Politics

[Buster Bluth]

You make a fair point in terms of what I expose myself to. You recommend anything were can get an honest alternative view. Not saying I'll agree but I will consider things? No I am not going to watch Fox News.

When I was in the eighth grade I was lucky enough to have a teacher who went to Harvard on a football scholarship, graduate with an engineering degree, and for some reason quit to become a middle school science teacher. This guy was the man; absolutely brilliant, at least to my eighth grade self. The middle school I went to, Maumee Valley, is pretty renown throughout Ohio (my idiot self left to go play football at St. Francis...I still regret it), and they are known for being extremely unorthodox and open to out-of-the-box ideas. In the spring of 2004, at the end of the primaries, me and two buddies of mine pitched an idea to the principle that he should let us have a full blown Presidential debate in front of the entire school. He thought it was a great idea and agreed.

As middle schools function, news got around quickly and it was a big deal. Maumee Valley is a very liberal place, but also very open, and me and my friend NotBuster were on the Bush team and were determined to wipe the floor with whatever silly liberal stood in opposition. For three weeks we studied and had every single talking point down, honestly I know more about the 2004 Presidential election than anyone should hahah

Well 3-4 days before, the Kerry debater backed out. The debate was basically off, we couldn't find anyone to go on stage with--errr, against, us. Mr. D, my science teacher, pulled me aside after class and talked to me about the debate. He said "Buster I don't know if you can do this, you'd have to be pretty mature about it and take it seriously, but trust me on this one. I think the debate is great but if you want to get the most out of it, you should go ask Mr. Boehm is you can debate on Kerry's side. Take it seriously and I promise you'll learn more on the matter than you ever thought you could." Obviously, as a 14-year old kid, I thought he was insane. But he was the man and I wasn't going to disagree with him, so I did and I can say without hesitation that it was one of the most transformative moments of my life. Not because Kerry was right, hell he was basically identical to Bush, but it made me learn to reconsider everything I had heard on X subject.

When I want to learn about capitalism, I read Karl Marx as much as Adam Smith. When I want to learn about religion, I'll talk as much with an atheist/agnostic as I will the most fervid Christian/theist. Talking with Muslims about Christianity is pretty amazing, I'll recommend it to anyone.

The point I'm trying to make through all of this is that the chances of one side having all of the right answers is about 0%. Hell the very notion that there is right and wrong is silly, there is just different, and every policy has winners and losers. Not only that, there's a pretty damn good chance that what you know is wrong, statistically speaking. That's how our brains work. You learn something, and it literally shapes the neurons in your brain and you brainwash yourself over time. That's why Socrates' quote of "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing" is so amazingly accurate.

I think you're a swell guy, really, or I wouldn't have typed all this out haha but so many of your posts are literally taken from Jay Carney's diary. Open it up a bit! He's not 100% right, and he's probably not even 75% right (and in my opinion much less than that). Instead of asking a loaded question on "what you do conservatives think? Every man for himself huh huh huh???" .....literally put in the time to learn WHY they think what they do. They cannot all be 100% wrong.

Three corporations control the news, it's not like you're going to get anything good from a news outlet. There is, however, an entire YouTube out there of actual policy--not political--lectures from amazing universities around the world. Oxford, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NOTRE DAME etc, they all have free knowledge that lets you develop INDEPENDENT thoughts. You're too passionate about policy to let a political party get in the way, I mean that seriously.

You are a smart guy and you have had more than a few thought provoking posts in this thread, but I just don't get your apparent need to dress people down like this. There really isn't any need for this sort of thing. You'd be a much better poster if you just kept your personal opinions about other posters to yourself and just stayed on topic.

You call it dressing down, I'll call it challenging someone who is clearly interested in the topic to broaden their horizons, albeit being a bit of an ******* in the process. I'm okay with that really.

And just for fun:

 

[GoIrish41]

You call it dressing down, I'll call it challenging someone who is clearly interested in the topic to broaden their horizons, albeit being a bit of an ******* in the process. I'm okay with that really.

