KGB, This is Holrom, back from Shadowbane years and years ago. I felt a burden to make a video message on what has happened over the last years. It deals with eternity, so I had to sound the trumpet to you guys because it matters greatly.
Holrom It is nice to see you pop onto the Oracle. Although, I never played SB with you. I have heard stories of your time with KGB. I did watch your video. I am happy that you have found your peace.
I do have to say that was one heck of a Religious speech you made there. I am not a religious person. I was raised in a religious home, I went to church every sunday and for Teen services on Wednesdays while i was young, Never complained about it.
I have seen miracles happen. I have had a friend that should have died in a car accident a few years ago, she spent 4 months in a coma with machines keeping her alive. If Medically we were not able to do that. She would not be here today. It does make you wonder if there is a higher power out there.
But as for my life... I have seen far too much bad to believe in one almighty God. My nephew, who was perfectly healthy, died at 4 months old. No reason medically for it to happen. They called it SIDS. But if god is as great as you say. Why take a child. Please dont think you can "save" me. As I am at peace with myself and where I am going. I do not fear death as you claimed "GOD" helped you with. I found the FAITH in myself not in something that can not be explained.
My husband and I Agree that the bible has great stories that will teach morals and good things. But it is not the way for us. We believe and see things in science that contradict much of the bible.
Im sure there are plenty of KGB members past and present that are Religious and have a strong Faith in god.
It is just not my way.
Best of luck in spreading your message in your way.
John 14:6 Jesus said "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Isaiah 45:7 - I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.
I have to humbly bow all of my self and own opinions to the Word of God, that will never pass away. Oh how there are so many "religions" in the world, and to many it is all about being moral and working our way to heaven, but I know I cannot do enough good to be made right before the Holy God, only Jesus Christ the Son of God could save me, not my works.
I have given up on self and looked to Christ in faith, even in death and suffering God is glorified. It is not just that I believe Christ is the only way, it is that Christ truly is the only way.
Holrom, I am glad you found your way, and I respect that. I hope you will also respect that I have found mine, in science and the understanding of what and what I am in the universe.
You and I are on very different paths, as I do not trust in men . If someone hands me a book, and tells me it is the word of God, I do not believe them. In all the corruption I have seen in organized religion, I am forever skeptical and will remain so, until I see with my own eyes (without any drugs mind you (-: ). Honestly I do not believe I will ever see that, nor do I pretend to know why we are here, of even if there is a reason.
Best of luck to you and I am glad to see you doing well and that you have found fulfillment.
I would counter your message with the following:
1) I cannot worship any power that is so vain that it insists we praise and worship it. To me this is just the same as a dictator threatening DEATH if I do not do what they demand.
2) The Bible was written by men, long after the recorded life of christ. The book is full of contradictions and flaws, and groups like the KKK use it as a basis for hate. I would refer you to the Skeptics Annotated Bible This site looks closely at the Bible and offers hundreds of examples of Absurdity, Injustice, Cruelty and Violence, Intolerance, Contradictions, Poor Family Values, Poor Treatment of Women, Bad Interpretation, and even Homosexuality, that people claim is a sin. These examples are right from the pages of the King James version itself.
I went to church when I was younger, and chose a different path based on the corruption I witnessed.
I am always open to discuss / debate my beliefs with anyone at anytime.
In conclusion I offer this:
Exodus 22:20 says: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Any being that would kill the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god, and sentence them to an eternity of burning pain and suffering just because they wont worship you and praise it, is not someone or something that I want to have anything to do with. Children that are raised into a religion like Islam, dont even get a choice. Why should they be sentenced to eternal pain and damnation.
This is why Catholics don't like to be called Christians.
Evangelical Christians make my stomach churn.
So you put together a videoette, to be used to spread your "message" and "personal experience" and then personalized it as "Message to KGB". Bad form Holrom, bad form indeed.
Since your going to post stuff like this, the only thing I can respond with is....
Well I am a Warrior of God, and after all of the crap I have seen and endured I realized I needed someone on my side to help me fight the great battles ahead of me and defeat the great adversary which opposes me in my life. Call it a emotional crutch if you like but being a realist and a pragmatist I know there are somethings in life which are simply beyond the scope of man to identify or explain, we as humans are not omnipotent, and thus we cannot know with certainty what lies in the great beyond. For me personally I envision a great war being fought and I standing on the walls of the Kingdom of Heaven fighting that war in Gods name. I do not force my beliefs on others and refrain from preaching, because to do so shows arrogance and pride, which to me are not virtues as befitting a soul bound in high service, even though the Bible does claim to go forth and spread the word I believe to do so is to do so for his glory and not my own. Thus I spare my thoughts to my friends and family because I love and respect their choices and value their thoughts, truth is all I ask of them, and that I believe is all that can be expected of anyone, believer and non-believer alike. So to answer this threads original purpose, religion for gamers is like trying to enforce justice in a lawless land, it is a losing battle, and one a person would do well to leave be.
I do not hold any persons beliefs against them. Everyone is different and their needs differ greatly from my own. Some find peace with God, others with Science. Some never find it at all and wander through life without a care.
Myself, I'm not a religious person. Never really have been despite the fact I grew up in a Southern Baptist region. This isn't something that is brought up normally as it tends to cause issues within my family, but it is what it is. I will not lie about it and, when asked, will answer honestly despite the consequences the truth may bring about.
My thoughts on religion and the existence of an 'ultimate being' can be explained pretty easily. I try to look at it from a logical standpoint vs an emotional one since the former has given me far better results in my life than the latter. I'm more of a " show me the evidence " kind of person than someone who can accept an explanation based on nothing more than belief or faith. I over-analyse everything. It's who I am. It's how my mind works.
I have a saying. It goes something like this:
"The problem with being an all knowing entity, is the lack of experience that not knowing brings with it."
The basic concept being an entity who knows it all, cannot possibly understand the difficulties faced by those who don't understand the most basic questions we have. Who am I ? Why am I ? What is my purpose ? Do I even have one ? Why am I here ? People say Jesus led the perfect life. If there is any truth to that, then I say he had a slight advantage over the rest of us in knowing what the final outcome would be. He had a bit more knowledge of the universe than the common folk did How different would his life have been had his knowledge been on par with the rest of the species ?
Basic questions we have been asking since the dawn of time, none of which have ever been answered. Likely never will.
A quick look at our history shows that religions have come and gone over time. Our beliefs are dictated by what era we live in. Go back far enough, and your beliefs would be to any of the Egyptian, Norse, Native American, Babylonian, Mayan or other lost cultures. While the names of the Gods changed, the core ideals did not. Those being, of course, that this ( insert religion here ) is the only TRUE path. The rest are all false and those who follow them are doomed.
In time, the current religions and beliefs will take their place in history as mythos with the others and new ones will spring up to fill in the gap.
I have a hard time believing that, of the billions and billions of beings before us, we alone have been given the keys to the kingdom and everyone else is doomed to an eternity of suffering for their ignorance. It seems absurd to me.
Religion, in my opinion, is merely a means of control. At some point in history, folks started figuring out you couldn't use death as a means to force their will upon someone else, so they turned to the afterlife. Suffering for all eternity if you didn't accept the current word. Scared everyone into submission. It is a very cunning method of control and one that has been refined very carefully over the years.
Again, I do not hold anyone at fault for whatever their beliefs may be. As long as they respect what I believe, I will do the same. Don't have to like or agree with it, just have to accept it. Live and let live, as the saying goes. If you found God and religion and are happy because of it, then I'm happy for you.
Me ?
I'll probably keep on questioning the why behind everything until the day I cease to be. I've been this way for nearly four decades now. Without some divine intervention, it's unlikely to change.
