Goddamn there is some seriously retarded people on this planet, are you collecting any type of disability?

Fixed, perhaps you shouldn't be calling anyone retarded..

de nada. and by definition I am a psuedointellectual, this is gofuckyourself.

An Answer To The Rhetorical Points

to the extent that Bush and teh republicans are liable for the wars, they should be held responsible for them, and they will be, and are.

Republican base attempts to transfer that blame to obama are shallow and obvious, and except for the republican base, nobody takes them seriously (polls shouldn't be trusted, but polls do seem to agree on this).

to the extent that obama is continuing republican AND democratic policies of pro war, and continuing to fund these wars long after it's become clear they were insane mistakes at best, he and democrats should and will be held liable for that, and they will, because substantial numbers like myself will never put a check next to obamas name for anything ever again.

Democrat base attempts to excuse obama for acting like a republican dickhead are disgusting to me personally, but are fundamentally no better or worse than what the republicans did, are doing, and will do.

so ultimately, it's about a draw on the asinine political and rhetorical behavior meter.

personally I blame obama more, because he campaigned in a way that took advantage of peoples hopes, lied, and betrayed everyone to the corporations. he was weak when we needed somebody willing to fight like hell.

but Bush started the war, it will always be Bush who started the war, and republican base attempts to rewrite history in their own minds is pathetic to watch.

that it's pathetic will not stop your side from doing it. that it's disgusting will not stop my side from doing it.

that means, as a rhetorical point as a whole, it's a null. no effect, a rhetorical dead end. thats why its popular, it's a useful distraction to trap an unskilled opponent.

because it's a dead end, I dont usually bother to address it, but what the hell, right, since we're buddies and all.

blah blah blah - one of the problems with a rhetorical dead end is that it's impossible to be original with it. the endless loop keeps out any new information.

I listened to all three of these and the guy has a lot of good stuff to say. But he really mentions nothing about a double dip economy. What he does say is that things aren't great (obviously) and that unless we make some changes in the way we are dealing with these problems they will not get better.

The only part he mentions a double dip is when he says some stuff about how now that we have spent all this stimulus money and the fed has manipulated the economy there needs to be an end game. The fed and the government will eventually have to pull out and how they go about that is what will determine a double dip. If they have a bad plan for ending things, it could get very ugly very quickly and we could double dip. If they pull it off though, it might not happen.

So to me, it seems like he is saying we might have a double dip recession, not that we absolutely will.

Thats like being asked to prove that water is wet. All I ever see you do is attack the typically liberal politics with the typical conservative position. And ironically, you do it with the same narrow mindedness as slutboat.

It wouldn't surprise me if you both ended up on a rooftop together, sniping people at a mall with high powered rifles someplace.

So you prove that you have absolutely no idea what the "typical conservative position" is, and that you don't read well to lump my posts in with slutboat. Glad we got that straightened out.

OHHH you must be one of those insecure social rejects who believes he's a free thinker and unique because he says "both parties are two sides of the same coin!!":1orglaugh

Which was never a question so the point is moot.

And on the other side, Democrats base attempts to transfer the blame to Bush and the Republicans are equally shallow and obvious and except for the Democratic base, nobody takes them seriously. And you'd need to show what "polls" prove this because I can show you the exact opposite.



Everything else I agree with.

We can play semantics all night long. Do you really care what I think? You seem pretty defensive for me being so wrong.


Actually, I already said the same. I don't think i am anything other than someone who is honest with himself about his own views and experience and the obvious fact that with those views and experience, come personal bias... personal bias which I don't attempt to disguise as "being right". As a reasonable person, I realize that in our two party system, which is also fundamentally a system of two opposing views, that my view represents just one side and being that I understand that it represents only one side, as well as being a biased viewpoint, I understand that I can also be wrong.

But you can't be wrong. Angry lunatics are never wrong. Truth be told, you probably have little interest in politics, your real issue is anger. Politics is simply where this anger has manifested itself, how you have externalized it and probably plays a large role in how you manage to rationalize it - because after all, if those idiots "got it", you wouldn't be angry.

