[x]

See Where You Rank in Virginia

  1.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    ohh and re. deficit spending, you and i will never agree because i support Keynesian policies and you don't. As i have said before, think of it in terms of a balance sheet. You have income (taxes) and expenses (social programs, military spending, and infrastructure spending). If you continually drive the tax base lower as the extreme right wants to do, and at the same time spend 3 trillion dollars on a war that never should have been fought, your solution is to reduce domestic spending and social programs. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It's simple math.

    If we had followed sound economic principals and never allowed the Fed, paid for what we bought and encouraged saving we would be in the black. We would be the ones that countries are indebted to. If we were collecting the interest on the debt that we are paying our country as a whole would be better off. We could have present social programs AND lower taxes but because we followed Keynesian policies the opposite is true. It's simple math.

    And I call bullshit that you accuse me of wanting to spend 3T in wars while cutting social programs domestically, if you can't argue with facts, make shit up, it's the leftist way.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  2. Supremo - marriages are granted by the churches. Civil unions are granted by the courts or their delegates.
    Add saxman to Rail
  3. is that true in Canada? because here it was Clinton who defined marriage with DOMA, not the churches. Courhouses, ship captains, notary publics all perform marriages that are not affiliated with churches at all.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  4.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    And I call bullshit that you accuse me of wanting to spend 3T in wars while cutting social programs domestically, if you can't argue with facts, make shit up, it's the leftist way.

    I'm not saying you personally Gin - i'm just stating the policies of the political right. Tax less, spend less on domestic stuff, don't touch military spending. That is the traditional GOP stance.

     
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    is that true in Canada? because here it was Clinton who defined marriage with DOMA, not the churches. Courhouses, ship captains, notary publics all perform marriages that are not affiliated with churches at all.

    ya, i think we may be talking semantics here - a justice of the peace, ship captain, courthouse can perform a civil union which in effect gives you a marriage certificate. But you cannot force a church to perform a marriage ceremony for gay people if it is against the church's belief. Thats my understanding.
    Add saxman to Rail
  5. true dat, but the winds of change are blowing. Military spending is no longer untouchable.

    I don't think people realize how dire our deficit is to our way of life. China is getting out of the dollar, countries are having secret meetings without us (about us) on how to change the world currency. The world bank is saying the dollar is a bad investment, the IMF is calling for a new currency to replace the dollar, the United Arab (OIL) whatever they are called want to get oil off the dollar as it's standard. Russia and China have already stopped using the dollar in trade between them.

    As of now we have the default world currency, this gives only us the ability to print this currency. The rest of the world is very nervous because we are abusing the fuck out of this ability. If the dollar is not longer the shit we are fubar. I can't imagine what happens to this economy if we have to pay gas prices that the rest of the world pays.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  6. Paul wants to get Government OUT of the marriage game altogether. Let the churches have their "weddings", and let everybody else, regardless of sexual persuasion join in a Civil Union that is a legally binding contract. The Netherlands used to do this. My parents had 2 anniversary dates, because they had to get married in City Hall to be "legally" married, and had to be married in Church to satisfy their faith. Government did not recognize Church marriages, and vice versa. That is the sensible option.

    As for economics, I think the Keynesians need to recognize, and admit, that they're wrong. First thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging, no?
    Add Milo to Rail
  7. when the economy goes in the shitter, its not unusual for debt to GDP ratios to rise. Here is the historical debt to GDP - with the exception of Japan and Italy, it's always been below 90 which has been the accepted norm.

    Add saxman to Rail
  8. Keynesian policies have brought us to the point where in order to balance the budget we wouldn't have to raise taxes on the rich by 3%, we would have to raise them 700%. Or tax every dollar made 40cents to the Federal government, not sure what the states will have to do with the left over money.

    This is assuming no change in GDP with these taxes. I really wish the Krugman's of the world would be honest about this. Doing so would invalidate their theories though, so it's not going to happen.

    and we are no longer below 90

    Japan's Keynesian policies seem to be working really well. And their economic future is that much brighter for them.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  9.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    Keynesian policies have brought us to the point where in order to balance the budget we wouldn't have to raise taxes on the rich by 3%, we would have to raise them 700%. Or tax every dollar made 40cents to the Federal government, not sure what the states will have to do with the left over money.

    This is assuming no change in GDP with these taxes. I really wish the Krugman's of the world would be honest about this. Doing so would invalidate their theories though, so it's not going to happen.

    and we are no longer below 90

    but for Keynesian policies no debt? Link?

    also, dishonesty? care to cite any evidence? probably not.
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  10.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    ohh and re. deficit spending, you and i will never agree because i support Keynesian policies and you don't.