I believe jesus is the way the truth and the light
As for people in the guild we're friends but i wouldn't expect anyone to knock me for my faith nor would i knock yours
Most christians put pressure on each other to spread the word always has been that way so i know where he is coming from.. I don't think he wants to really offend you even though i know it does come off that way
I believe jesus is the way the truth and the light
As for people in the guild we're friends but i wouldn't expect anyone to knock me for my faith nor would i knock yours
Most christians put pressure on each other to spread the word always has been that way so i know where he is coming from.. I don't think he wants to really offend you even though i know it does come off that way
I can not say that I believe in religion because religion is a man made concept. I can say that i believe that there is a higher power, one that is more knowing than I my self am. I can not say that he/she /it is all knowing because if he/she/it was all knowing then why test people they way that he/she/it does? I figure this higher power puts us through all the tests and trials to see how each person will react/ act in any situation because the higher power is learning much like we all learn everyday.
We all have a higher power in us or around us weather it is in your minds eye as an all knowing being or just some one you say "come on can you just give me a break for once" to, or some one/thing you just think about every once in a while.
We have all asked for help by looking up and just saying some thing simple like please or thank you not even realising we do it but in a way we are all talking to a higher power. One that your own personal faith is built on and not one that religion is built apon. Faith is what is inside you it is how you feel, its what your heart believes. Religion was made by man to get people to follow in their ideas.
I am not a religious person by any means but I do have faith that there is a higher power or being out there.
I do not judge people for their religion that they are apart of it isn't in my nature, but I don't want them to try to push their beliefs or religion on me.
The bible was written by man so I can not say that it is all true or false it has some good stories but as I said before it was written by man and there isn't enough proof that it is all truthful. Like religion it isn't all truthful.
I know that faith, religion, beliefs and the bible are a touchy subject for most but we are all human we were all raised in different ways and in different cultures. We are all still human and we all have our own beliefs.
I believe jesus is the way the truth and the light
As for people in the guild we're friends but i wouldn't expect anyone to knock me for my faith nor would i knock yours
Most christians put pressure on each other to spread the word always has been that way so i know where he is coming from.. I don't think he wants to really offend you even though i know it does come off that way
just move along say hi hope the best for the guy
Do you know the difference between god and a french ?
I believe jesus is the way the truth and the light
As for people in the guild we're friends but i wouldn't expect anyone to knock me for my faith nor would i knock yours
Most christians put pressure on each other to spread the word always has been that way so i know where he is coming from.. I don't think he wants to really offend you even though i know it does come off that way
just move along say hi hope the best for the guy
Do you know the difference between god and a french ?
You guys kill me...Tasorin, Catholicism...really? ROTFLMAO..what a mess. I was being groomed to be the first Catholic priest in my family, that institution has no idea of the scandal is averted when I met a beautiful young woman who was very persuasive about showing me what celebacy required me to give up. LOL
Holrom, good to see you, respect the beliefs, enjoy them if they fulfill you. I, like many KGB, subscribe to a very different believe system. I would not deny you yours, I just don't agree with it, but nice message. Be well. Peace
The point was, almost every Catholic I personally know cringes at being called a "Christian" anymore because it lumps us in with the nut bags who have come from modern day American Evangelical Christians.
At no point did I ever put out there that the Holy Roman Church is dirt free, only that most Catholics don't like being called Christians anymore. More often then not, call a modern day Catholic a Christian, and see if they don't correct you, and say "I am not a Christian, I am a Catholic, there is a difference."
Its also usually a 4 to 6 year process in a Seminary, after you have finished a degree in some type of Ecumenical field, before you are ever even frocked as a lay priest and put to work on your first mission. If you count the education, the seminary, and your mission, your looking at about a 10 year plus turn around time to become a Catholic Priest. That is a long enough process to weed anyone out who hasn't fully committed to being called to serve.
Sorry about such a late response, I was not around for last week. I have not got to read all of the pages of this thread. But I do encourage anyone who was having issues with the Jesus Christ of the bible being the only way to watch this sermon on John 14:6. on Jesus being the only way to God. - http://illbehonest.com/Jesus-is-the-Only-Way-to-God-Matt-Haney
I guess I dont understand. How you determine which churches are correct and which are not. What will happen to the people that are attending and worshipping in a false American church?
"I guess I dont understand. How you determine which churches are correct and which are not. What will happen to the people that are attending and worshipping in a false American church?" JET
He determines what is right and what is wrong based on his beliefs, same as you do.
Funny thing about Liberals that tell everyone they should be opened minded, they are the most closed minded people I know. They only tell you how opened minded you are only if you agree with them.
"What about jews, buddists and all of the other nations who are not a christian based nation as the U.S is suppose to be..
how can you say that they are gonna be turned down in his kingdom? I mean you as in the bible.."ELPH
Other religions have nothing to do with what he believes in. When other people who die who do not believe in JC they will not be with him for eternity. They get to go somewhere else.
Funny thing about Liberals that tell everyone they should be opened minded, they are the most closed minded people I know. They only tell you how opened minded you are only if you agree with them.
Thats funny:
1) I believe gay people should be able to get married, and yet I am not gay. 2) I am a strong supporter of a healthcare bill that I will not benefit from. 3) I support the extension of unemployment and I am not unemployed. 4) I support the scientific theory of global warming, yet dealing with it will not benefit me in anyway.
Funny thing about Liberals that tell everyone they should be opened minded, they are the most closed minded people I know. They only tell you how opened minded you are only if you agree with them.
Thats funny:
1) I believe gay people should be able to get married, and yet I am not gay. 2) I am a strong supporter of a healthcare bill that I will not benefit from. 3) I support the extension of unemployment and I am not unemployed. 4) I support the scientific theory of global warming, yet dealing with it will not benefit me in anyway.
Need anymore examples?
No more needed you proved my point.
I will go one further gay and lesbians should be able to get married, I don't discriminate against women.
The health care bill may not benefit you but will cause a lot more damage then you think.
How long should unemployment be extended I believe its been 90+ months now. So how long should it be 150 months or how about 350 months, how long should we support them. I don't have a problem with unemployment but there has to be a limit.
You only support the scientist that say human made global warming is real, you don't support the scientist that say humans don't cause global warming even with the evidence they put out.
You don't support peoples belief in a higher power, you don't have to believe in but you debate and I am sure you ridicule them.
Another problem with liberals is that good intentions cause a lot of damage.
I will go one further gay and lesbians should be able to get married, I don't discriminate against women.
Do you actually think Jet discriminates against women because he only wrote "gay marriage?"
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
The health care bill may not benefit you but will cause a lot more damage then you think.
I don't care what you think of the health care bill - this statement is about as useful as a swift kick to the ribs.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
How long should unemployment be extended I believe its been 90+ months now. So how long should it be 150 months or how about 350 months, how long should we support them. I don't have a problem with unemployment but there has to be a limit.
I don't care for our unemployment system at all, but I would rather support the leeches than suffer from the results of massive poverty. Economics suck.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
You only support the scientist that say human made global warming is real, you don't support the scientist that say humans don't cause global warming even with the evidence they put out.
The big difference is that he supports proactive scientists in this case. Scientists who suspect that we are contributing to global warming are also looking for ways to reduce our footprint on the environment - do you believe that we should NOT be considerate of our ecosystem?
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
You don't support peoples belief in a higher power, you don't have to believe in but you debate and I am sure you ridicule them.
I don't think anyone has come out on the forums to say "stop believing in your God!" Many people have posted their own beliefs, especially in response to threads like this. When it comes to threads like this, you see a lot of "I don't agree because..." posts - you don't see many "you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell if you don't renounce your religion" posts.
I know that religious discussion tends to get heated, but if you take a step back and drop your defenses, you might see everyone's views in a different light. Lets also remember that this thread started with a video of Holrom insisting that anyone who is not of his church will not be embraced by Jesus - that sort of message really stirs up the embers!
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Another problem with people is that good intentions cause a lot of damage.
Fix't. Don't be dense - liberals aren't the only ones who mean well and fuck up sometimes. My dad always told me that "good intentions pave the road to Hell." That goes for liberals and conservatives alike; no one is exempt.
