[$tinkle]

Actually, I'd expand that last comment to "**** anyone who's not me" mentality.

precisely equal to voting for someone primarily b/c you share the same race as them
the worst racism is unacknowledged racism

People today want to get back more than they put in, always, in every case, from every single government program. There is no compassion, no "good of society", just "what's in it for me?"

and can you blame them? once you define (or imply, or leave room for reasonable inference) that something is an entitlement, the american hominid can be quite indignant if you show signs of taking away their rice bowl. being unearned is irrelevant.

$tinkle - I'm starting to wonder whether your flashes of brilliance are more a case of "a stopped clock is right twice a day" as your inane and rambling posts are more a case of having a talking point and looking for a nail as opposed to any worthwhile dialogue. When Mooshoo's arguments look sane, rational and coherent compared to yours it's obvious that you're really just grasping at straws here.

his arguments look 'sane'? when he says 'there's an agreement we have with the government', this equates to a contract. but who's the arbiter of the contract? a disinterested third party? no. therefore, it is NOT an agreement, where both sides have agreed upon rules that both parties have drafted. our representatives first represent special interests, and if there's any table scraps, well, that's just gravy for which we should genuflect to the headmaster with a most gracious heart.

how do you not get this? and how do you respond with talking points without a whiff of irony? i'm trying my level best to get a worthwhile dialog going, but b/c i'm obviously on the wrong side of an issue that does not have sides, i'm rambling?

piffle!

 

[dante]

precisely equal to voting for someone primarily b/c you share the same race as them
the worst racism is unacknowledged racism

And this is relevant..... how?

and can you blame them? once you define (or imply, or leave room for reasonable inference) that something is an entitlement, the american hominid can be quite indignant if you show signs of taking away their rice bowl. being unearned is irrelevant.

Actually... yes, I can blame them. I think it's ugly, I think it's selfish, and I think it's UNAmerican (refer to my earlier post about how during WWII Americans bought war bonds in order to give their government MORE money in order to help fight the war).

On second thought, never mind. You never bothered to actually discuss that point, or note which right-wing groups declined to suckle on the teat of the American taxpayer, or any other of the half-dozen points which have been made in this thread. If all you can do is try to shift the debate to your nearest Fox News video that you have on hand, there's really no point in even bothering to have a discussion.

 

[$tinkle]

And this is relevant..... how?

taking the abstract & making it specific

Actually... yes, I can blame them. I think it's ugly, I think it's selfish, and I think it's UNAmerican (refer to my earlier post about how during WWII Americans bought war bonds in order to give their government MORE money in order to help fight the war).

care to lead by example? care to pay more than your fair share? you can always write a check to the irs, which they will gladly redeem.

On second thought, never mind. You never bothered to actually discuss that point, or note which right-wing groups declined to suckle on the teat of the American taxpayer, or any other of the half-dozen points which have been made in this thread.

did you nod off, or did your lips cramp up, when reading my posts? my sympathies

If all you can do is try to shift the debate to your nearest Fox News video that you have on hand, there's really no point in even bothering to have a discussion.

not sure how sharing videos on societal dysfunction or offering my thoughts on co-dependency on the state is a shift away from europe's societal dysfunction or co-dependency on the state, but maybe i'm simply oxygen deprived up here in my elephant tusk ivory tower.

hey, that was pretty clever coming from a magnanimous tit like me.

 

[dante]

Wait, you *actually* think that you've been giving coherent and well-structured arguments to support your position?

I think I'm starting to see the problem here...

 

[$tinkle]

Wait, you *actually* think that you've been giving coherent and well-structured arguments to support your position?

dog whistle?

are your ears not yet attuned to opposing points of view, even if opposition is only perceived? that is, if it doesn't fit your world view, you seem to dismiss instead of understand. you equate alternatives with polar opposition.

this is not opinion. this is emotions-based cognitive dissonance. you & sheu both react viscerally to anything that smacks of the remote possibility that someone is offering for consideration a well-cited, solution based upon one of your select boogeymen of core conservative principles.

your confrontational attitude is an impediment to progress, to the very greater good you unknowingly mock. if you call a group UNpatriotic, do at least these 2 things: show how so (by counter example, if necessary), and live it out. you know how you love to leer down the bridge of your nose at the manufactured empathy of conservatives toward the blighted (nevermind more than rarely they can be one & the same)? yeah. that.

i think we're far beyond counseling.

