistributionist system led by the KS. I thought the electorate was happy, but the Norwegian political environment would seem to indicate otherwise.
All that effort over little-bitty Romania. I mean, Arizona. Crap, I meant Vietnam. Or was it Peru? Maybe Tennessee? No, it was Colorado. Wait, I remember. It was Norway.
Quote: boymimboI'm going to take a simple approach.
Capitalism, unbridled, yields a widening gap between the middle class and the rich because the rich can convince politicians to give them tax breaks and other incentives that will only make them richer, while the middle class are forced to eke out a living. Corruption doesn't work either, and that's what you see in Washington today. Plus, capitalism inherently leaves the disadvantaged aside to rot in say, Detroit, or some other inner city which once prospered (Flint, MI, Niagara Falls, NY) because their industry moved to another city or country where the tax rates or labor was cheaper.
My first question is. "Why is a gap between rich and middle class and poor a bad thing?" Today "the rich" live better but so do the middle class and the poor as well. If a "rich person" gets a tax break they will spend it in the store of someone else; hire someone to do work for them; invest in somehting; or some other productive pursuit. Make "the rich" pay an extra $50,000 in taxes and that is a boat they cannot buy; a Cadillac they cannot buy; a trip to Wynn they cannot make. So, I really want someone to explain, why is it bad if there is a bigger gap as long as everyone does better, which has been the case. Please don't use the reason of "fairness." Show evidence that people are better off when they all have less but are more equal.
Capitalism does not "leave the disadvantaged to rot." The most free economies (Hong Kong, USA, etc) generally have the most wealth and highest standards of living while the most unfree (N Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe) have the lowest and depend on donations from better-off nations to avoid starvation. If people are leaving your city for another with lower taxes then your city needs to lower taxes. Detroit, as I said before, is an example of what happens when liberalism is allowed to be the doctrine of running a city.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy first question is. "Why is a gap between rich and middle class and poor a bad thing?"
Rush Limbaugh said it best last week. He asked: If you work for a small business, just tell me one way you benefit by the owner of the company getting a tax raise. He got no takers because obviously you won't benefit in the least. If anything, it could be to your detriment.
Quote: EvenBobRush Limbaugh said it best last week. He asked: If you work for a small business, just tell me one way you benefit by the owner of the company getting a tax raise. He got no takers because obviously you won't benefit in the least. If anything, it could be to your detriment.
Reminds me of an article I read in WSJ years ago. Seems for the longest time, you were not allowed to have a garbage disposal in NYC. Had something to do with the sewers. Then they were allowing some but you had to upgrade somehting, but the city wanted people to do so again I forget why. What I don't forget is why one tennant didn't want her landlord to install one. Her reason?
"He will get a tax break if he does it!"
What a greedy and hateful woman she had to be.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerReally? Teeny tiny Norway is your best example of a “major” economy?
Look, fool, you said major EUROPEAN economy, not major WORLD economy. On the EUROPEAN economic stage, Norway is indeed a major player.
But if you wish to examine France, Germany, or any larger Western European nation, the answer to the question of whether they "worked" or not would be the same, i.e., it would depend on the definition of "works". I chose Norway because there was no way even YOU could deny that it was an economically successful nation, given its GDP per capita output. Had I chosen, say, France, you would have immediately seized on the fact that their GDP per capita is lower than the US, and you would have started bleating, "SEE? SEE? SEE? THAT MEAN IT DOESN"T WORK!!! SEE? SEE? SEE?"
You asked for a refutation of your basic premise--that redistributive economies "don't work". I provided that refutation. You then hemmed and hawed and said that my example wasn't valid. You, sir, are an intellectual coward!
You do realize that your "resource" argument means that you could "refute" any example of a redistributive economy "working" if the country in question owned any significant natural resources at all? Country X is prosperous and has a redistributive economy. "Yeah, but they have oil." Country Y..."Yeah, but they have trees." Country Z...."Yeah, but they have herring." So what we need to do to convince you is find a country that is a) large, as in "major", b) has a redistibutive economy, c) has NO natural resources, and d) is prosperous!
I give up on you. You twist others' words and create straw men. You also defy logic on a regular basis--almost systematically. Ideology at work!
Quote: mkl654321Look, fool, you said major EUROPEAN economy, not major WORLD economy. On the EUROPEAN economic stage, Norway is indeed a major player.