Holy shit (pun intended), I hate politigious threads. I'm done with this thread - I hope you guys manage to pull your heads out of your asses!
PS - Helemoto, I'm sorry for only tearing your post apart. I could dig into some of Jet's posts just as bad, but I only had time for one roasting this morning!
I will go one further gay and lesbians should be able to get married, I don't discriminate against women.
The term "Gay" is been used as a reference to homosexuality. This includes both Male and Female
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
The health care bill may not benefit you but will cause a lot more damage then you think.
I'll take the CBO office's assessment before any pundit. You must be opposed to Medicare and Social Security too? Shame on you.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
How long should unemployment be extended I believe its been 90+ months now. So how long should it be 150 months or how about 350 months, how long should we support them. I don't have a problem with unemployment but there has to be a limit.
What has been called "The Great Recession" can only be compared to the Great Depression. Roosevelt's "New Deal" to get us out of that mess made drastic changes that lasted until WW2 in 1941. It has been proven that it is cheaper to extend unemployment benefits than to move people to welfare and other social programs.
Same point with the Heathcare debate. People can go to any emergency room and get care, with no pay, and we end up paying a huge price compared to if these same people had preventative medicine. If you want to know why things are so expensive, it is because we are doing much of our standard healthcare in the emergency rooms. Illegals, and foreigners alike will not be turned down in an emergency room, and you and I pay the price.
You only support the scientist that say human made global warming is real, you don't support the scientist that say humans don't cause global warming even with the evidence they put out.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
You don't support peoples belief in a higher power, you don't have to believe in but you debate and I am sure you ridicule them.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
There is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
Arguments against human influenced global warming just don't hold water period.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Another problem with liberals is that good intentions cause a lot of damage.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy
Everything can be fixed with war and that's the American way.
Make less people and make less problems. :p
All the other issues aside my main concern about extending unemployment is not the numbers at all. My concern is that if you keep giving people extensions then they lose the will to even try anymore.
You may not agree with this opinion and I know that personal observations don't technically count as fact but I see a lot of instances here in my area of people that used to work hard now getting free money and just getting the attitude of not wanting to work anymore.
I think that will is everything and too many people are shifting from hand up..to hand out mentality.
I will go one further gay and lesbians should be able to get married, I don't discriminate against women.
The term "Gay" is been used as a reference to homosexuality. This includes both Male and Female
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
The health care bill may not benefit you but will cause a lot more damage then you think.
I'll take the CBO office's assessment before any pundit. You must be opposed to Medicare and Social Security too? Shame on you.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
How long should unemployment be extended I believe its been 90+ months now. So how long should it be 150 months or how about 350 months, how long should we support them. I don't have a problem with unemployment but there has to be a limit.
What has been called "The Great Recession" can only be compared to the Great Depression. Roosevelt's "New Deal" to get us out of that mess made drastic changes that lasted until WW2 in 1941. It has been proven that it is cheaper to extend unemployment benefits than to move people to welfare and other social programs.
Same point with the Heathcare debate. People can go to any emergency room and get care, with no pay, and we end up paying a huge price compared to if these same people had preventative medicine. If you want to know why things are so expensive, it is because we are doing much of our standard healthcare in the emergency rooms. Illegals, and foreigners alike will not be turned down in an emergency room, and you and I pay the price.
You only support the scientist that say human made global warming is real, you don't support the scientist that say humans don't cause global warming even with the evidence they put out.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
You don't support peoples belief in a higher power, you don't have to believe in but you debate and I am sure you ridicule them.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
There is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view.
Arguments against human influenced global warming just don't hold water period.
Originally Posted By: Helemoto
Another problem with liberals is that good intentions cause a lot of damage.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." John F. Kennedy
Holy shit, I did not want to enter this thread but dammit Jet, what you are saying is plain insane.
Your precious CBO report itself outlines huge increases in the percentage of GDP health care will eat up.
Fact: Obamacare introduces HUGE taxes as well.
Fact: You were taking data OUT OF CONTEXT in regards to effects of Obamacare
Fact: You have yet to acknowledge the costs and downsides of any program you favor. You make no move to acknowledge the presence of downsides or other consequences and instead post one liners with an out of context copy/paste, as if that somehow is making an argument that the upsides are better than the downsides.
Fact: your debate style is identical to that of a Fox News commentator, except you are making left-wing claims instead of right-ring claims. =P Instead of insulting all of our intelligence by persisting in the myth that Obamacare is somehow free, just admit that you dont care who gets harmed, as long as your friends get insurance again and you get to feel "good" about that.
Secondly, that you would make such an insane claim that the "New Deal" somehow alleviated the Great Depression is concrete proof that not only have you not seriously researched, but listened only to some of the most extremist lefties. The economy was still shit after the New Deal, WW2 and its ensuing full employment is what ended the Great Depression.
I wont even get into the climate crap.
Having an opinion is great, continually expressing that opinion as fact despite all evidence to the contrary is silly.
Also I am from Texas and that in and of itself makes everything that I say fact. Even though I am not debating anything I just wanted you all to remember that...just in case.
/swig
As an afterthought Zombie this thread should keep going. Not talking things out thoroughly is one of the main reasons people cannot communicate on the same page and nothing ever gets done.
Take stopping this thread for instance just because some people are not interested and multiply that by some other numbers that will equal it out to the amount of senators and representatives and congressmen and what have you and you see why nothing gets done anymore.
People too often dismiss issues due to indifference and noone likes a mugwump.
The whole argument is faux ... I have not heard a valid argument to declassify the a civil\religious union between male & female human beings for the purpose of establishing lineage, or kinship (i.e. what is commonly refered to as "Traditional Marriage").
Now, should life partners be afforded civil rights equal to a "traditional marriage" ... such as estate passage, etc ... sure why not, seems fair to me.
But, to somehow think there is no difference between a same-sex civil union & one intended to establish a new genetic lineage is just scientifically & culturally absurd.
If all unions are created equal ... why not just allow direct kin to marry & procreate at will ... I know, know ... those Okies, Texans & Mississippians do it anyway ... but ... it don't make it right.
Just because little Johnny has 2 dads doesn't mean he shares both of their DNA & no matter how much some people want that partnership to mean the same thing as a Mom & Dad traditionally do .. it is not the same, sorry, that is just a fact.
Shanks on Jet's use of the term "gay":
GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender ... The "L" means leasbian & lesbians definately try not identify themselves as "Gay" ... that's a term for the fellas ... just a fact.
Shanks on Statism\Progressivism\National Socialism\Democratic Socialism\National Capitalism\Liberalism\Communism:
Basically, these terms all represent the same governing philosphy laid out by Marx, each with its own "tweak", just to make it better, each experiment failed! At every pass, the experiment can only be propped up by a highly Authoritative ruling body ... with the people whom it was intended to "benefit", ultimately, facing oppression.
Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler ... how many hundreds of millions of human beings were slaughtered by these "heros" of the modern american left? Just sad.
Obamacare ... the Authoratarian nature of this experiment is already out in plain view ... you will abide by it or you will be punished by the strong arm of the IRS!
Look across the last 30-40 years of the experiment's implementation in the US ... what do you see:
Public Housing, a failure ... Public School Systems, failing ... Generational Welfare, a failure... Inner City Management, a failure... Social Justice Ponzi Schemes, failing all around us.
... oh & there are more to list, but why bother there is a patterned outcome ... failure!
What do all these have at the top ... an Authoratarian ruling class rooted in a bureaucracy chartered with mandating, regulating, or otherwise oppressing, those it claims to serve.
But then again, so many people just want to be told what to do, when to do it & how to do it ... but there was a time when:
personal responsibility > pointing the finger parents looked after all the kids in the neighborhood folks felt ashamed at having to ask for another's charity neighbors looked out for each other people relished success & scorned mediocrity. health insurance was actually an insurance plan, not a discount club.
