• filter:
  • 1167168169170 171
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   
deusxmachina said:   What actually got people into this mess?  It wasn't austerity.
Right, because GW Bush never practiced austerity but instead practiced fiscal recklessness and was aided by Alan Greenspan's monetary recklessness.
  

  That's what I said.  You almost sound as if you're disagreeing that austerity didn't cause this mess.

Let's go over it again to be clear.  Austerity didn't get us into this mess.  Austerity is just your excuse for why it hasn't been fixed.  Even though there still hasn't been any austerity.  Unless someone thinks spending $500 billion dollars more every year is "austerity."  

But most of the politicians who've wanted austerity since 2009 are the ones who wanted fiscal recklessness and no regulation before then.  Austerity, which obviously includes $500B deficits in times of high unemployment and no inflation, has kept the US economy from recovering much faster than it has, and the more severe austerity practiced by Germany and European Central Bank has put that continent into a second recession.

 

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
scrouds said:   Just catching up on the thread, I'll get to monetary policy soon.

I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.

What if they were all from English-speaking Canadian families?

I'd rather require every adult, whether they were born her or immigrated legally or illegally, be required to take the citizenship test, and if they failed they'd have to leave the US. We'd end up with a population that's smarter and more loyal than we have now.
�

I would be fine with Mexican born Salma Hayek being allowed to stay in the US as long as she wants and Canadian born Justin Bieber being sent back.

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   
deusxmachina said:   
Let's go over it again to be clear.  Austerity didn't get us into this mess.  Austerity is just your excuse for why it hasn't been fixed.  Even though there still hasn't been any austerity.  Unless someone thinks spending $500 billion dollars more every year is "austerity."  

But most of the politicians who've wanted austerity since 2009 are the ones who wanted fiscal recklessness and no regulation before then.  Austerity, which obviously includes $500B deficits in times of high unemployment and no inflation, has kept the US economy from recovering much faster than it has, and the more severe austerity practiced by Germany and European Central Bank has put that continent into a second recession.

 

  "But But But"... so what.  You can't blame the financial crisis on austerity if "politicians who've wanted austerity since 2009 are the ones who wanted fiscal recklessness and no regulation before then" didn't actually have austerity before 2009.  And it's hard to argue there's been austerity since 2009 since spending an extra $500 billion dollars more every year is a lot of money, even by U.S. standards.

Standard keynesian catch-22 brainwashing:
1) If the economy is doing well, we must have spent enough, therefore keynesianism works.
2) If the economy isn't doing well, we haven't spent enough by keynesianism standards, therefore keynesianism works.
3) repeat ad infinitum even after you have stolen $18 trillion dollars of your own children's money and made them debt slaves.

Can you believe "institutions of higher learning" still teach keynesianism and similar stupid crap?  All it is is an excuse for economists to feel important and for government and their revolving door cronies to manipulate the economy to help themselves.  And then, somehow, the free market gets the blame even though keynesians hate the free market.    

rated:
ganda said:   
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.

  
The mayor of London is American.  He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister.  I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well.  That would be a neat trick.

  Right now, a high-profile North Korean or Chinese politician who hates the U.S. could impregnate a North Korean or Chinese woman, sneak her across the U.S. border, and then that kid whose father hates America could grow up to be President of The United States.  The kid would also still be a North Korean or Chinese citizen due to his father's citizenship.  

Kind of sounds like a conflict of interest.  This is why The Founders require a U.S. citizen be a natural-born citizen to be President.  (That would be a citizen with both parents being U.S. citizens.)  Otherwise, potential conflicts of interest could happen like a U.S. President having a British citizen for a father.  I'm thinking The Founders, while fighting The Revolutionary War, wouldn't be too keen on having a British citizen's kid as a President.  

rated:
larrymoencurly said:   You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York.  Right wing hypocrisy?  Of course not.
  
Sounds maybe more like the deep south is smarter than California and New York since they require more in federal government bribes to promote big government than California and New York do.  California and New York sell their souls for peanuts.

Of course, if California and New York think this is unfair, they are free to fight to have the federal government stop taking so much of their (and all the states') money -- since it's the states' money in the first place, and then states have to beg and jump through hoops to get it back from the federal government.  ...Your state doesn't want to enforce federal highway traffic law x?  Ok, we'll just withhold highway fund money from your state, which was your money anyway before we the federal government took it and now use it as power to make you dance to get it back.