But if you wish to examine France, Germany, or any larger Western European nation, the answer to the question of whether they "worked" or not would be the same, i.e., it would depend on the definition of "works". I chose Norway because there was no way even YOU could deny that it was an economically successful nation, given its GDP per capita output. Had I chosen, say, France, you would have immediately seized on the fact that their GDP per capita is lower than the US, and you would have started bleating, "SEE? SEE? SEE? THAT MEAN IT DOESN"T WORK!!! SEE? SEE? SEE?"
You asked for a refutation of your basic premise--that redistributive economies "don't work". I provided that refutation. You then hemmed and hawed and said that my example wasn't valid. You, sir, are an intellectual coward!
You do realize that your "resource" argument means that you could "refute" any example of a redistributive economy "working" if the country in question owned any significant natural resources at all? Country X is prosperous and has a redistributive economy. "Yeah, but they have oil." Country Y..."Yeah, but they have trees." Country Z...."Yeah, but they have herring." So what we need to do to convince you is find a country that is a) large, as in "major", b) has a redistibutive economy, c) has NO natural resources, and d) is prosperous!
I give up on you. You twist others' words and create straw men. You also defy logic on a regular basis--almost systematically. Ideology at work!
No, not really. My response was filled with lots of verifiable numbers. Yours (as well as your other ones) is filled with insults, no facts, no figures, and nothing but over-comparative double-talk.
Norway is about 1.5% of the European economy. Not major by any stretch. And you didn't even know about the SPU!
Ideology is blinding one of us. I would guess that the one forging an opinion based on facts, figures, and history is not blinded by ideology, and the one whose "refutations" consist of calling the other a "fool" and "coward" is. Let the record show: you're blinded by ideology.
Quote: AZDuffmanShow evidence that people are better off when they all have less but are more equal.
You need to define your terms.
"People are better off..." What people? All people? Of course not--given your premise, some would have less after the equalization. Do you mean COLLECTIVELY? Well, obviously not, given your premise that, as you put it, "all have less". So we have to take your question to mean, "Do a greater number of people benefit than lose in an equalized economy?"
The answer to that would depend on how unequal is the existing division of wealth. If a large proportion of the existing wealth is owned by a relative few, then more people will benefit than will lose. If the wealth is already spread relatively evenly, then that many fewer people will benefit.
Of course, there is more to being "better off" than simply wealth. Most people would place at least equal value on happiness and security. In fact, asked to choose an order of preference, most people would rank happiness first, then security, then wealth. There is a relative mountain of evidence that shows that people in liberal, pluralistic, highly redistributive economies have the highest levels of happiness and security. Many of those economies are also quite wealthy. Therefore, I would argue that people in nations with such economies are "better off" than anyone else, even if they aren't as wealthy as they might be under a laissez-faire capitalistic system.
Now, all you conservative wingnuts, cool off your red-faced, angry, reflexive reactions for a moment and reflect on what I've said here. Money/wealth isn't everything. Happiness and security are worth at least as much. There are also tangible benefits to YOU if your fellow citizens are happy and secure. This is where the "conservatives" get it so wrong--they don't realize how they, themselves, benefit when society overall is happier. They just rave about how everyone who receives government benefits is a lazy bum.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerNo, not really. My response was filled with lots of verifiable numbers. Yours (as well as your other ones) is filled with insults, no facts, no figures, and nothing but over-comparative double-talk.
Norway is about 1.5% of the European economy. Not major by any stretch. And you didn't even know about the SPU!
Ideology is blinding one of us. I would guess that the one forging an opinion based on facts, figures, and history is not blinded by ideology, and the one whose "refutations" consist of calling the other a "fool" and "coward" is. Let the record show: you're blinded by ideology.
You don't, in fact, know whether I knew about the SPU or not. The fact that I didn't mention it is no evidence of that.
That is why I loathe talking to you. You put words in my mouth, attack arguments I didn't even make, and don't even admit when your premises have been refuted. You also dodge questions and change horses in midstream. You are not worth my attention at all. Blocked.
Quote: mkl654321You don't, in fact, know whether I knew about the SPU or not. The fact that I didn't mention it is no evidence of that.
That is why I loathe talking to you. You put words in my mouth, attack arguments I didn't even make, and don't even admit when your premises have been refuted. You also dodge questions and change horses in midstream. You are not worth my attention at all. Blocked.
Golly! I guess you can tell a lot about yourself from who aligns against you. Given the overall tenor of his posts, this is a Badge of Honor! And I never even called him a nasty name!
Nothing like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "YAH YAH YAH YAH" to encourage growth and demonstrate maturity.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerNo, not really. My response was filled with lots of verifiable numbers. Yours (as well as your other ones) is filled with insults, no facts, no figures, and nothing but over-comparative double-talk.