 

[dante]

You mean like voting for any referendum / school budget and happily paying my property taxes (~80% of which goes towards education) even though I don't have any kids? Yup, do that every year.

Still waiting for a single instance of a right-wing group turning down taxpayer funded largess.

 

[$tinkle]

here's one:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/admissions/faq/faq_list.asp?iSectionID=1&iGroupID=45&iQuestionID=108

they regularly hold palin fapathons mc'd by hugh hewitt

 

[$tinkle]

and this guy:

http://www.wealthwire.com/news/liberty/2884

 

[$tinkle]

do banks count as right wing?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/15/news/companies/thebuzz/index.htm

 

[$tinkle]

nikki haley & mick zais:

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110809/PC16/308099947

 

[dante]

Turning down something because you don't want to have to deal with the prerequisites required is *not* the same as turning down something that you're entitled to, and they had zero qualms with accepting (state) taxpayer funds prior to 2007. Also note that they didn't have a problem with federally-backed student loans until the Grove City College Supreme Court Case in the 1980s. Keep digging.

Thanks for at last admitting that you hadn't bothered even trying to answer that point earlier, though.

 

[dante]

nikki haley & mick zais:

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20110809/PC16/308099947

See: Perfectly happy taking away someone *else's* entitlement. How does the "entitled" group feel about this decision?

“It makes me sick to my stomach to think that $144 million is going to other students in other states. This is money going directly back to the taxpayers of South Carolina, and we’re turning it down to go to other states,” said Molly Spearman, executive director of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators. “Instead of Lexington, S.C., it’ll go to Lexington, Ky.”

 

[$tinkle]

yeah, well, molly spearman would appear to be a democrat, so i can see where unearned money slipping through her fingers to go to someone else would bring out the covetousness

 

[dante]

I'm surprised you didn't post how head Teabagger turned down the $250,000 in farm subsidies that her farm could have received over the past few decades....

Or how the original Teabagger turned down Social Security and Medicare in her old age...

You know, actual instances of right-wingers turning down money that they were entitled to.

 

[dante]

By the way, the fact that you think "She's a democrat, QED" is a coherent, well thought-out and persuasive argument is indicative of everything we've been saying in this thread.

 

[$tinkle]

By the way, the fact that you think "She's a democrat, QED" is a coherent, well thought-out argument is indicative of everything we've been saying in this thread.

and the fact that you take a response & project it as the-nail-in-the-coffin-/thread when it is done by me, but no one else, is obvious of a double standard you reflexively apply to those who aren't of your ilk. IOW, "**** anyone who's not me" mentality

 

[dante]

Are you claiming that I'm picking on you now?

By the way, that was your entire "response" to my point about Niki happily turning away *other* people's government benefits. If it wasn't a /thread (/point?) type of comment, then it was a throwaway comment designed to avoid the main point I was making.

 

[$tinkle]

you calling someone a hypocrite -> brave, wise, well-reasoned, thoughtful position
someone calling you a hypocrite -> pussy

 

[?????]

There's a big difference in refusing a hand out that you and everyone else pay for to receive, and prefering that the handout didn't exist.

 

[dante]

There's a big difference in refusing a hand out that you and everyone else pay for to receive, and prefering that the handout didn't exist.

Most of the right-wingers that I know are perfectly content with their own slice of the taxpayer pie, they just don't want other people to get any. Just look at seniors on Medicare who don't want others able to get "Socialized Medicine", farm subsidy recipients who want to gut Headstart or the Dept of Education, and so on. Don't you think it's just a bit hypocritical for someone to stand there with their hand out demanding taxpayer money while demanding that the government stop programs that benefit other people?

 

[TheMontashu]

so you posit that socialism is based upon morality? how moral are the motivations of hunger for power & self-servitude (re-election), arrogance (no more AIDS deaths), and vanity (attention whore cured teh aids)? but hey, at least they're not rich, which we all know is equal to buggering a schoolbus full of retarded paraplegic nuns just before setting them alight with a koran & pushing them over a cliff to land on the roof of a lesbian kitten rescue on the edge of a wetland that supplies the exclusive diet of blind hispanic river otters. on the sabbath.

in the early 90's, aids was a death sentence. today, it is manageable & chronic in those areas where capitalism has been permitted to thrive unabated.

what has socialized medicine done for aids, apart from being a distributor for technology borne out of "greedy capitalism"?

tell me, please.