Schiff has a lot of good points. His critiques aren't bad.

but it's not clear to me what his overall plan to address the fundamental transformation of the US economy actually is, or would be.

i guess it would be a "full laissez faire" plan - the only way to keep the managed economies from cleaning our clocks is by completely "unmanaging" american business.

which fails to explain why the managed economies are winning against the least managed economy in the top twenty nations, but what the hell right, you have to admit it sounds good, beat the socialist economies by unleashing business, and let the corporations run free.

i don't think most economists would agree that Schiff is an economist. but economists have been wrong about everything that happened these past few years, so maybe Schiff is the economist, and the others who failed to predict the contraction are a bunch of stooges.

Ahahahaha!

Seriously, what do you do for a living?

this is during holiday times, wait til they temp jobs get laid off..

again, remember, this argument is a loop, its a null, can't go anywhere, can never be finished.

Thus, you now claim that that bush is not responsible for the wars, by saying that dems are trying to transfer the blame.

the blame cant be transferred, because bush started the wars. you can blame the dems for mismanaging the wars now, but can't change the timeline and claim they are trying to transfer blame, because Bush's blame is not theirs to transfer.

your one rhetorical move is to say teh incumbent dems supported the wars too, so bush doesn't have all the blame, but the incumbent dems are trying to transfer their responsibility onto bush. I'm guessing that was what you meant to say.

however, bush was commander in chief, despite the fact that the dems at the time were craven sacklickers that should spend their rest of their lives ashamed (but wont), Bush was still the man who pulled the trigger.

---

good, the mention of polls without a reference was the one real weakness in the endless loop of that argument. an information challenge, always effective.

lets see if google helps me find teh polls I read - i don't keep a list of this stuff...

I recall this cbs poll "the iraq war was a mistake" - but that's not the one I was thinking of http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...56-503544.html

no, searched a bit and haven't found it yet, a poll result I believed I read earlier this year, since I'm not willing to keep searching, i say touche on the information challenge.

People have been saying that since the market hit bottom in March of 09. The truth is high unemployment will persist for years, but the economy and businesses will continue to grow just fine, albeit at a slower pace than before.

Just wait until the new whack job filled senate and house seats after xmas.

Let them really fuck things up. Then we will see how bad it can get.

I don't think you understand what semantics means.



Using your logic of "personal bias", I guess you would qualify as an angry lunatic as well? Also, you'll have to show me the "anger" in my posts.. Lets just be honest. You just want to see yourself type in the hopes people will find you intelligent or "unique", so you use a very common argument which is ridiculously out of context. Next time I would like to you to think for yourself, which would be ironic because that's what you're pretending to exhibit.:winkwink:

Schiff would argue that the least managed economy has the worst organization in the world, the FED, which is responsible for most of the recessions/depressions of the 20th century. It's responsible for the financial/housing bubbles as well.

Small businesses that have money to invest won't spend a dime until a decision is made on tax increases. The indecisiveness of this administration is keeping things flat.
My mainstream business is up 26% this year. We already added 30 more jobs but could've easily added 50. We run 24/7 and our back log and receivables are at record highs.

If the Bush taxes are extended you will see hiring go up. If we have to give our extra money to the government we won't be hiring any time soon.

I think the opposite would be true too. I don't think you are gonna be canceling your vacation because you have to pay more in taxes. You may not be able to get your golden toilet but you would still have enough for that Italian tile.

This is how I understand the Bush Tax Cuts.

Some have been. Only problem is they invest overseas. Saw a thread here today about out sourcing in the Philippines. Phone the bank and your odds of getting through to India are high. Look at the labels on everything you buy.

Full employment won't happen by building Malls full of imported goods.

Much like Bush not sure about Palin. But in general a lot of politicians have never had a real job.

As for taxing the rich. Who else do you tax to pay the bills? Not the poor as they haven't got enough to rake in the billions needed. And what ever they get taxed they will try to pay as little as they can to avoid taxes. Look at the wages of tax attorneys and accountants. Not the poor paying them.