Norway is about 1.5% of the European economy. Not major by any stretch. And you didn't even know about the SPU!
Ideology is blinding one of us. I would guess that the one forging an opinion based on facts, figures, and history is not blinded by ideology, and the one whose "refutations" consist of calling the other a "fool" and "coward" is. Let the record show: you're blinded by ideology.
No, he's just a kid who likes to argue. He doesn't need any pesky facts to get in his way.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerQuote: mkl654321You don't, in fact, know whether I knew about the SPU or not. The fact that I didn't mention it is no evidence of that.
That is why I loathe talking to you. You put words in my mouth, attack arguments I didn't even make, and don't even admit when your premises have been refuted. You also dodge questions and change horses in midstream. You are not worth my attention at all. Blocked.
Golly! I guess you can tell a lot about yourself from who aligns against you. Given the overall tenor of his posts, this is a Badge of Honor! And I never even called him a nasty name!
Nothing like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "YAH YAH YAH YAH" to encourage growth and demonstrate maturity.
Yes, he blocked me too for disagreeing with him. If you present any kind of argument he can't handle, he stamps his foot, takes his toys and goes home. Oh, and never mispell a word, he's the self appointed SchoolMarm round here and will correct you and insult you to boot.
Quote: AZDuffmanMy first question is. "Why is a gap between rich and middle class and poor a bad thing?" Today "the rich" live better but so do the middle class and the poor as well. If a "rich person" gets a tax break they will spend it in the store of someone else; hire someone to do work for them; invest in somehting; or some other productive pursuit. Make "the rich" pay an extra $50,000 in taxes and that is a boat they cannot buy; a Cadillac they cannot buy; a trip to Wynn they cannot make. So, I really want someone to explain, why is it bad if there is a bigger gap as long as everyone does better, which has been the case. Please don't use the reason of "fairness." Show evidence that people are better off when they all have less but are more equal.
Capitalism does not "leave the disadvantaged to rot." The most free economies (Hong Kong, USA, etc) generally have the most wealth and highest standards of living while the most unfree (N Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe) have the lowest and depend on donations from better-off nations to avoid starvation. If people are leaving your city for another with lower taxes then your city needs to lower taxes. Detroit, as I said before, is an example of what happens when liberalism is allowed to be the doctrine of running a city.
Nonsense. The rich, middle class, and the poor are not living any better.
Median household income has not increased in the past 10 years relative to CPI. Wages have increased 31 percent in the past 10 years. The middle class and the poor are not living any better than they were. It now requires two adult income workers per family to create the same discretionary income today as a single income family did 30 years ago.
Food and energy (electricity prices are up 40 percent, gasoline 69 percent, bread 43 percent) are much more expensive than 10 years ago, yet income has increased by only 31 percent in the last 10 years. Education costs are up 25 percent. Health insurance costs are up about 10 percent every year. Medical expenses are up 48 percent in the last 10 years.
Retirement accounts got killed by the recession and they are now only today starting to come back to life. Those people who hit retirement age two years ago are still working because they can't afford to leave their jobs, leaving the young unemployed. A retirement confidence survey says that 54 percent of workers are "clueless" about savings for retirement, yet everyone on this forum wants you to be responsible for your own retirement. I guess we would be happy with seeing 50 percent of retirees living on the street than collecting social security that *heaven forbid* we contribute to.
The US is 13 trillion in debt, representing (thanks to Obama) about 100 percent of GDP.
Really? Detroit's demise was a product of liberalism?
From what I'm understanding, the poor and lazy in this country are supposed to be getting bigger handouts from the wealthy and a whole string of entitlements that demotivates them from seeking out jobs or trying to make themselves better. So why are they still complaining?
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerBut ... you say it is successful, a blurting out of a dubious and undefined ... not to mention nonexistent ... assertion. Name a major European redistributive economy that is wealthier than the USA's.
<crickets>
I thought so.
I like this. If you have another opportunity, please use this sound link.
crickets
Quote: JerryLogan
From what I'm understanding, the poor and lazy in this country are supposed to be getting bigger handouts from the wealthy and a whole string of entitlements that demotivates them from seeking out jobs or trying to make themselves better. So why are they still complaining?
Conservative mythology:
1. The poor are all lazy, shiftless bums who don't deserve any help from us God-fearin' hard workin' folk.
2. If we give 'em any money, they'll just sit around on their couches and drink beer and fart a lot. They're worthless human crap (the poor), who need the threat of dying of exposure, disease or starvation to get 'em working.