I'm saying both are based on greed, but the greed in a more socialistic system seems to benefit others.

Yes, you are correct, but once again, that was my point and you completely missed it, what would be better for the people.
1) a manageable disease that requires victims to spend millions to live out their lives, allowing people who have no interest in seeing them get better, get rich. Because after all, that's the point
2) a disease that is now cured, and that millions that each person spent on living with a desease that is now cured can go to lets say, ANYTHING ELSE. You know, schools, a car you want, roads, ummm beer even, atl east that can be fun.

Well seeing how the motivation with privatized medicine is keeping you sick, we have got fat, and we as a society take a multitude of drugs for our "problems" as all these things are more PROFITABLE, I would say it has got us a load of problems.

Where as you have places like Canada and Israel testing cures for cancer because they see the savings, both in human and monitary life, in curing things. Where as big pharma CEO sees a drop on profit.

Now we're going to play the let's look at facts and figures game

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

38th in life expectancy and from my understanding all of them (minus the US territories) have universal healthcare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Again, ranked 34 behind a list of countries with universal care

In fact, the WHO ranks us 37th in the world for care

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

I guess we win at something!!!!!! We spend more than twice as much per person on healthcare than all but 8 other countries in the world, and a much higher portion of our GDP

So, worse care for more money??? Tell me how that makes ANY sense

This is my last response to you on this topic BTW, and if you can't add 2+2=4 I would vote for a new custom title of "wayyyyyyyy dumber than mooshu""

 

[$tinkle]

Most of the right-wingers that I know are perfectly content with their own slice of the taxpayer pie, they just don't want other people to get any. Just look at seniors on Medicare who don't want others able to get "Socialized Medicine", farm subsidy recipients who want to gut Headstart or the Dept of Education, and so on. Don't you think it's just a bit hypocritical for someone to stand there with their hand out demanding taxpayer money while demanding that the government stop programs that benefit other people?

not only is it a bit hypocritical, it's also a mischaracterization of the over-arching objection by the right: that those who are able to work are not willing, and choose first to seek getting on public assistance

can we really be at odds on that?


certainly, if there's to be spending on entitlement reform, there first needs to be what can only be described as an awkward conversation:

more: http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/03/farm-subsidies-paid-to-the-members-of-the-112th-congress/

i would hope there would be some manning-up by these hayseeds, but we'll never know until we starve the beast

 

[dante]

not only is it a bit hypocritical, it's also a mischaracterization of the over-arching objection by the right: that those who are able to work are not willing, and choose first to seek getting on public assistance

can we really be at odds on that?

Not at all, but I think you're white-washing (no pun intended) the Republican position just a little bit. I'm sure that those darn 4-year olds in the Head Start program (targeted for 75% reduction in federal spending by Republicans) aren't just opting to take public assistance because they're lazy and don't want to find jobs...

certainly, if there's to be spending on entitlement reform, there first needs to be what can only be described as an awkward conversation:

more: http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2011/03/farm-subsidies-paid-to-the-members-of-the-112th-congress/

i would hope there would be some manning-up by these hayseeds, but we'll never know until we starve the beast

Starve the Beast has resulted in record debt *and* massive government spending because Republicans aren't any more fiscally responsible when they're in charge than the Democrats... And based on that graph, if Republicans get in they'll just cut the programs they wanted to gut in the first place and *not* actually lower the deficit by any meaningful amount. In fact, Romney's tax plan would result in *increased* debt 10 years from now compared to Obama's because he cuts taxes beyond what government spending he's willing to cut.

edit: By the way, I do totally agree with you on the desire to encourage people to help themselves first. However, I think that 1) there should be a safety net for those who can't and 2) when it's fiscally advantageous to do so, there should be a government-run program. My biggest issue with our private-sector health care system is that it's 2x as expensive as many other socialist systems that have better overall results...

 

[TheMontashu]

Oh, and $tinkle for such a hard working conservative, you seemed to have allot of time to troll. Every time I get into a debate with you, I get back from class or work to 5 or 6 responses from you. I wonder how much of my tax money you use.