Obliously it is your choice, but most of us would rather be thought of as an interesting and thoughtful communicator instead of as a condescending, dismissive prick.

 

[chicago51]

This really scares me:

Private debt is 250 percent of GDP. Right now our public is about 100 percent of GDP.

Now to put this in perspective after ww2 and korea federal or debt was 125 percent of GDP. Private debt was only 50 percent.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Obliously it is your choice, but most of us would rather be thought of as an interesting and thoughtful communicator instead of as a condescending, dismissive prick.

There is nothing interesting or thoughtful about repeating talking points.

"Well my guy says _____ and so _____ and _____ and your guy is wrong. ^$#*!!! Tax returns!! Extra-Marital Affairs!!" Oh please. Just shoot me in the ****ing head already because I can get that malarkey on any number of news outlets.

 

[chicago51]

This really scares me:

Private debt is 250 percent of GDP. Right now our public is about 100 percent of GDP.

Now to put this in perspective after ww2 and korea federal or debt was 125 percent of GDP. Private debt was only 50 percent.

Now we brought down the gov debt post ww2 by by selling to Europe and by putting people to work building the highways. We sent people to school on the at the time new GI bill and they got good jobs. People got jobs we spent more money and boost the economy through 1970. The national debt fell to 20 percent of GDP.

The problem is when we try stimulus type plans like the one under Bush which gave working families $400 a large portion does not get recirculated into the economy. Instead the money goes to pay off debts which is nice for banks but does nothing for the economy.

Private debt is a huge problem that almost no politician democrat or republican is talking about.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

There is nothing interesting or thoughtful about repeating talking points.

"Well my guy says _____ and so _____ and _____ and your guy is wrong. ^$#*!!! Tax returns!! Extra-Marital Affairs!!" Oh please. Just shoot me in the ****ing head already because I can get that malarkey on any number of news outlets.

I don't disagree with you, but people should be allowed to express their views without being chastised by you and called and idiot, stupid, moron, etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

There is nothing interesting or thoughtful about repeating talking points.

"Well my guy says _____ and so _____ and _____ and your guy is wrong. ^$#*!!! Tax returns!! Extra-Marital Affairs!!" Oh please. Just shoot me in the ****ing head already because I can get that malarkey on any number of news outlets.

We're not talking about anyone else's posts right now, we are talking about yours. I'm just asking you to use a little filtration and/or restraint. It is not civil or appropriate to insult people because they say something with which you do not agree. Rude comments like "you are incapable of individual thought" can also be observed on any number of news outlets, and these comments are even more offputting than the arguements framed with the talking points of the day. These types of amateur and unprovoked swipes at people are not becoming of a person with your intellect.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't think I've done that in months. I called chicago a dimwit (!!) after he said voters didn't want another "conservative Castro" which was horribly inaccurate.

I really just don't think it's wrong to criticize a seemingly endless stream of talking points, of which many are even misstated, and to suggest that you should, for lack of a better term, know your enemy. You never know, you might learn something you didn't expect.

 

[Buster Bluth]

We're not talking about anyone else's posts right now, we are talking about yours.

Let us do just that.

I'm just asking you to use a little filtration and/or restraint. It is not civil or appropriate to insult people because they say something with which you do not agree. Rude comments like "you are incapable of individual thought" can also be observed on any number of news outlets, and these comments are even more offputting than the arguements framed with the talking points of the day. These types of amateur and unprovoked swipes at people are not becoming of a person with your intellect.

What you have quoted there, go find that quote in anything I've posted. What is more amateur, the guy who says that or the guy who misquotes that from what was actually said?

I said that being "fully liberal" and saying "Obama has been a moderate President" doesn't add up, as in the Venn Diagram of a fully liberal person and Barack Obama shouldn't be on top of each other.

"Honestly that just sorta smells like the inability to have independent thoughts, to me." i.e., some of that could look like the inability to disagree with your candidate, from what has been posted.