What brings this attitude about is the tendency to attribute our good fortune to our own virtue, while attributing others' bad fortune to their character flaws. The wealthy in this country buy into that myth, because it gives them a good self-image. In their minds, there is no such thing as a rich person OR a poor person that got that way because of good/bad luck or fortunate/unfortunate circumstances. I got rich because I'm wonderful. He got poor because he's a lazy idiot.
This is a very useful position for the rich to adopt because it justifies total resistance to taxation. Mah money is goin' to support them dirty welfare cheats!
"The poor are still complaining." Well, this is a dumb generalization that isn't completely untrue, in that there are probably two or more poor people somewhere in this country complaining about SOMETHING. However, the rich are also complaining. And I LOOOOOOVE that phrase, "trying to make themselves better". Yes! The poor are inherently inferior human beings than the rich! Let 'em starve! Feeding them just "demotivates" them!
If any of the conservative goofballs who complain about public welfare programs ever had to live on the meager assistance that people on those programs actually get, they might (MIGHT) sing a different tune. The fact of the matter is that public assistance enables to person to SURVIVE. Period. It isn't any fun trying to get by on $1000 a month--you and your two kids (and yes yes yes, that woman got her two kids by being a promiscuous Godless whore).
I don't know whether I find this right-wing assholery more abhorrent or ridiculous. Probably an equal measure of both.
Now, name a major European redistributive economy whose citizens have a shorter life expectancy than the USA's. Then, name a major European redistributive economy whose citizens have a higher infant mortality rate than the USA's.
You would think that the richest country in the world would be able to take care of its citizens.
Quote: mkl654321Conservative mythology:
1. The poor are all lazy, shiftless bums who don't deserve any help from us God-fearin' hard workin' folk.
2. If we give 'em any money, they'll just sit around on their couches and drink beer and fart a lot. They're worthless human crap (the poor), who need the threat of dying of exposure, disease or starvation to get 'em working.
Well, he's blocked me, so this is for the rest of you.
1. False. I've never come across a conservative who makes a blanket statement like this.
2. False. I've never come across a conservative who makes a blanket statement like this.
I think it's more accurate to call this, "Liberal Myths About What They Tell People Conservatives Believe In Order To Engender Antipathy Towards A Political Viewpoint That They Don't Share."
I guess that's not a direct refutation, though ... ;-)
Quote: JerryLoganI know there's supposed to be a recession going on around here and all that, but am I the only one who wouldn't know anything about it if I hadn't been reading about it or watching it talked about to death on TV? I guess my 401k has gone down like everyone else's, but I haven't looked at it in 7 or 8 years and I won't until I retire or need it. I've got the same job I was in 12 years ago, my wife quit her job last year and got a better paying one elsewhere without a lapse, and when I'm in Vegas I see the casinos buzzing and the strip clubs full. Our health insurance hasn't changed or gone up, yet, and the foreclosure thing seems a million miles away from what's on my mind. Sure my home has lost value, but I'm not selling.
Yeah, I still go to work every day and haven't collected a dime of government assistance since I started working 27 years ago, even though I live in Canada. My RRSPs (401ks) are still there. I still go to Vegas. I don't pay health insurance and if I worked for my US parent company they would pay it. I've been fortunate, and I'm talented at what I do. Just because you don't see doesn't mean it ain't so. Good thing you didn't have to retire say, last year. Good thing you didn't have your retirement fund locked up in, oh, Enron or Lehman Bros like many many Amercians did. Good thing you didn't live in southern Louisiana in the summer of 2005. Good thing you don't have a heart condition or some other disease that would cause you to lose your job and not be able to be reinsured. Good thing your employer didn't decide to downsize or outsource your job to India.
You see, I don't have a problem handing over a percentage of my income to the needy (the poor and lazy), the sick, or the disadvantaged. For every dollar that the "lazy" collect in welfare (and yes, I will admit, there are very lazy people out there), I would bet there's an equal dollar locked up in a hidden accounting scheme, a Bernie Madoff, or a CEO salary. My tax dollars keeps them off the street and the "poor and lazy" a means to make a life without having to resort to crime. It allows me to feel fairly comfortable walking down the streets of a major city at night, like Toronto, whereas I wouldn't be caught dead at night walking alone in say, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Miami, or Atlanta. Are these all cities that have gone liberal as well?
Quote: boymimboA balance is required to reach a civilized society. To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.
I believe this. Please tell me where I have and haven't traveled.
Quote: mkl654321Conservative mythology:
1. The poor are all lazy, shiftless bums who don't deserve any help from us God-fearin' hard workin' folk.
2. If we give 'em any money, they'll just sit around on their couches and drink beer and fart a lot. They're worthless human crap (the poor), who need the threat of dying of exposure, disease or starvation to get 'em working.