 

[$tinkle]

Not at all, but I think you're white-washing (no pun intended) the Republican position just a little bit. I'm sure that those darn 4-year olds in the Head Start program (targeted for 75% reduction in federal spending by Republicans) aren't just opting to take public assistance because they're lazy and don't want to find jobs...

as i'm sure is no surprise, i agree w/ gutting that program, for i tend to be results oriented

Starve the Beast has resulted in record debt *and* massive government spending because Republicans aren't any more fiscally responsible when they're in charge than the Democrats...

simply not true, b/c your implication is Starve the Beast is the cause. self-serving politicians getting HJs from lobbyists are the cause

In fact, Romney's tax plan would result in *increased* debt 10 years from now compared to Obama's because he cuts taxes beyond what government spending he's willing to cut.

romney has a tax plan? that's rich.

edit: By the way, I do totally agree with you on the desire to encourage people to help themselves first. However, I think that 1) there should be a safety net for those who can't and 2) when it's fiscally advantageous to do so, there should be a government-run program. My biggest issue with our private-sector health care system is that it's 2x as expensive as many other socialist systems that have better overall results...

split the diff - 1: aye; 2: nay

I wonder how much of my tax money you use.

and i wonder how much you pay

 

[TheMontashu]

and i wonder how much you pay

Probably less than you, but unlike you, I'm happy to pay them. As well I would also be more than happy to contribute to the healthcare and education of others.

Care to address any of my other points???

 

[dante]

as i'm sure is no surprise, i agree w/ gutting that program, for i tend to be results oriented

CATO Institute? Seriously? At best the results are mixed with varying causes as to why there is a "fade" by 2nd and 3rd grade. But even if your point is valid, where is the proposed pre-school program that Conservatives are willing to put the money towards? Because any attempt at gutting Headstart usually just gets lumped in with "and moar tax cuts!!"

simply not true, b/c your implication is Starve the Beast is the cause. self-serving politicians getting HJs from lobbyists are the cause

Starve the beast reduces revenue through tax cuts. Just because politicians are spineless to follow up on Phase II (cuts to popular social programs) doesn't change the impact that tax cuts have on the budget deficit (and please GOD don't say that tax cuts 'pay for themselves', I don't think I could handle that amount of stupidity this early in the morning).

romney has a tax plan? that's rich.

Two, actually. The first budget he proposed raises the national debt by more than Obama, and the second (hastily added) across the board 20% tax cut only makes that worse.

split the diff - 1: aye; 2: nay

I guess this is where we differ, than. I'd rather keep the extra $4,000 per capita and get better results as opposed to watching my wife's company flush $13,000/year down the drain just to insure two healthy active young adults.

 

[Beef Supreme]

Starve the Beast has resulted in record debt *and* massive government spending because Republicans aren't any more fiscally responsible when they're in charge than the Democrats... And based on that graph, if Republicans get in they'll just cut the programs they wanted to gut in the first place and *not* actually lower the deficit by any meaningful amount. In fact, Romney's tax plan would result in *increased* debt 10 years from now compared to Obama's because he cuts taxes beyond what government spending he's willing to cut.

This point bears repeating. Modern republicans have shown zero willingness to cut any of their priorities regardless of how bad the deficit is. Not one tax giveaway. Not one dollar of corporate welfare. Not one dollar of defense spending. The closest they have come is the automatic sequestration that came with the failure of the debt commission. Republicans started trying to weasel out of that the minute it went into effect. At this point, you would have to be a moron to believe they would do otherwise.

I'll start listening to Heritage.org when their prediction that we will have paid off our entire national debt by 2011 thanks to the GWB tax cuts finally comes true...

This also bears repeating but I would substitute the republican party for Heritage. I find it astounding that they want to go back to the same economic policies that have failed so miserably. Supply siders should be laughed off the national stage.

 

[Changleen]

Capitalism needs a bill of responsibility to go next to the bill of rights.