See, Marx's experiment would rather do away with individualism ... "workers of the world unite", and all that rubbish? Problem is, there's always a pesky Authoratarian ruling class pulling the strings ... kind of like a cult mentality thesedays ... so odd to me.
Well, at least there are still plenty of us, free men and women, who do the right thing ... not because some dogma tells us to, or some gov't agency compels us to, but ... because, well, it's just the right thing to do. We volunteer at local charities, look after the well being of our neighbors, toss a coin in the old man on the street's cup, slow down & wave on the poor driver trying to merge into traffic, hold the door open for the lady with her hands full of grocery bags ... right down to picking up gaming accounts for friends who find themselves in tough times.
These are the types of people I am proud to call my friends in life.
Holy shit, I did not want to enter this thread but dammit Jet, what you are saying is plain insane.
Your precious CBO report itself outlines huge increases in the percentage of GDP health care will eat up.
Fact: Obamacare introduces HUGE taxes as well.
Fact: You were taking data OUT OF CONTEXT in regards to effects of Obamacare
Fact: You have yet to acknowledge the costs and downsides of any program you favor. You make no move to acknowledge the presence of downsides or other consequences and instead post one liners with an out of context copy/paste, as if that somehow is making an argument that the upsides are better than the downsides.
Fact: your debate style is identical to that of a Fox News commentator, except you are making left-wing claims instead of right-ring claims. =P Instead of insulting all of our intelligence by persisting in the myth that Obamacare is somehow free, just admit that you dont care who gets harmed, as long as your friends get insurance again and you get to feel "good" about that.
Secondly, that you would make such an insane claim that the "New Deal" somehow alleviated the Great Depression is concrete proof that not only have you not seriously researched, but listened only to some of the most extremist lefties. The economy was still shit after the New Deal, WW2 and its ensuing full employment is what ended the Great Depression.
I wont even get into the climate crap.
Having an opinion is great, continually expressing that opinion as fact despite all evidence to the contrary is silly.
Stop being silly.
Did you read the same CBO report that I did? Those cost projections were predicted with or without the healthcare bill.
The New Deal put lots of people to work and built a huge amount of valuable infrastructure and got the wheels of industry turning again. It did not solve all the problems of the time by any means, but it certainly helped. I think the United States was better for it. WW2 certainly ended it, but could also be considered a government program. Our government subsidized all the war industry at the time. It is easy to forget that.
I think you are being silly. I read the same things you do and I just cant see basis for your opinions. The current right wing agenda of trying to stimulate the economy with tax breaks is not only stupid, but is going to destroy this country and its economy plain and simple.
I challenge you, to produce the facts as you explain them on how much Obamacare is going to cost us.
After everyones bitching about TARP and the stimulus, the CBO has stated that it is only going to cost us a total of 25 billion, which is NOTHING compared to the economic collapse that would have ensued if we did not act. I posted the link to the Frontline study on the meltdown, and I strongly support that view and the facts presented in it. Perhaps you should take the time to watch it.
I just love that all the people that bitched about us intervening into the American car industry's failure have to eat crow. Not only were more than a million jobs saved, but we are being paid back in FULL and it wont end up costing us a dime. Just as promised, our government is backing out of those businesses, not taking them over like some bullshit communist conspiracy theory.
Remember when Reagan bailed out Chrysler in the 80's. We got all that back to, and I dont think you can call Ronald Reagan a communist? Can you?
The whole argument is faux ... I have not heard a valid argument to declassify the a civil\religious union between male & female human beings for the purpose of establishing lineage, or kinship (i.e. what is commonly refered to as "Traditional Marriage").
Now, should life partners be afforded civil rights equal to a "traditional marriage" ... such as estate passage, etc ... sure why not, seems fair to me.
But, to somehow think there is no difference between a same-sex civil union & one intended to establish a new genetic lineage is just scientifically & culturally absurd.
If all unions are created equal ... why not just allow direct kin to marry & procreate at will ... I know, know ... those Okies, Texans & Mississippians do it anyway ... but ... it don't make it right.
Just because little Johnny has 2 dads doesn't mean he shares both of their DNA & no matter how much some people want that partnership to mean the same thing as a Mom & Dad traditionally do .. it is not the same, sorry, that is just a fact.
Shanks on Jet's use of the term "gay":
GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender ... The "L" means leasbian & lesbians definately try not identify themselves as "Gay" ... that's a term for the fellas ... just a fact.
Shanks on Statism\Progressivism\National Socialism\Democratic Socialism\National Capitalism\Liberalism\Communism:
Basically, these terms all represent the same governing philosphy laid out by Marx, each with its own "tweak", just to make it better, each experiment failed! At every pass, the experiment can only be propped up by a highly Authoritative ruling body ... with the people whom it was intended to "benefit", ultimately, facing oppression.
Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler ... how many hundreds of millions of human beings were slaughtered by these "heros" of the modern american left? Just sad.
Obamacare ... the Authoratarian nature of this experiment is already out in plain view ... you will abide by it or you will be punished by the strong arm of the IRS!
Look across the last 30-40 years of the experiment's implementation in the US ... what do you see:
Public Housing, a failure ... Public School Systems, failing ... Generational Welfare, a failure... Inner City Management, a failure... Social Justice Ponzi Schemes, failing all around us.
... oh & there are more to list, but why bother there is a patterned outcome ... failure!
What do all these have at the top ... an Authoratarian ruling class rooted in a bureaucracy chartered with mandating, regulating, or otherwise oppressing, those it claims to serve.
But then again, so many people just want to be told what to do, when to do it & how to do it ... but there was a time when:
personal responsibility > pointing the finger parents looked after all the kids in the neighborhood folks felt ashamed at having to ask for another's charity neighbors looked out for each other people relished success & scorned mediocrity. health insurance was actually an insurance plan, not a discount club.
See, Marx's experiment would rather do away with individualism ... "workers of the world unite", and all that rubbish? Problem is, there's always a pesky Authoratarian ruling class pulling the strings ... kind of like a cult mentality thesedays ... so odd to me.
Well, at least there are still plenty of us, free men and women, who do the right thing ... not because some dogma tells us to, or some gov't agency compels us to, but ... because, well, it's just the right thing to do. We volunteer at local charities, look after the well being of our neighbors, toss a coin in the old man on the street's cup, slow down & wave on the poor driver trying to merge into traffic, hold the door open for the lady with her hands full of grocery bags ... right down to picking up gaming accounts for friends who find themselves in tough times.
These are the types of people I am proud to call my friends in life.
Shanks out!
Really?
1) Marriage I know lots of people who get married and have no intention of having children. There is nothing in the law that supports your opinion. In my opinion, your description of marriage just doesn't hold water.
2) Gay Gay is a generic term for GBLT. No need to split hairs here. When Ellen came out on TV and lost her TV show afterwards, she exclaimed "Im Gay". So at least one persona agrees with me. I agree with your terms, but there are many examples of "Gay" being used for all cases.
3) You said: "Shanks on Statism\Progressivism\National Socialism\Democratic Socialism\National Capitalism\Liberalism\Communism:"
Lumping Democrats and Progressives with Hitler, Stalin, and their ideals is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, and totally unfounded. How can you associate mass murder with me and the people that think like me. Amazing and ridiculous.
Just a few points though:
I am a product of public school, and consider myself successful as I make an above average income, and am stable in my life.
I strongly support Social Security, and have paid more than my share into it over the years. Like it or not, it is successful.
I strongly support Medicare, and have paid my share over the years. Like it or not, it is successful.
I strongly support unemployment insurance and yet I have never used it, but have paid more than my share over the years. Like it or not it is successful.