What brings this attitude about is the tendency to attribute our good fortune to our own virtue, while attributing others' bad fortune to their character flaws. The wealthy in this country buy into that myth, because it gives them a good self-image. In their minds, there is no such thing as a rich person OR a poor person that got that way because of bad luck or unfortunate circumstances. I got rich because I'm wonderful. He got poor because he's a lazy idiot.
This is a very useful position for the rich to adopt because it justifies total resistance to taxation. Mah money is goin' to support them dirty welfare cheats!
"The poor are still complaining." Well, this is a dumb generalization that isn't completely untrue, in that there are probably two or more poor people somewhere in this country complaining about SOMETHING. However, the rich are also complaining. And I LOOOOOOVE that phrase, "trying to make themselves better". Yes! The poor are inherently inferior human beings than the rich! Let 'em starve! Feeding them just "demotivates" them!
If any of the conservative goofballs who complain about public welfare programs ever had to live on the meager assistance that people on those programs actually get, they might (MIGHT) sing a different tune. The fact of the matter is that public assistance enables to person to SURVIVE. Period. It isn't any fun trying to get by on $1000 a month--you and your two kids (and yes yes yes, that woman got her two kids by being a promiscuous Godless whore).
I don't know whether I find this right-wing assholery more abhorrent or ridiculous. Probably an equal measure of both.
You're a little perturbed....that's good. Maybe you'll stay awake at night wondering why you made such a fool of yourself with that psycho-babble.
I'm not "rich" but the poor beggars can kiss my ass. There's work if they want it, only they're too lazy and unmotivated from all the Obama promised entitlements to bother to look. In the meantime, most of them use their handouts to smoke, drink too much, and make idiots out of themselves in those whack-job liberal protests against everything that's good in this country.
Right about now you're probably wondering how and why all those liberal talk shows....oh excuse me!--there wasn't many TO BEGIN WITH!....went bankrupt!
Quote: boymimboYeah, I still go to work every day and haven't collected a dime of government assistance since I started working 27 years ago, even though I live in Canada. My RRSPs (401ks) are still there. I still go to Vegas. I don't pay health insurance and if I worked for my US parent company they would pay it. I've been fortunate, and I'm talented at what I do. Just because you don't see doesn't mean it ain't so. Good thing you didn't have to retire say, last year. Good thing you didn't have your retirement fund locked up in, oh, Enron or Lehman Bros like many many Amercians did. Good thing you didn't live in southern Louisiana in the summer of 2005. Good thing you don't have a heart condition or some other disease that would cause you to lose your job and not be able to be reinsured. Good thing your employer didn't decide to downsize or outsource your job to India.
You see, I don't have a problem handing over a percentage of my income to the needy (the poor and lazy), the sick, or the disadvantaged. For every dollar that the "lazy" collect in welfare (and yes, I will admit, there are very lazy people out there), I would bet there's an equal dollar locked up in a hidden accounting scheme, a Bernie Madoff, or a CEO salary. My tax dollars keeps them off the street and the "poor and lazy" a means to make a life without having to resort to crime. It allows me to feel fairly comfortable walking down the streets of a major city at night, like Toronto, whereas I wouldn't be caught dead at night walking alone in say, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Miami, or Atlanta. Are these all cities that have gone liberal as well?
You want to hand over your money to a bunch of lazy-ass poor slobs then be my guest. All they do is laugh at you when they start guzzling the booze and puffing away on the cigarettes they bought with that free money anyway.
Everyone and everywhere has problems. The east coast has bad and sometimes deadly weather; Calif. has earthquakes; other places have tornadoes; Canada's got way too many Chinese for its own good; Mexico has no way out. And BTW, there's large parts of each of those cities that I've walked down at night and felt as safe as I did walking through Toronto....save for the aroma of hash-hish and the wild-eyed, multi-national minority population with that crazed crystal-meth look in their eyes.
Quote: JerryLoganYou're a little perturbed....that's good. Maybe you'll stay awake at night wondering why you made such a fool of yourself with that psycho-babble.
I'm not "rich" but the poor beggars can kiss my ass. There's work if they want it, only they're too lazy and unmotivated from all the Obama promised entitlements to bother to look. In the meantime, most of them use their handouts to smoke, drink too much, and make idiots out of themselves in those whack-job liberal protests against everything that's good in this country.
Right about now you're probably wondering how and why all those liberal talk shows....oh excuse me!--there wasn't many TO BEGIN WITH!....went bankrupt!