 

[GoIrish41]

Let us do just that.



What you have quoted there, go find that quote in anything I've posted. What is more amateur, the guy who says that or the guy who misquotes that from what was actually said?

I said that being "fully liberal" and saying "Obama has been a moderate President" doesn't add up, as in the Venn Diagram of a fully liberal person and Barack Obama shouldn't be on top of each other.

"Honestly that just sorta smells like the inability to have independent thoughts, to me." i.e., some of that could look like the inability to disagree with your candidate, from what has been posted.

much better. ugh!

 

[chicago51]

I already explain I made a typo and that Cubans tend be conservative because of anti castro sentiments.

I do have issues with Obama. I have issues when he gets in his "reach across the isle" mode and gets walked too far right at least in my view.

I appreciate backing pennhater and GoIrish. I was trying not make this an internet character assualt forum and keep it as free speech political form.

I think Buster wants the IE internet tough guy award.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I already explain I made a typo and that Cubans tend be conservative because of anti castro sentiments.

I'm aware but what I said came before that. Simply pointed out that that was the last time I have, name-called.

I think Buster wants the IE internet tough guy award.

Then I have failed miserably in my original intent, which has become apparent to me.

 

[chicago51]

I'm aware but what I said came before that. Simply pointed out that that was the last time I have, name-called.



Then I have failed miserably in my original intent, which has become apparent to me.

I make motion for a recess.

When we resume let's this drop this petty stuff.

I need a second

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I make motion for a recess.

When we resume let's this drop this petty stuff.

I need a second

I'll second it. We are all here because we love ND Football. We can be more collegial in our discussions. Go Irish!

 

[chicago51]

I'll second it. We are all here because we love ND Football. We can be more collegial in our discussions. Go Irish!

Go Irish!

F Ted Cruz

 

[GoIrish41]

Go Irish!

F Ted Cruz

And the Tea Party horse he rode in on.

 

[chicago51]

We need Bob D to up show and post something the is both witty and funny; a blend of intelligence and humor. It will put us all in a better mood after this most recent internet brawl.

 

[BobD]

We need Bob D to up show and post something the is both witty and funny; a blend of intelligence and humor. It will put us all in a better mood after this most recent internet brawl.

Oh no! Thanks, but I don't work well under pressure.....maybe I should have become a politician?

 

[chicago51]

Oh no! Thanks, but I don't work well under pressure.....maybe I should have become a politician?

I vote for you.

 

[chicago51]

Okay so I think we have all seen this.

My question is how do we explain this:

So were Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon all communists?

See this is what Reaganomics has done.

You can call it capitalism. I'm confused though. Did we not have capitalism before 1980?

 

[BobD]

To me this seems absolutely ridiculous:

Facebook gets huge tax refund for 2012

 

[chicago51]

To me this seems absolutely ridiculous:

Facebook gets huge tax refund for 2012

This is from the article Bob D kindly posted.

Facebook made $1.1 billion in pre-tax profits in 2012, which means wealth for shareholders, revenue for the government, everyone wins and, yay, capitalism! Right? Wrong. The company will get a $429 million tax REFUND from the Internal Revenue Service, because of how stock options and awards are treated by the tax code. This has tax advocacy groups hopping mad. Citizens for Tax Justice called the fact that Facebook "did not pay even a dime in federal and state income taxes … an amazing admission." And for those folks, there's more outrage coming: Facebook can reduce future tax bills by reserving an additional $2.1 billion in stock-option tax breaks to write off against its liabilities. So far, the company has declined to comment.

When myself and others talk about closing loopholes, this is what I talking. How can you make all that money not pay any income tax? Now you get money back from the government. How is this fair to small business owners and wage earners that bust their butts everyday?

There is a great deal of talk about the "high" corporate tax rates. The reality is our 35% corporate tax rate may seem higher, higher than countries like Canada. The reality is when you get through all the deductions and loopholes our corporations only pay 12% on average.