There's only one thing to get an economy rolling and full employment. Production and manufacturing in the country.

Golden toilets and decadent lifestyle is only the end result of successfully running a business. I don't know any owners that are content with status quo.

The prime motivator is growth. And to facilitate that growth it takes cash and manpower. I'm not getting into an argument about business 101 today. It's fairly clear that business has cash on hand. What will happen to that cash on hand remains the big question. It can either be reinvested or paid out as a tax.

When that question finally has an answer, people that make the decisions on how to grow will.

Agreed. More education means more investment in the education system. This has to be done at all levels from primary through to university level. Grants for those talented enough, from poorer families, to make sure the best go to universities. Which will mean higher taxes. To be paid for by the lower 90%, who haven't got enough, or the wealthier 10%

Will need to be done for at least a decade before the results start to show.

And it will need a shift in earnings. Pay scientists, engineers, etc. Decent wages so earnings in high tech industries rival earnings for lawyers and doctors.

Still it will be an elite few at the top who really benefit. Especially if the goods these high tech industries invent and develop are manufactured over seas. So are they to pay the bulk of the taxes to maintain the infrastructure of the US or not?

Of course this elite few spending more on Mercedes, Rolls Royce's and Lamborghini's will help the economy no end. :upsidedow

If only economics was as easy as posers on GFY think.

You're going to buy yourself a beer, then cry in it.
:2 cents:

Signs of the government actually working together is rising, extending the Bush tax cuts with the deal that would also extend unemployment benefits is in the works. It's a temporary extension, but working together in the lame duck session is a good start. The unemployment benefits have been extended more than any other time in history, would be nice to see the government working together and ease some business concerns about Obama running wild. Thus they would start expanding and developing new business and stop the need for unemployment extensions. Now they need to do something about shipping jobs overseas.

Hopefully we can get rid of Obama care for something that might work, cost of healthcare shooting up is not helping business expand in the US

You see more and more Democrats coming over to the GOP's side. It seems that things are slowly going to get done now that the Republicans control the majority. If things stay the same, they'll experience an even bigger backlash than the Democrats.

The exact opposite is true. If a business owner is making a million in profit and they know they know they are going to pay a high tax rate they are going to reinvest that money in their company rather rather than sit on it and pay the taxes. Bush lowering the highest tax rate did nothing but hurt the economy.

You know, the numbers would actually disagree with this retarded assertion. The tax cuts at best, helped the economy and at worst, didn't hurt it. And no, if tax rates go up, the business owner will just take the money offshore and misreport on his taxes. You'd have to be an idiot to "reinvest" into your own company with the tax rates rising.

Maybe someday if you ever graduate from your step dads basement and start making some serious cash you'll know that one reason people invest money is to avoid paying taxes. After Clinton raised taxes we had the best economy ever, but you probably were in diapers at the time so you don't remember.

The fact remains. Whether the Bush tax cuts were good or bad is moot. They are inplace.

The issue is the uncertainty of whether they will continue or not. Business can sit on it's hands and money while the administration makes the decision.

70% of the GNP is from SMALL business. These are not companies that are making many millions in profits. These are businesses that have struggled to stay alive during this recession. A tax increase is a big deal.

Really? Semantics.. meaning you were most likely going to go ahead and start splitting hairs with word definitions, uses and meanings to position some of your arguments as libertarian or something not conservative as a weak attempt to save face.

At the end of the day, you are a broken record. Slutboat is a broken record. You are constantly on the right of an issue, criticizing the left, using the same tired arguments and retorts.. just as he is constantly on the left, criticizing the right with the same tired commentary. For both of you, there is no other right answer if it is not in line with your respective liberal or conservative bias. The attraction you have to each other is the fact that you are both polar opposites in your views, yet ironically very similar in your personalities and personal flaws.