I would say that anyone making unfounded assertions like the ones above is making a much greater fool of himself than I ever will.
"There's work if they want it"---well, I guess those unemployment figures simply refer to the percentage of the population that sits around on its ass and doesn't WANT to work, and there are actually millions of available jobs out there for the taking. Riiiiiiight.
Aside from the asshole nature of such thinking, it's stupid, shortsighted, and most of all, complete horseshit. And the worst part of it is---people like JerryLogan are PROUD of their assholery and ignorance!
I fervently hope that he and others like him fall on bad times and need public assistance someday. I hope that when he gets cancer or loses his job or gets in a car accident and depletes his resources, that he'll have the integrity to refuse any public medical care, medication, funds, etc. and die like a man. Because, after all, if he loses the ability to provide for himself, it will have been because he was stupid and lazy to have contracted cancer, been laid off, etc. etc.
Quote: boymimboMy tax dollars keeps them off the street and the "poor and lazy" a means to make a life without having to resort to crime. It allows me to feel fairly comfortable walking down the streets of a major city at night, like Toronto, whereas I wouldn't be caught dead at night walking alone in say, Boston, Detroit, Seattle, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Washington, Miami, or Atlanta. Are these all cities that have gone liberal as well?
The wingnuts on this site and elsewhere are utterly blind to the benefits that redound to the rich/middle class from helping the poor. The funny thing is, they could justify tendering that help on a purely cost-benefit basis; they don't even have to factor compassion, decency, or social obligation into the equation. But they are so focused on me me me me me that they don't grasp the concept that they would rather be walking at night in a place like Toronto than, say, Detroit.
Quote: JerryLoganYou want to hand over your money to a bunch of lazy-ass poor slobs then be my guest. All they do is laugh at you when they start guzzling the booze and puffing away on the cigarettes they bought with that free money anyway.
Everyone and everywhere has problems. The east coast has bad and sometimes deadly weather; Calif. has earthquakes; other places have tornadoes; Canada's got way too many Chinese for its own good; Mexico has no way out. And BTW, there's large parts of each of those cities that I've walked down at night and felt as safe as I did walking through Toronto....save for the aroma of hash-hish and the wild-eyed, multi-national minority population with that crazed crystal-meth look in their eyes.
I wonder if anyone else was offended by the equating of having "way too many Chinese" with bad weather, earthquakes, and tornadoes.
I would say that having even one JerryLogan, let alone "way too many" of them, is a disaster at least as great in magnitude. I would prefer a city full of "minority" drug addicts (wild-eyed or not) to a city full of JerryLogans. The latter would be far worse than the worst police state that has ever existed.
(And he can't even spell "hashish".)
Quote: boymimboObviously I don't know where you have traveled. If you read my sentence carefully, there's an AND statement there. To answer your incoming question about reading research, I also don't know what research you have read either.
You said that, "To openly state that the United States has the best political system, country, or ideology in the world hasn't read the research that says otherwise and hasn't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country."
I think that. So, that means that ...
A) I haven't read the research that says otherwise, AND
B) I haven't traveled elsewhere or even within their own country.
So ... that means that, because I think it is the best system, there must be certain research I haven't read AND certain places I haven't traveled. Well, I've read a lot of research; maybe not the exact dissertation that you're referring to, so it would be interesting to know which particular one(s) you mean. Maybe I have read it, because ... believe it or not ... as a PhD and PhD candidate, I read a lot of research. In any event, I've read a lot of research on matters on and around this topic, and it usually amounts to one of two things:
1) because <whatever> happened/exists/etc., American society is fundamentally flawed and should be totally overhauled, or
2) because <whatever> happened/exists/etc., American society is overall pretty good and might look to change <this or that> to make it even better
In other words ... the conclusion is pretty much set before the paper is written, and it's driven by factors outside of Academics, and Academics just becomes a pawn in promoting a pre-conceived belief.
So to say that I haven't read research that concludes something other than "America is the best country" is wrong. (Unless you mean a particular paper, so please tell me which one it is, I'll get right on it, and let you know if it changes my mind.) And yet, I think America is the greatest. That's part of the AND.
Since that's taken care of (in the absence of you specifying which particular research youre' talking about), now tell me all the places that I haven't been that I should go that will convince me otherwise. CAREFUL! I'm a HUGE soccer fan and have been a lot of places!
Somehow ... just SOMEHOW ... I suspect you're using Academics and Intelligence to try to squash a political view you don't share. I could be wrong, but it sure "feels" that way.
Quote: HeadlockYeah, but can men and women get along?
crickets
I think that question has already been definitively answered, with "yes" and "no".