Without these programs, this country would be in ruins (in my opinion) and I am positive that a majority of Americans agree with me, because a majority of Americans voted the current president into office, thereby verifying support for the programs and agenda that has been followed. That does not make me have ANYTHING to do with Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler. Denying people the same rights as others just because their sexual preference including not allowing them to defend their country to me smells alot like Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler. I mean replace homosexual with Jew and the conservative right of this country is going down the exact same path as the Nazi. party
But in the same sense Jet could say your married to Ann Coulter.
Not that I'm getting into this but one thing Jet stated above was that the majority of American's must feel the same way he did because they voted in the current President. I don't see it that way and more of a need for change, which was tactically, his slogan which I believe he ran on. Give anyone hope from what they were told and felt was a bad prior president/politics and the majority will flop. I don't believe it had as much to do with those programs specifically but rather something different is all.
Difference sometimes isn't a good thing and too much change at once in most cases is a bad thing. Our current leader, IMHO, has from day one wanted to concentrate on this health care bill to the point most everything else was ignored or put on the 2nd burner; that cannot happen.
Oh well never enough time these days to fully debate these.
Holy shit, I did not want to enter this thread but dammit Jet, what you are saying is plain insane.
Your precious CBO report itself outlines huge increases in the percentage of GDP health care will eat up.
Fact: Obamacare introduces HUGE taxes as well.
Fact: You were taking data OUT OF CONTEXT in regards to effects of Obamacare
Fact: You have yet to acknowledge the costs and downsides of any program you favor. You make no move to acknowledge the presence of downsides or other consequences and instead post one liners with an out of context copy/paste, as if that somehow is making an argument that the upsides are better than the downsides.
Fact: your debate style is identical to that of a Fox News commentator, except you are making left-wing claims instead of right-ring claims. =P Instead of insulting all of our intelligence by persisting in the myth that Obamacare is somehow free, just admit that you dont care who gets harmed, as long as your friends get insurance again and you get to feel "good" about that.
Secondly, that you would make such an insane claim that the "New Deal" somehow alleviated the Great Depression is concrete proof that not only have you not seriously researched, but listened only to some of the most extremist lefties. The economy was still shit after the New Deal, WW2 and its ensuing full employment is what ended the Great Depression.
I wont even get into the climate crap.
Having an opinion is great, continually expressing that opinion as fact despite all evidence to the contrary is silly.
Stop being silly.
Did you read the same CBO report that I did? Those cost projections were predicted with or without the healthcare bill.
Uh, no. So you are saying Obamacare had no effect on total percent of GDP healthcare eats up? We are definately reading different reports then.
The New Deal put lots of people to work and built a huge amount of valuable infrastructure and got the wheels of industry turning again. It did not solve all the problems of the time by any means, but it certainly helped.
Quantify this. Also, this is extremely disingenious - when people refer to the New Deal, most people think in terms of the Social(ist) safety nets and such. Were a few reasonable infrastructure projects included? Quite possibly so. However you were appearing to make the claim that this ended the Great Depression. Recent stimulus in current era also created jobs..... at an estimated cost of 400k per job created.
I think the United States was better for it. WW2 certainly ended it, but could also be considered a government program. Our government subsidized all the war industry at the time. It is easy to forget that.
Are you seriously trying to draw a similarity between Obamacare, the New Deal, and WW2? Yes, War is indeed a govt program - however it is not easy to forget that, rather, I would say it is impossible. So whats your argument here?
I think you are being silly. I read the same things you do and I just cant see basis for your opinions. The current right wing agenda of trying to stimulate the economy with tax breaks is not only stupid, but is going to destroy this country and its economy plain and simple.
How is leaving more money in the economy, a plan to destroy it? Just FYI the theory that a planned economy was more efficient or effective than a free market was utterly destroyed in the 20th century.
And also, you apparently did not read the same things I did.
I challenge you, to produce the facts as you explain them on how much Obamacare is going to cost us.
I did, you refuse to acknowledge the existince of anything that does not agree with your preconception.
Got tired of your non sequitur copy/paste responses.
I will only play along with a Socratic defense for so long.
After everyones bitching about TARP and the stimulus, the CBO has stated that it is only going to cost us a total of 25 billion, which is NOTHING compared to the economic collapse that would have ensued if we did not act.
Economic collapse according to Bernake - the Goldman Sachs guy. Even if he was being above board, the fact that high powered Wall Street types are genuinely convinced that the world revolves around them and their clique of banking elite is also a truth. Just because they perceive a total meltdown due to their demise, does not mean the world would have ended for the rest of us.
I posted the link to the Frontline study on the meltdown, and I strongly support that view and the facts presented in it. Perhaps you should take the time to watch it.
Just like your Obamacare Frontline link, that was not a "study" so much as it was a reconstruction of the series of events from the perspective of those involved. Neither Frontlone episode serves as, or appears to be intended to fill the role of policy analyst. Yes, BErnake told Congressional leadership that the world would end if they didnt do something. This is his view, not an objective fact. The downsides to bailouts was the fact that they perpetuate the illusion that govt is morally entitled to intervene in private enterprise because of the opinion of a small group of policy analysts. This intervention was politically driven, and the govt was deciding "who lived, and who died" so to speak. This sets a bad predicament of predicating success in business upon political approval as opposed to market performance.
I just love that all the people that bitched about us intervening into the American car industry's failure have to eat crow. Not only were more than a million jobs saved, but we are being paid back in FULL and it wont end up costing us a dime. Just as promised, our government is backing out of those businesses, not taking them over like some bullshit communist conspiracy theory.
No crow need be et, as above the issue is precident. Well, not the sole issue.
One thing to keep in mind though, is that both unions and govt over-regulation are both largely responsible for US automaker difficulties in the first place. Having the govt create huge problems for business, then help prop up those businesses without acknowledging the overall policy failures is not a good thing.
Remember when Reagan bailed out Chrysler in the 80's. We got all that back to, and I dont think you can call Ronald Reagan a communist? Can you?
The whole argument is faux ... I have not heard a valid argument to declassify the a civil\religious union between male & female human beings for the purpose of establishing lineage, or kinship (i.e. what is commonly refered to as "Traditional Marriage").
Now, should life partners be afforded civil rights equal to a "traditional marriage" ... such as estate passage, etc ... sure why not, seems fair to me.
But, to somehow think there is no difference between a same-sex civil union & one intended to establish a new genetic lineage is just scientifically & culturally absurd.
If all unions are created equal ... why not just allow direct kin to marry & procreate at will ... I know, know ... those Okies, Texans & Mississippians do it anyway ... but ... it don't make it right.
Just because little Johnny has 2 dads doesn't mean he shares both of their DNA & no matter how much some people want that partnership to mean the same thing as a Mom & Dad traditionally do .. it is not the same, sorry, that is just a fact.
Shanks on Jet's use of the term "gay":
GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender ... The "L" means leasbian & lesbians definately try not identify themselves as "Gay" ... that's a term for the fellas ... just a fact.
Shanks on Statism\Progressivism\National Socialism\Democratic Socialism\National Capitalism\Liberalism\Communism:
Basically, these terms all represent the same governing philosphy laid out by Marx, each with its own "tweak", just to make it better, each experiment failed! At every pass, the experiment can only be propped up by a highly Authoritative ruling body ... with the people whom it was intended to "benefit", ultimately, facing oppression.
Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler ... how many hundreds of millions of human beings were slaughtered by these "heros" of the modern american left? Just sad.
Obamacare ... the Authoratarian nature of this experiment is already out in plain view ... you will abide by it or you will be punished by the strong arm of the IRS!
Look across the last 30-40 years of the experiment's implementation in the US ... what do you see:
Public Housing, a failure ... Public School Systems, failing ... Generational Welfare, a failure... Inner City Management, a failure... Social Justice Ponzi Schemes, failing all around us.
... oh & there are more to list, but why bother there is a patterned outcome ... failure!
What do all these have at the top ... an Authoratarian ruling class rooted in a bureaucracy chartered with mandating, regulating, or otherwise oppressing, those it claims to serve.