 

[$tinkle]

Capitalism needs a bill of responsibility to go next to the bill of rights.

would make for a catchy campaign, but would never get legs, as it would be fraught with subjectivity, apart from the fact we've effectively tried this through crushing regulation that's largely avoided by the well-heeled

at any rate: what's this? Why the euro is doomed to fall apart: it was an incredibly stupid idea in the first place

Over larger areas and numbers of people, the US is regarded as a good example. However, it is worth looking at quite how much money has to be sloshed around America to achieve a single currency. Some would argue that it's the welfare state bit of the Federal government, perhaps plus the military, that does this. That's about 5 or 6 per cent of US GDP. Others argue that it's the whole of the Federal government that does it, around and about (outside current blowout deficit times) some 20 per cent of the entire economy.
Which is fine if that's your sort of thing. But now try and move this over to the European scenario. The US government, all levels of it, takes some 35 to 40 per cent of GDP. That's two fifths of everything that everyone produces in a year. And this is after they've done that fiscal sloshing around to make up for having a single currency.
Here in Europe, governments take 40 to 50 per cent of GDP, two fifths to one half, before they've started to chuck the cash around to pay for the vanity project of the euro. We'd have to take in tax another 5 to 20 percent of everything produced and ship it off to the poor countries to achieve what the Americans have: a single currency that doesn't cripple those poor areas.

 

[dante]

would make for a catchy campaign, but would never get legs, as it would be fraught with subjectivity, apart from the fact we've effectively tried this through crushing regulation that's largely avoided by the well-heeled

at any rate: what's this? Why the euro is doomed to fall apart: it was an incredibly stupid idea in the first place

Maybe it's that I've only had one cup of coffee, but I couldn't understand a word that guy wrote (and no, I couldn't access Mundell's Optimum Currency Area link)... If his point was that there are added costs to have a single currency through different languages and cultures than the US was a *bad* example since we mostly have a unified society. If he was referring to geographical size, than there are countries that are bigger (and poorer) than the US that also have a unified currency (namely Russia and Canada).

I thought that the main problem of the Euro (and other countries with a "fixed" currency) was that they had little flexibility to respond to the economic cycles of boom (necessitating a stronger currency) and bust (weakening the currency to promote economic development and lower the price of manufacturing/exports). The problem with the Euro is that there are competing interests, so while Greece/Spain/Portugal/Ireland/etc all want a weaker currency to promote economic development, Germany, France, and so on do NOT want a weaker currency since they're currently prospering. It's this massive conflict of interests that doesn't occur in places like the US...

 

[norbar]

Stinkie I just hope that one day you end up in one of those no regulation developing country paradise you seem to worship so much. Word of advice from a friend who lived in a country like that - your house has to have a wall and a backup exit. The weather was nice though.

 

[dante]

Libertarian paradise?

 

[$tinkle]

^^^ u2b has teh lulz

Stinkie I just hope that one day you end up in one of those no regulation developing country paradise you seem to worship so much. Word of advice from a friend who lived in a country like that - your house has to have a wall and a backup exit. The weather was nice though.

please to stop making assumptions that "not equal" means "opposite"

IOW: you must immediately stop assuming that my solution to too much of a thing is elimination of a thing. would be the same as saying "the appropriate response to flood is drought"

and ppl accuse *us* of being black & white...

 

[$tinkle]

george friedman posits on france's strategy

New political leaders do not invent new national strategies. Rather, they adapt enduring national strategies to the moment. On Tuesday, Francois Hollande will be inaugurated as France's president, and soon after taking the oath of office, he will visit German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin. At this moment, the talks are expected to be about austerity and the European Union, but the underlying issue remains constant: France's struggle for a dominant role in European affairs at a time of German ascendance.

Two events shaped modern French strategy. The first, of course, was the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 and the emergence of Britain as the world's dominant naval power and Europe's leading imperial power. This did not eliminate French naval or imperial power, but it profoundly constrained it. France could not afford to challenge Britain any more and had to find a basis for accommodation, ending several centuries of hostility if not distrust.

The second moment came in 1871 when the Prussians defeated France and presided over the unification of German states. After its defeat, France had to accept not only a loss of territory to Germany but also the presence of a substantial, united power on its eastern frontier. From that moment, France's strategic problem was the existence of a unified Germany.

read the rest

 

[$tinkle]

Europe's Maquina Infernal has crippled Spain

The country’s collapse is the mathematically certain - and widely predicted - result of ferocious monetary and fiscal contraction on an economy struggling to deal with a housing bust.

course correction?
what's that?

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/26/watch-bill-oreilly-get-smacked-down-by-economics-professor-video/

now if we can figure out what Deutschland & Scandinavia are doing right...

 

[Pesqueeb]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/26/watch-bill-oreilly-get-smacked-down-by-economics-professor-video/

now if we can figure out what Deutschland & Scandinavia are doing right...

Socialism!