And the crickets are wearing out their welcome very quickly.
Quote: boymimboNonsense. The rich, middle class, and the poor are not living any better.
Median household income has not increased in the past 10 years relative to CPI. Wages have increased 31 percent in the past 10 years. The middle class and the poor are not living any better than they were. It now requires two adult income workers per family to create the same discretionary income today as a single income family did 30 years ago.
Food and energy (electricity prices are up 40 percent, gasoline 69 percent, bread 43 percent) are much more expensive than 10 years ago, yet income has increased by only 31 percent in the last 10 years. Education costs are up 25 percent. Health insurance costs are up about 10 percent every year. Medical expenses are up 48 percent in the last 10 years.
The US is 13 trillion in debt, representing (thanks to Obama) about 100 percent of GDP.
Really? Detroit's demise was a product of liberalism?
The reason it takes 2 incomes today is because people live so much better. Lets think about the 1970s to today Today the average home is larger. Back then virtually nobody in the middle class or below ever bought a car new. People didn't pay hundreds for purebred dogs, they went to the pound. Two TVs was pretty good. You didn't have a cell phone and internet service. Very few people flew in an airplane for vacation. Many family had one car only. You didn't eat out half as much. I don't know about you, but I live far better than 30-40 years ago. As do most people I know.
And yes, Detroit's demise is a product of liberalism. Who has run it forever? Liberal democrats. High taxes, high unionization, high regulation, hiring for government based on skin color instead of qualifications, it goes on and on. Unless I am missing something. Was there some conservative policy that destroyed Detroit?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe reason it takes 2 incomes today is because people live so much better. Lets think about the 1970s to today Today the average home is larger. Back then virtually nobody in the middle class or below ever bought a car new. People didn't pay hundreds for purebred dogs, they went to the pound. Two TVs was pretty good. You didn't have a cell phone and internet service. Very few people flew in an airplane for vacation. Many family had one car only. You didn't eat out half as much. I don't know about you, but I live far better than 30-40 years ago. As do most people I know.
And yes, Detroit's demise is a product of liberalism. Who has run it forever? Liberal democrats. High taxes, high unionization, high regulation, hiring for government based on skin color instead of qualifications, it goes on and on. Unless I am missing something. Was there some conservative policy that destroyed Detroit?
In 1971 I bought a window air conditioner for my bedroom for $400. Now you can get the same thing at ABC Warehouse for under $100. I bought a 16" Zenith color TV for $450. Just a couple years ago they were under $100. If your car was 10 years old it was a falling apart junk pile. I know at least 3 people who drive cars every day that are from the mid 90's and still going strong. Long distance calls cost an arm and a leg, now I get free LD on my cell phone. I never flew on a plane till 1982 and it was extremely expensive. I never ate out and today I eat out more than I eat at home. I could go on and on. Life is 10 times better than it was in the 70's and thats how it should be.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd yes, Detroit's demise is a product of liberalism. Who has run it forever? Liberal democrats. High taxes, high unionization, high regulation, hiring for government based on skin color instead of qualifications, it goes on and on. Unless I am missing something. Was there some conservative policy that destroyed Detroit?
Ah, the ironclad logic. If there was no conservative policy that destroyed Detroit, then there must have been a liberal policy that did that. Of course, that whole argument is based on the premise that Detroit was, in fact, "destroyed", and the last time I saw it, it looked pretty undestroyed to me. Godzilla COULD have visited the place since then, but...
Quote: mkl654321Ah, the ironclad logic. If there was no conservative policy that destroyed Detroit, then there must have been a liberal policy that did that. Of course, that whole argument is based on the premise that Detroit was, in fact, "destroyed", and the last time I saw it, it looked pretty undestroyed to me. Godzilla COULD have visited the place since then, but...
No, I gave several examples of liberal policies that destryoed Detroit. But again:
Quote:High taxes, high unionization, high regulation, hiring for government based on skin color instead of qualifications, it goes on and on. Unless I am missing something
When was the last time you were in Detroit. I don't mean Bloomfield Hills where the auto execs live, I mean the City of Detroit. Last I was it was about 1985, and even then it looked like an urban disaster. People have walked away from houses because they will never sell. Some neighborhoods are so empty they are evacuating people a few blocks over and plowing the streets and all under. I have met people who were told by the cops that they should stay out of and if they had to go the wrong way down a one-way street to get out then any cop around would let them off with a warning. The high schools graduate well under 50% of students.