But then again, so many people just want to be told what to do, when to do it & how to do it ... but there was a time when:
personal responsibility > pointing the finger parents looked after all the kids in the neighborhood folks felt ashamed at having to ask for another's charity neighbors looked out for each other people relished success & scorned mediocrity. health insurance was actually an insurance plan, not a discount club.
See, Marx's experiment would rather do away with individualism ... "workers of the world unite", and all that rubbish? Problem is, there's always a pesky Authoratarian ruling class pulling the strings ... kind of like a cult mentality thesedays ... so odd to me.
Well, at least there are still plenty of us, free men and women, who do the right thing ... not because some dogma tells us to, or some gov't agency compels us to, but ... because, well, it's just the right thing to do. We volunteer at local charities, look after the well being of our neighbors, toss a coin in the old man on the street's cup, slow down & wave on the poor driver trying to merge into traffic, hold the door open for the lady with her hands full of grocery bags ... right down to picking up gaming accounts for friends who find themselves in tough times.
These are the types of people I am proud to call my friends in life.
Shanks out!
Really?
1) Marriage I know lots of people who get married and have no intention of having children. There is nothing in the law that supports your opinion. In my opinion, your description of marriage just doesn't hold water.
2) Gay Gay is a generic term for GBLT. No need to split hairs here. When Ellen came out on TV and lost her TV show afterwards, she exclaimed "Im Gay". So at least one persona agrees with me. I agree with your terms, but there are many examples of "Gay" being used for all cases.
3) You said: "Shanks on Statism\Progressivism\National Socialism\Democratic Socialism\National Capitalism\Liberalism\Communism:"
Lumping Democrats and Progressives with Hitler, Stalin, and their ideals is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, and totally unfounded. How can you associate mass murder with me and the people that think like me. Amazing and ridiculous.
Just a few points though:
I am a product of public school, and consider myself successful as I make an above average income, and am stable in my life.
I strongly support Social Security, and have paid more than my share into it over the years. Like it or not, it is successful.
I strongly support Medicare, and have paid my share over the years. Like it or not, it is successful.
I strongly support unemployment insurance and yet I have never used it, but have paid more than my share over the years. Like it or not it is successful.
Without these programs, this country would be in ruins (in my opinion) and I am positive that a majority of Americans agree with me, because a majority of Americans voted the current president into office, thereby verifying support for the programs and agenda that has been followed. That does not make me have ANYTHING to do with Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler. Denying people the same rights as others just because their sexual preference including not allowing them to defend their country to me smells alot like Stalin\Che\Mao\Mussolini\Pinocet\Hitler. I mean replace homosexual with Jew and the conservative right of this country is going down the exact same path as the Nazi. party
Something you seem to be forgetting Jet, is that noone has been up in arms demanding the "old" programs be eliminated. The current anger and resentment is not directed at the old programs, though some of us might argue that some of them were flawed in principle or execution.
But even if that argument is made for principles' sake, being told we will goto jail if we do not purchase a consumer product that the Democratic Party says we should have is in a completely different league.
But in the same sense Jet could say your married to Ann Coulter.
Not that I'm getting into this but one thing Jet stated above was that the majority of American's must feel the same way he did because they voted in the current President. I don't see it that way and more of a need for change, which was tactically, his slogan which I believe he ran on. Give anyone hope from what they were told and felt was a bad prior president/politics and the majority will flop. I don't believe it had as much to do with those programs specifically but rather something different is all.
Difference sometimes isn't a good thing and too much change at once in most cases is a bad thing. Our current leader, IMHO, has from day one wanted to concentrate on this health care bill to the point most everything else was ignored or put on the 2nd burner; that cannot happen.
Oh well never enough time these days to fully debate these.
Best wishes!
I also support this view. After 8 years of Bush insanity, people were ready for something different. The prospect of 4 more years of Bush was to much for too many people to swallow.
Hope quickly turned to despair though. Check Obamas campaign platform on Civil Liberties, then take a look at his policies. He is as bad as Bush, and has proven himself to be exactly like Bush. Happy to say whatever is necessary to get elected, then focuses solely on his own power and the interests of his friends once in office.
Believe it or not, we are splitting hairs down to the point where we start to agree. I still believe your ideas on and accusations of socialism are unfounded in some cases, but we are getting to common ground. I keep pointing out programs that could be considered "socialist" that work, and are semi common across the world. The "old" programs. Like with many things, Obamacare, the TARP/Stimulus, Automotive bailout, did not or will not solve all our problems, and most importantly failed to address the core of the problems that you are speaking of. This to me is a failure. The nutless tactics of my party make me sick, and I am disappointed in my party that these problems were not solved when they had the chance to. With the recent supreme court decision on corporate funding of political campaigns, I think we are fucked anyways you look at it. The corruption is rampant and will be difficult to address or stop. Let me address your responses.
[quote=Derid] Uh, no. So you are saying Obamacare had no effect on total percent of GDP healthcare eats up? We are definately reading different reports then.
GDP Healthcare percentage was going up either way. This is not contested! The CBO report has real numbers as to savings. I want to see some real numbers on it's unpublished estimated cost that you continue to use.
Quantify this. Also, this is extremely disingenious - when people refer to the New Deal, most people think in terms of the Social(ist) safety nets and such. Were a few reasonable infrastructure projects included? Quite possibly so. However you were appearing to make the claim that this ended the Great Depression. Recent stimulus in current era also created jobs..... at an estimated cost of 400k per job created.
People are largely divided about "The New Deal" I think we can bot agree. For me it was the starting point of our recovery, and WW2 was the end point. I never meant to imply that it ended the great depression, but that many of the programs it created were in place until WW2 and in my opinion benefited our country and the economy. I have to spend lots of time in Vegas for work. Vegas and surrounding cities and towns depend on the Hoover Dam for their power and water. This was a result of "The New Deal". Again, I am not claiming that it solved everything, but it certainly made the creation of the largest concentration of gambling and hooking in the United States.
Are you seriously trying to draw a similarity between Obamacare, the New Deal, and WW2? Yes, War is indeed a govt program - however it is not easy to forget that, rather, I would say it is impossible. So whats your argument here?
The point I am making is this. The Government can do large projects well to a point. The claim that it cant, or that anytime it does we are going to start marching the goose step is simply ridiculous. It is this extreme view that I continue to use the examples of Social Security and Medicare to debunk. That is the point I am trying to make. It is never perfect though. Even though we won WW2, we also create the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. These solutions remind me of new drugs advertised on TV. It may fix your ailment, but you might grow a third arm, or keel over as a side effect.
How is leaving more money in the economy, a plan to destroy it? Just FYI the theory that a planned economy was more efficient or effective than a free market was utterly destroyed in the 20th century.
And also, you apparently did not read the same things I did.
Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need.
I did, you refuse to acknowledge the existince of anything that does not agree with your preconception.
Got tired of your non sequitur copy/paste responses.
I will only play along with a Socratic defense for so long.
I disagree here. I continue to combat the extremist views, and force you and others to produce numbers and documentation like anyone should in a good debate.
Economic collapse according to Bernake - the Goldman Sachs guy. Even if he was being above board, the fact that high powered Wall Street types are genuinely convinced that the world revolves around them and their clique of banking elite is also a truth. Just because they perceive a total meltdown due to their demise, does not mean the world would have ended for the rest of us.
I dont like the people involved, and it makes me sick that they got to decide who made it and who didnt, and strong armed banks like BofA to purchase Merril Lynch, but something had to be done or we would certainly be in the great depression. A majority of economic experts agree with me.
Just like your Obamacare Frontline link, that was not a "study" so much as it was a reconstruction of the series of events from the perspective of those involved. Neither Frontlone episode serves as, or appears to be intended to fill the role of policy analyst. Yes, BErnake told Congressional leadership that the world would end if they didnt do something. This is his view, not an objective fact. The downsides to bailouts was the fact that they perpetuate the illusion that govt is morally entitled to intervene in private enterprise because of the opinion of a small group of policy analysts. This intervention was politically driven, and the govt was deciding "who lived, and who died" so to speak. This sets a bad predicament of predicating success in business upon political approval as opposed to market performance.