I could waste further time on your pointing out the irony of you suggesting someone else think for themselves on an issue - but why keep killing pixels.

there are a lot of senate seats up 2012, so yes, they will vote more conservative in the next year

lol what? bush started those wars...not obama

if you guys leave now then you basically went in to the country destroyed it and left it all fucked up - giving millions of people a perfectly legitimate reason to go fuck the United States up

Things are starting to get done? I thought they didn't take power until next year.

future is bad I think...

An issue for what? Are you saying companies are holding off hiring people because their tax rate may increase by 4.5%? If they do hire people they dont pay taxes on that money so if anything it would have the opposite effect.

This last quarter US Corporate Profits Were the Highest on Record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/bu...my/24econ.html

Yet unemployment remains high. This is partly due to outsourcing and partly due to a lower tax rate, and the outcome is money is being transferred from the middle class to the top 2%. If something doesnt change we will end up a 3rd world country.

sums up that clown show perfectly.

History will repeat itself...what happends when all else fails? They take us to WAR....

maybe...

What other reason would corporate America have for holding on to their money?

I do know the answer and will give you a hint. It's a part of the Bush tax code that is not well known to the general public, but has significant impact in the corporate world.

In the 80's executives realized that they could swoop in, take over a company and totally gut it leaving behind a worthless shell while they walked away with millions.

During the 90's boom, it was fashionable to build companies again.

In 2000, when the boom was over, executives realized that you could use the methods of the 80's but instead of gutting companies, you could gut an entire country. And that's what happened. The banks basically gutted America and walked away with all the money leaving behind a worthless shell.

Instead of the American people realizing what happened they instead got caught up in partisan politics as if Republicans Vs. Democrats was a high school football homecoming game. So basically, nothing changed. Nobody was held accountable. And the funny thing is the American people have just been raped and while the condom is still hanging out of their assholes, they continue to stand by their respective political party.

great summary. and now the parasites have killed their host they are going to the east for fresh blood.

As someone who pays high taxes already so morons like you can continue living on welfare, I most certainly do not want to reinvest my money into my "business", especially with the increase in capital gains taxes when the tax cuts expire. But I allow you to live with your $300 a month so I'm shocked you spend that money on the internet embarrassing yourself.:winkwink:

Also LOL@best economy ever. His policies inevitably set the course for the current mortgage crisis.

Sort of like claiming I have "conservative views", without pointing out what those typical conservative views are or what my views are? Gotcha.:1orglaugh

I bolded specific text to indicate that you either don't read posts or have terrible reading comprehension. Since I criticize the right(maybe not as much), just like I criticize the left, your assertions are meaningless. But please, continue entertaining us with the whole "I'm different because I think both parties are cancerous!!" logic.

Seeing as how you've been killing pixels for absolutely no reason, as well as lacking any ability to prove anything you've said, I think you can keep amusing us.



Read what you wrote and then back to what I wrote and tell me if those two are the same..

Uh hate to break it to you, but capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than regular income even before Bushs tax cuts, and this is why you claim you wouldnt invest in 'your business'? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Please give an example how you would pay capital gains tax in the first place by investing in your own business. Admit it, you dont know a fucking thing about business, never had a business other than sucking cock, and most likely never paid a dime in capital gains tax or income tax for that matter. You seriously are one of the dumbest posers on this board.

when a bumbling idiot with no understanding of economics calls someone else dumb, it becomes hilarious:)

they became Obamas wars after he sent more troops

What does "income" and "capital gains" have to do with each other? Income tax does not penalize great investment decisions which is what capital gains taxes do specifically.

When rewards are bigger, people take bigger risks. When rewards are smaller, people take smaller risks. I don't know how it could be simplified any further. Capital gains plays a major role in depressing real estate investment. But hey, why does the US need the housing market to recover and grow? That can't possibly benefit anyone or increase tax revenues to the government.

Probably the first insightful post you've made thus far, except asking why we need real estate to pick up.

Its called "sarcasm" through the use of a "rhetorical question" to which I expected no real reply. Of course, you singled it out and replied to it.