What is your definition of "destroyed?" Or are you trying to deflect the argument like Obama does when he is asked, "How did the stimulus and recovery summer go?" Results, not intentions, matter in this world.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I gave several examples of liberal policies that destryoed Detroit. But again:
When was the last time you were in Detroit. I don't mean Bloomfield Hills where the auto execs live, I mean the City of Detroit. Last I was it was about 1985, and even then it looked like an urban disaster. People have walked away from houses because they will never sell. Some neighborhoods are so empty they are evacuating people a few blocks over and plowing the streets and all under. I have met people who were told by the cops that they should stay out of and if they had to go the wrong way down a one-way street to get out then any cop around would let them off with a warning. The high schools graduate well under 50% of students.
What is your definition of "destroyed?" Or are you trying to deflect the argument like Obama does when he is asked, "How did the stimulus and recovery summer go?" Results, not intentions, matter in this world.
I go to the Detroit casinos and yes, Detroit in some areas is a disaster area. The average mediun price of a house in Detroit is $7500, and even at that price you can't sell. The place in an armpit. Its lost so much of its population in the last 40 years that if it disappeared nobody would notice.
Quote: EvenBobI go to the Detroit casinos and yes, Detroit in some areas is a disaster area. The average mediun price of a house in Detroit is $7500, and even at that price you can't sell. The place in an armpit. Its lost so much of its population in the last 40 years that if it disappeared nobody would notice.
Not sure there--the Packers, Vikings, and Bears would be the first to complain about losing two easy wins year in and year out.
Quote: AZDuffman
What is your definition of "destroyed?" Or are you trying to deflect the argument like Obama does when he is asked, "How did the stimulus and recovery summer go?" Results, not intentions, matter in this world.
My definition of "destroyed" would be the dictionary one (of the transitive verb, "destroy"):
: to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
The structure of Detroit is not ruined; the roads, bridges, buildings, etc. are still intact. Some parts may be in bad shape, but it is not Berlin in 1945 (or, New Orleans in 2005).
The organic existence of Detroit is not ruined; the city still exists and functions, and still quite a bit better than a lot of other world cities I can think of.
The condition of Detroit is not ruined; it is a mess in some areas, and property values are down, but almost a million people still live there. If it was in a ruined condition, those people would not be able to live there.
And the city has not been torn to shreds as far as I'm aware.
I'm sure you'll find some way to quibble with all this, but the fact of the matter is that "destroyed" is too extreme a word to describe the current condition of Detroit. Damaged? Certainly. In decline? Definitely? "Destroyed"? Not even close. It's still there, and is still a functional city that is home to over 900,000 people.
Quote: mkl654321
I'm sure you'll find some way to quibble with all this, .
MKL is playing a word game. This is from the NY Times. "The 2010 Census could peg Detroit's population below 800,000, down from a high of almost 2 million in 1950." Sounds destroyed to me.
Quote: EvenBobMKL is playing a word game. This is from the NY Times. "The 2010 Census could peg Detroit's population below 800,000, down from a high of almost 2 million in 1950." Sounds destroyed to me.
It is why I have him on ignore. I have seen his type online since 1990 in usenet. When they are totally proven wrong (which is often) they try to slice and dice every little thing to say they were not wrong. He is the kind who would say the weatheman was wrong because it rained raindrops and not the "cats and dogs" he heard about.
As to Detroit, perhaps he should try saying in some of the worst parts for a few months then report back how livable it is.
I get there once a year or so for a Red Wings game. When it's over, Joe Louis arena empties out, and everyone makes a beeline for the 'burbs. The place is a ghost town.
Quote: CalderEven GM wanted out of downtown, but the White House wouldn't allow it.
I get there once a year or so for a Red Wings game. When it's over, Joe Louis arena empties out, and everyone makes a beeline for the 'burbs. The place is a ghost town.
If you go thru some of the neighborhoods where the auto execs lived in the 20's and 30's, your jaw will drop. Mansions is no other way to describe the homes. 3 story brick residences with 2 acre tailored lawns and gardens. The servents quarters are as big as a modern house. Every bit as nice as Beverly Hills. Of course, thats in the 'burbs and not in Detroit.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is why I have him on ignore. I have seen his type online since 1990 in usenet. When they are totally proven wrong (which is often) they try to slice and dice every little thing to say they were not wrong. He is the kind who would say the weatheman was wrong because it rained raindrops and not the "cats and dogs" he heard about.
As to Detroit, perhaps he should try saying in some of the worst parts for a few months then report back how livable it is.
The question, AZDoof, was not whether it was livable, but whether it was "destroyed". If you think Detroit has been destroyed, you live in a different reality from the rest of us.