I addressed some of this above. I don't like how it got completed, but the end result will in my opinion, and that of the CBO (in my view) be positive. You have to look at all aspects of the problems to see this, and Obamacare addresses some of the problems, and not how I would have liked, but in an overall positive manner. If you take the questions that Michael Moore raised in Sicko, these need to be addressed weather you agree with him or not. The problems are still valid.
No crow need be et, as above the issue is precident. Well, not the sole issue.
One thing to keep in mind though, is that both unions and govt over-regulation are both largely responsible for US automaker difficulties in the first place. Having the govt create huge problems for business, then help prop up those businesses without acknowledging the overall policy failures is not a good thing.
I 100% agree with you here. The greedy unions almost ended the American auto industry but refusing to remain competitive in the global market place. Airlines, and many other businesses had and continue to have the same problems. Everyone wants the government to cut back, everyone wants to compete, but noone wants to pay for it.
In the current national climate, we are forced to compromise to enact change. Like I was saying before, we all have to give up something to get out of this. I am not even confident that we are smart enough, and not just plain to greedy to be able to solve our problems. We are currently on the road to ruin with a 14 trillion dollar budget deficit that is continuing to grow.
I think you could start with a total revamp of the tax system. There are slot of viable ideas out there that could help the overall system greatly. I hope we are intelligent enough to do what is needed.
Check page 5, and 11 to the end, specifically. But this is updated, and provides data on scenarios where Obamacare never passed.
Check the conclusion, especially. Straight from the CBO, their conclusion is under Obamacare Federal Health spending growth is unsustainable in the long term.
Will address other points later, replies to replies quickly get unwieldly to reply to quickly.
Putting the federalbudget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year’s health legislation).
I agree that there needs to be significant cost cutting across the board. I am hoping we continue to explore this and make the changes necessary to make our entire government and the services it provides sustainable.
"Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need. " JET
What the fuck is wrong with you???????????
Quote some more liberal talking points.
Did you know if you put gasoline on a fire it will put it out. Its true, I am a Democrat and that proves it.
Did you know that if you stop giving people free money they will go get a job. I would bet Jets left nut that If they did stop the unemployment that people have been getting for 90+ WEEKS the unemployment rate will drop.
BTW the Republicans say they will pass it if obama will use the 120 billion tarp money they still have lying around.
"Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need. " JET
What the fuck is wrong with you???????????
Quote some more liberal talking points.
Did you know if you put gasoline on a fire it will put it out. Its true, I am a Democrat and that proves it.
Did you know that if you stop giving people free money they will go get a job. I would bet Jets left nut that If they did stop the unemployment that people have been getting for 90+ WEEKS the unemployment rate will drop.
BTW the Republicans say they will pass it if obama will use the 120 billion tarp money they still have lying around.
Unemployment is shit, and not enough to live on for a family. I think people would get a job if they could. I know LOTS of people trying and cant.
Trust me, they are not lazy. This is WAY cheaper than forcing people to get on public assistance.
Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need.
Well, since the vast majority of folks in this country have no savings and live hand to mouth, I'd say that both monies are going to be spent, and probably before they've even been earned.
I want to scream every time I hear some news caster play a clip of Pelosi saying this. It is ludicrous. The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it, and their spending of said dollar creates $2 (actually the claim is $1.66 but that's too many numbers for us dummies so I really appreciate Nancy rounding that off for us) of economic growth is mind boggling.
But, for argument's sake, let's throw logic out the window and use some of the administrations own people to refute this claim. Let's assume that for every $1 of unemployment the economy grows by $2. Christina Romer and her husband, also a Berkley economist, wrote a research paper entitled, "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes" just six months before her appointment to chair Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. In this paper they conclude, at odds with most traditional Keynesian (he's the nut ball who pioneered the idea that government spending is always good for the economy and that debt, while bad for the individual, is great for a government) analysis, that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts (this phrase kills me) would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations, and 1.5 times higher than all of the sound bites we've heard lately.
Which is better? You decide.
Oh, and actually that $1.66 is supposed to be representative of the economic growth associated with government spending not unemployment benefits, although I can see how one could fail to make the distinction between the government taking money from group A and giving it to group B and the government taking money from group A and giving it to group C. Oh, I guess I too can see why they don't bother making the distinction.
Dollars spent on tax cuts This is the terminology that is used by the government when describing tax cuts. Don't words have meaning anymore? How can you spend a dollar that you haven't confiscated yet? Tax cuts are not government spending. Its just a decrease in the amount they take from you each year. Now, some might read this post and assume that I am completely against all taxes. I assure you that I'm not so ignorant as to assume that the government doesn't need funds to function. However, I do think that over 50,000 pages of tax code is ridiculous. Hell, even the former chair of the House Ways and Means committee (the one that writes the tax code) apparently couldn't understand it, thus yesterday's censure of Charlie Wrangle. Oh, and if you want to experience real hopenchange, I suggest forgetting to claim income from your vacation home in the islands (don't have a vacation home? Neither did he before he was a Senator. That must be a great job) for 17 years. Let's see if they only censure you, or if, like Wesley Snipes, you get to face hard time.
I maintain that any money spent by a private citizen is a much better investment in our economy than a politician confiscating it and then doling it out for political favor with various constituencies to win an election. In the absolute best case scenario, taking $1 from Bill and giving it to Tom generates the EXACT same amount of economic stimulus. Unfortunately this isn't the case because at the very least they have to deduct the salary of the bureaucrat whose responsibility it is to dole out the confiscated riches. The truth is that this is all a big shell game and an attempt to get more of the "I don't know, from his stash" people out to vote in two more years, all while pompously declaring "if it hadn't been for us, the world would have ended."
Tax cuts do nothing to stimulate the economy compared to continuing unemployment benefits. To stimulate the economy you need people to SPEND money. What money is more likely to be spent? Savings on your taxes, or a struggling family relying 100% on unemployment. I promise you that ALL of the unemployment money will be spent. It just makes sense and helps millions of people in need.
Well, since the vast majority of folks in this country have no savings and live hand to mouth, I'd say that both monies are going to be spent, and probably before they've even been earned.
I want to scream every time I hear some news caster play a clip of Pelosi saying this. It is ludicrous. The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it, and their spending of said dollar creates $2 (actually the claim is $1.66 but that's too many numbers for us dummies so I really appreciate Nancy rounding that off for us) of economic growth is mind boggling.
But, for argument's sake, let's throw logic out the window and use some of the administrations own people to refute this claim. Let's assume that for every $1 of unemployment the economy grows by $2. Christina Romer and her husband, also a Berkley economist, wrote a research paper entitled, "The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes" just six months before her appointment to chair Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. In this paper they conclude, at odds with most traditional Keynesian (he's the nut ball who pioneered the idea that government spending is always good for the economy and that debt, while bad for the individual, is great for a government) analysis, that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts (this phrase kills me) would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations, and 1.5 times higher than all of the sound bites we've heard lately.
Which is better? You decide.
Oh, and actually that $1.66 is supposed to be representative of the economic growth associated with government spending not unemployment benefits, although I can see how one could fail to make the distinction between the government taking money from group A and giving it to group B and the government taking money from group A and giving it to group C. Oh, I guess I too can see why they don't bother making the distinction.