 

[BobD]

Besides the loop holes and tax refunds, I think the biggest crime being committed is the unbelievably huge overvaluation these internet companies like Facebook and LinkedIn have. HOW IS OUR STOCK MARKET AT RECORD LEVELS WHILE SO MANY COMPANIES ARE TURNING IN TERRIBLE EARNINGS, LOSING MONEY AND LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES? PURE MANIPULATION.

 

[chicago51]

Besides the loop holes and tax refunds, I think the biggest crime being committed is the unbelievably huge overvaluation these internet companies like Facebook and LinkedIn have. HOW IS OUR STOCK MARKET AT RECORD LEVELS WHILE SO MANY COMPANIES ARE TURNING IN TERRIBLE EARNINGS, LOSING MONEY AND LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES? PURE MANIPULATION.

Agreed

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Besides the loop holes and tax refunds, I think the biggest crime being committed is the unbelievably huge overvaluation these internet companies like Facebook and LinkedIn have. HOW IS OUR STOCK MARKET AT RECORD LEVELS WHILE SO MANY COMPANIES ARE TURNING IN TERRIBLE EARNINGS, LOSING MONEY AND LAYING OFF EMPLOYEES? PURE MANIPULATION.

Everything is just fine.

/s/

Helicopter Ben

 

[BobD]

You think Michelle will attack the motorcade swinging a golf club when the president returns home?

Obama plays round of golf with Tiger Woods, media air frustration over access | Fox News

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Well, not yet...

Washington Times

Obama on immigration: 'The problem is … I'm not the emperor of the United States'
President Obama took part Thursday in what the White House called a “Fireside Hangout — our 21st century take on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.” During the event, which was broadcast on the White House’s official YouTube channel and Google+, the president was asked about the administration’s deportation of 1.5 million illegal immigrants.

When asked specifically what he would do to make sure more families weren’t deported, Mr. Obama responded: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

 

[chicago51]

From about a month ago.

Obama approval has actually decreased to about 52% since.

Moral of the story though, Congress stinks. Republicans in Congress really stink.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Okay so I think we have all seen this.

My question is how do we explain this:

So where Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon all communists?

See this is what Reaganomics has done.

You can call it capitalism. I'm confused though. Did we not have capitalism before 1980?

I think there are numerous reasons for this. Some we have discussed previously with technology eliminating jobs but we have not discussed the ability of Americans to fill the jobs of increased requirements. To me there are two big issues outside of the normal talking points. The first is the requirements of today's jobs versus the requirements of 50 years ago. In 2007, 32% of jobs required a 4 year degree or more. Compare that to 1973, where only 16% of jobs required that education. The interesting thing here though is that we have not seen as dramitic of an increase in new college graduates over the same time period. Since the 70's, we have gone from the low to mid 20% range of population aged 25-29 holding a college degree to about 30% in 2011. Additionally, the gender make up of that growth favors women more than men. That complicates things considering women are much more likely to leave and re-enter the workforce for children. This whole thing has put a upward pressure on wages since there is a relative scarcity resources.

The other issue isn't easily measure and is not discussesd enough. That is the decline of family, religon and marriage in America. Please read the wall stree journal attached below on this topic. The stats are both alarming and telling. Here is his summary in the article. Reading the article should open the eyes of both R's and D's.

"Why have these new lower and upper classes emerged? For explaining the formation of the new lower class, the easy explanations from the left don't withstand scrutiny. It's not that white working class males can no longer make a "family wage" that enables them to marry. The average male employed in a working-class occupation earned as much in 2010 as he did in 1960. It's not that a bad job market led discouraged men to drop out of the labor force. Labor-force dropout increased just as fast during the boom years of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s as it did during bad years.

As I've argued in much of my previous work, I think that the reforms of the 1960s jump-started the deterioration. Changes in social policy during the 1960s made it economically more feasible to have a child without having a husband if you were a woman or to get along without a job if you were a man; safer to commit crimes without suffering consequences; and easier to let the government deal with problems in your community that you and your neighbors formerly had to take care of.