The federal income tax isn't so much about funding the federal government as it is about controlling the states with their own money.  Though, really, control is pretty much why all taxes exist.  Can't legally ban something?  No problem.  We'll just find a way to increase the taxes on it.  It will be similar to banning since no one can afford it.

Anyway, I'm sure California and New York are all for "redistributing the wealth" and things, and so they have no problem anyway with "paying their fair share."

After all, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
larrymoencurly said:   You'd have a point if you were factually correct, but you're not, and the most anti-socialist part of the US, at least by what it proclaims, the deep south, takes more money from the federal government than it pays in taxes, compared to California and New York.  Right wing hypocrisy?  Of course not.
  
Sounds maybe more like the deep south is smarter than California and New York since they require more in federal government bribes to promote big government than California and New York do.  California and New York sell their souls for peanuts.

Of course, if California and New York think this is unfair, they are free to fight to have the federal government stop taking so much of their (and all the states') money -- since it's the states' money in the first place, and then states have to beg and jump through hoops to get it back from the federal government.  ...Your state doesn't want to enforce federal highway traffic law x?  Ok, we'll just withhold highway fund money from your state, which was your money anyway before we the federal government took it and now use it as power to make you dance to get it back.

The federal income tax isn't so much about funding the federal government as it is about controlling the states with their own money.  Though, really, control is pretty much why all taxes exist.  Can't legally ban something?  No problem.  We'll just find a way to increase the taxes on it.  It will be similar to banning since no one can afford it.

Anyway, I'm sure California and New York are all for "redistributing the wealth" and things, and so they have no problem anyway with "paying their fair share."

After all, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

I didn't know the South was Communist, despite what they practice, as opposed to what they preach.

My father is from Mississippi and likes California because San Fransisco was the first place where he didn't see any "Whites Only" or "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs.  

 

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
ganda said:   
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.

  
The mayor of London is American.  He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister.  I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well.  That would be a neat trick.

  Right now, a high-profile North Korean or Chinese politician who hates the U.S. could impregnate a North Korean or Chinese woman, sneak her across the U.S. border, and then that kid whose father hates America could grow up to be President of The United States.  The kid would also still be a North Korean or Chinese citizen due to his father's citizenship.  

Kind of sounds like a conflict of interest.  This is why The Founders require a U.S. citizen be a natural-born citizen to be President.  (That would be a citizen with both parents being U.S. citizens.)  Otherwise, potential conflicts of interest could happen like a U.S. President having a British citizen for a father.  I'm thinking The Founders, while fighting The Revolutionary War, wouldn't be too keen on having a British citizen's kid as a President.  

  
Were the Founding Fathers thinking of anchor babies back then, or did they just not want European aristocrats from coming to America and using their immense wealth to buy the presidency? 

rated:
Cheney reaffirms it being OK for the US to torture:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/dick-cheney-the-reports-f...

What a Dick!

rated:
deusxmachina said:   
ganda said:   
scrouds said:   
I just want to say I'd support an amendment to redefine citizenship to remove the crazy birth thing.

  
The mayor of London is American.  He's positioning himself to be the British Prime Minister.  I wonder if he'll run for President afterwards if that if it goes well.  That would be a neat trick.

  Right now, a high-profile North Korean or Chinese politician who hates the U.S. could impregnate a North Korean or Chinese woman, sneak her across the U.S. border, and then that kid whose father hates America could grow up to be President of The United States.  The kid would also still be a North Korean or Chinese citizen due to his father's citizenship.  

Kind of sounds like a conflict of interest.  This is why The Founders require a U.S. citizen be a natural-born citizen to be President.  (That would be a citizen with both parents being U.S. citizens.)  Otherwise, potential conflicts of interest could happen like a U.S. President having a British citizen for a father.  I'm thinking The Founders, while fighting The Revolutionary War, wouldn't be too keen on having a British citizen's kid as a President.  

  Um, no, that's not what "natural born" means. Try again.

rated:
Maximizing networking opportunities while in prison:  ISIS exists only because US prisons in Iraq made it possible

"Here, we were not only safe, but we were only a few hundred meters away from the entire al-Qaeda leadership."

Future ISIS leader al-Bagdhadi considered cooperative by US military and a fixer who resolved conflicts among prisoners.


 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1167168169170 171
  • Page


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014