Dollars spent on tax cuts This is the terminology that is used by the government when describing tax cuts. Don't words have meaning anymore? How can you spend a dollar that you haven't confiscated yet? Tax cuts are not government spending. Its just a decrease in the amount they take from you each year. Now, some might read this post and assume that I am completely against all taxes. I assure you that I'm not so ignorant as to assume that the government doesn't need funds to function. However, I do think that over 50,000 pages of tax code is ridiculous. Hell, even the former chair of the House Ways and Means committee (the one that writes the tax code) apparently couldn't understand it, thus yesterday's censure of Charlie Wrangle. Oh, and if you want to experience real hopenchange, I suggest forgetting to claim income from your vacation home in the islands (don't have a vacation home? Neither did he before he was a Senator. That must be a great job) for 17 years. Let's see if they only censure you, or if, like Wesley Snipes, you get to face hard time.
I maintain that any money spent by a private citizen is a much better investment in our economy than a politician confiscating it and then doling it out for political favor with various constituencies to win an election. In the absolute best case scenario, taking $1 from Bill and giving it to Tom generates the EXACT same amount of economic stimulus. Unfortunately this isn't the case because at the very least they have to deduct the salary of the bureaucrat whose responsibility it is to dole out the confiscated riches. The truth is that this is all a big shell game and an attempt to get more of the "I don't know, from his stash" people out to vote in two more years, all while pompously declaring "if it hadn't been for us, the world would have ended."
Are any of you old enough to remember Reaganomics? We tried this reduce taxes on the rich thing. Why not do some reading on the success of "Trickle down economics". It was a disaster with right income increasing 80% after 10 years, the poorest income down -4.4%, and middle class income flat.
Are any of you old enough to remember Reaganomics? We tried this reduce taxes on the rich thing. Why not do some reading on the success of "Trickle down economics". It was a disaster with right income increasing 80% after 10 years, the poorest income down -4.4%, and middle class income flat.
I didn't make this up. What I posted came straight from a report issued by the leader of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. AND she and her husband, who collaborated on the report, are educated in Berkley. I can't imagine a setting more conducive to extolling the virtues of the system you're advocating and yet, when studying the facts, she determined that your stance is wobbly.
The idea that you can take $1 out of the economy via taxes (take it out mind you, not create a new one to add in) then give that $1 to some one who didn't earn it
Here is the fallacy. $1 are not given back, they're used to pay the administration doing the taking and giving. And guess what ? This administration is the government, that's why they like this fallacy : it pays them to do shit.
Always read some Bastiat again before thinking about government action.
According to a 1996 study[36] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. * Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. * Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. * The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. * The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy
According to a 1996 study[36] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years. * Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years. * Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency. * The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. * The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981–1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy
Let me be Derid here, with a little JetStar: There were certainly positives in the Reagan Administration, but with those came many negatives, especially on the poor and middle class.
Trickle down economics did not work. The national debt skyrocketed, BUT I think Reagan did bankrupted the USSR, leading the ultimate breakup in the 90's and the end of the cold war.
Here is the part that failed
Quote:
The number of Americans below the poverty level increased from 29.272 million in 1980 to 31.745 million in 1988, which means that, as a percentage of the total population, it remained almost stationary, from 12.95% in 1980 to 13% in 1988.[21] The poverty level for people under the age of 18 increased from 11.543 million in 1980 (18.3% of all child population) to 12.455 (19.5%) in 1988.[22] In addition, the situation of low income groups was affected by the reduction of social spending. Inequality also increased. The share of total income going to the 5% highest-income households grew from 16.5% in 1980 to 18.3% in 1988 and the share of the highest fifth increased from 44.1% to 46.3% in same years. In contrast, the share of total income of the lowest fifth fell from 4.2% in 1980 to 3.8% in 1988 and the second poorest fifth from 10.2% to 9.6%.[23]
U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, table 7. U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, table 3. U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables, table H-2.
As you said, as a percentage poverty was stationary.
All the extra cash the upper 40% started generating, added to the overall economy and GDP. Income as a cash number got slightly more unequal, but I would have to say that standard of living kept rising for the poorer folk.
A lot of that is due to the economies of scale formed by booming business infrastructures, and production and distribution efficiencies. Generally speaking, the top 20% of society are the people who produce and/or get things done. The people who have vision, who organize activity, the people who take RISK. The bottom , unskilled part of society is entirely dependent on the top to be given something meaningful to.
Look at the current employment situation. There so much cost, liability and red tape, thanks largely to Dems, but also due to GOP under Bush - that the barriers to creating new business, new wealth and new value are much much higher than in the past.
Until we as a nation- and currently the FISCAL Tea Partiers are the only ones who have the right of it - realize that most of the current taxes and regulations and red tape are harmful instead of helpful , we are going to have permanent unemployment of 10%+
And that just counts the folk who havent given up trying.
In a sane world, where Dems and Bush didnt exist, people would eye such a soft labor pool and be thinking up ways to exploit it and create wealth. But when balancing the risk/rewards of new ventures, govt inhibition is so large it really tilts the scales in favor of not trying. And also causes many ventures to fail.
Those who are already wealthy, simply start their new businesses or projects overseas.
Dems think that the "economy" exists because it exists, that it is a sort of constant energy, line the sun. That no matter how much energy you take from it, it will still shine at the same brightness... and thus it makes sense to use guns to try and force everyone to have the same piece of the pie.
Reaganomics produced the biggest expansion to the American military to date, that money had to have come from somewhere. I personally feel the Clinton era was the most financially stable period for American growth, but that is just a personal observation not based in any fact.
Yeah Reagan piled up a lot of debt for the Military expansion, but thought related - is a seperate issue.
Most of the Clinton era prosperity revolved around 2 seperate points:
1) Reagan era policies. Just relaxing govt burden on society does not create a boom overnight. (also the unions were in the process of committing wholesale slaughter on USA industry during the 80's, the fact that there was some immediate improvement and poverty did not increase dramatically should be noted)
2) Dems had weak grasp on Congress the first 2 years, then lost control of Congress completely the remaining 6.
Clinton tried to destroy the country his first 2 years in office but a stalwart GOP had barely enough in the Senate to filibuster.
After getting walloped in the mid-terms , Clinton moved to the center - and gridlock between Dems and GOP kept most really stupid ideas that politicians get (ie: almost all) from being implemented and allowed people to get on with their lives.
The GOP went totally corrupt though after getting handed both Congress and the Presidency, and started the downward spiral, followed by Obama who also with control of 2 govt branches, has accelerated the downward process.
Had gridlock remained the status quo we would be much better off. Unfortunately, things have gotten to the point where only a large, concentrated effort to reverse policies and thinking can we save ourselves from slowly descending into a dystopic statist/corporate society of corruption.
As they say, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Ya trust me getting a job right now anywhere is rough with 9.8 percent unemployment. i got laid off in feb 09 and just got a stable job in aug 10 and i was looking everyday. But the United States has to fail sometime. If u look at history its all repeating itself. No use in arguing doesnt matter who is president inflation will happen maybe not immediately but eventually.
If you dont like what someone has to say you don't have to listen. The kid in the video is a d-bag. I may or may not agree with what people like the woman or any other person on the street is saying but I wouldn't ask for breakfast.
heh.... I had a guy in Highschool that loved to preach... and he would do so in your face. He really didnt like the response he got from me. I never thought I would see him run away scared but he did that day.
If you dont like what someone has to say you don't have to listen. The kid in the video is a d-bag. I may or may not agree with what people like the woman or any other person on the street is saying but I wouldn't ask for breakfast.
I agree but on the other hand, when you espouse your beliefs in a public forum (online or on the street) you have to expect a certain amount of dumbfuckery and legitimate disagreement. The dumbfuckery you have to ignore, or lawl if its worthy, and the other you must be prepared to rebut. While I think the pancake mix is childish, it is pretty darn funny.
If that kid would have stuck his hand in my face like that he would be on his ass. Yelling over a public speaker is one thing but getting over aggressive like that and that close would have prompted a swift punch to the throat.
If that kid would have stuck his hand in my face like that he would be on his ass. Yelling over a public speaker is one thing but getting over aggressive like that and that close would have prompted a swift punch to the throat.
.