But, for practical purposes, understanding why the new lower class got started isn't especially important. Once the deterioration was under way, a self-reinforcing loop took hold as traditionally powerful social norms broke down. Because the process has become self-reinforcing, repealing the reforms of the 1960s (something that's not going to happen) would change the trends slowly at best.

Meanwhile, the formation of the new upper class has been driven by forces that are nobody's fault and resist manipulation. The economic value of brains in the marketplace will continue to increase no matter what, and the most successful of each generation will tend to marry each other no matter what. As a result, the most successful Americans will continue to trend toward consolidation and isolation as a class. Changes in marginal tax rates on the wealthy won't make a difference. Increasing scholarships for working-class children won't make a difference.

The only thing that can make a difference is the recognition among Americans of all classes that a problem of cultural inequality exists and that something has to be done about it. That "something" has nothing to do with new government programs or regulations. Public policy has certainly affected the culture, unfortunately, but unintended consequences have been as grimly inevitable for conservative social engineering as for liberal social engineering.

The "something" that I have in mind has to be defined in terms of individual American families acting in their own interests and the interests of their children. Doing that in Fishtown requires support from outside. There remains a core of civic virtue and involvement in working-class America that could make headway against its problems if the people who are trying to do the right things get the reinforcement they need—not in the form of government assistance, but in validation of the values and standards they continue to uphold. The best thing that the new upper class can do to provide that reinforcement is to drop its condescending "nonjudgmentalism." Married, educated people who work hard and conscientiously raise their kids shouldn't hesitate to voice their disapproval of those who defy these norms. When it comes to marriage and the work ethic, the new upper class must start preaching what it practices.

Changing life in the SuperZIPs requires that members of the new upper class rethink their priorities. Here are some propositions that might guide them: Life sequestered from anybody not like yourself tends to be self-limiting. Places to live in which the people around you have no problems that need cooperative solutions tend to be sterile. America outside the enclaves of the new upper class is still a wonderful place, filled with smart, interesting, entertaining people. If you're not part of that America, you've stripped yourself of much of what makes being American special.

Such priorities can be expressed in any number of familiar decisions: the neighborhood where you buy your next home, the next school that you choose for your children, what you tell them about the value and virtues of physical labor and military service, whether you become an active member of a religious congregation (and what kind you choose) and whether you become involved in the life of your community at a more meaningful level than charity events.

Everyone in the new upper class has the monetary resources to make a wide variety of decisions that determine whether they engage themselves and their children in the rest of America or whether they isolate themselves from it. The only question is which they prefer to do.

That's it? But where's my five-point plan? We're supposed to trust that large numbers of parents will spontaneously, voluntarily make the right choice for the country by making the right choice for themselves and their children?

Yes, we are, but I don't think that's naive. I see too many signs that the trends I've described are already worrying a lot of people. If enough Americans look unblinkingly at the nature of the problem, they'll fix it. One family at a time. For their own sakes. That's the American way."

Charles Murray on the New American Divide - WSJ.com

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Charles Murray on the New American Divide - WSJ.com

Charles Murray is sort of a genius on stat analyses like these. I remember being dazzled at the way he broke-down the monstrosity that was lowering the federal speed limit to 55 mph in the 70's.

The primary indicator of the erosion of industriousness in the working class is the increase of prime-age males with no more than a high school education who say they are not available for work—they are "out of the labor force." That percentage went from a low of 3% in 1968 to 12% in 2008. Twelve percent may not sound like much until you think about the men we're talking about: in the prime of their working lives, their 30s and 40s, when, according to hallowed American tradition, every American man is working or looking for work. Almost one out of eight now aren't. Meanwhile, not much has changed among males with college educations. Only 3% were out of the labor force in 2008.

It's funny how the vast safety net that is supposed to "cure" inequality is the very thing exacerbating it.