    When we went off the gold standard and "all became Keynesians" we were the greatest creditor nation in the world and ran a massive trade surplus. Now, well, I think it is safe to say the situation is quite different. We are still treading water at this point, but once interest rates rise our deficit problem will be so obvious even Keynsians like you will have to admit something might have gone wrong during the past 40 years.
    Add yomamanodros to Rail
  11.  
    Originally Posted by Milo View Post

    As for economics, I think the Keynesians need to recognize, and admit, that they're wrong. First thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging, no?

    get the gov out of marriages, such a simple solution.

    the cool thing about Keynesians is no matter how bad they screw things up they get to say it would have worked if they had spent more. The ONLY thing wrong with the policies is it wasn't enough.

     
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    but for Keynesian policies no debt? Link?

    also, dishonesty? care to cite any evidence? probably not.

    It's the Bush Tax cuts that are the problem, not the spending. If we spent more it would have worked, the Stimulus worked, the Jobs bill worked, the printing press going into over drive created jobs, we saved the auto industry by bailing out before structured bankruptsy, the banks were too big to fail and the world economy would blow up without making them bigger..... want more?
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  12.  
    Originally Posted by yomamanodros View Post

    When we went off the gold standard and "all became Keynesians" we were the greatest creditor nation in the world and ran a massive trade surplus. Now, well, I think it is safe to say the situation is quite different. We are still treading water at this point, but once interest rates rise our deficit problem will be so obvious even Keynsians like you will have to admit something might have gone wrong during the past 40 years.

    The problem with this, and with Milo's statement about digging holes, is that you are oversimplifying a whole set of economic and social history. What other changes have taken place in the past 40 years? The industrialization of other nations perhaps? Global trade perhaps? The aging population of the world's established economies perhaps? Social policies and tax policies perhaps? Economic cycles perhaps?
    Edited By: saxman Dec 28th, 2011 at 02:06 AM
    Add saxman to Rail
  13. this Little Ceasars bowl has been surprisingly entertaining. damn, until that fumble.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  14.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post


    It's the Bush Tax cuts that are the problem, not the spending. If we spent more it would have worked, the Stimulus worked, the Jobs bill worked, the printing press going into over drive created jobs, we saved the auto industry by bailing out before structured bankruptsy, the banks were too big to fail and the world economy would blow up without making them bigger..... want more?

    So basically, per usual, you have nothing to back up your assertion other than more rhetorical nonsense. To answer your question - nope.
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  15. before Dyzalot comes in and posts this, i guess i better :)

    Add saxman to Rail
  16. how bout we compare the actions taken during the depression of 21 and compare it to 29. Compare the policies of Greece to Austria and figure who is more stable.

    That's what I was saying about Keynesians, you get to say that your fucked up stimulus plan created or saved 4 million jobs, the jobs bill did so much, QE2 was necessary blah blah blah. Look at Japan? naw, that's different.

     
    Originally Posted by p00pymcp00perton View Post

    So basically, per usual, you have nothing to back up your assertion other than more rhetorical nonsense. To answer your question - nope.

    why did unemployment go over 8%
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  17.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    how bout we compare the actions taken during the depression of 21 and compare it to 29. Compare the policies of Greece to Austria and figure who is more stable.

    That's what I was saying about Keynesians, you get to say that your fucked up stimulus plan created or saved 4 million jobs, the jobs bill did so much, QE2 was necessary blah blah blah. Look at Japan? naw, that's different.

    why did unemployment go over 8%

    I would scratch my head but i know who I am dealing with. Again, no evidence provided at all by you - just more blah blah blah. If you'd like to compare stats, how about providing said stats. I love having political discussions and policy discussions but it becomes pointless when I enter a thread to have a discussion and what is really happening is a 40+ year old man ranting and raving about anything and everything but is basically talking about nothing.

    To have a fruitful discussion we must first agree upon a certain set of facts. You've provided a ton of argument with no facts to back them up (meaning - you are citing to zero evidence). Thus, engaging in anything meaningful with you is pointless, since, well, you don't really have a point other than to make a bunch of baseless assertions (baseless in terms of evidence provided. say what you want about dyz, at least he does his own research and provides links for us to discuss. you rarely, if ever do.).

    I am not a psychologist and I am not going to provide some sort of online therapy for you just so you can vent your frustrations with the world as you perceive it.
    Edited By: p00pymcp00perton Dec 28th, 2011 at 02:55 AM
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  18.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    before Dyzalot comes in and posts this, i guess i better :)

    This was an excellent video
    Add cmval to Rail
  19. That video is slanted toward Hayek obviously but extremely well done. Kudos to the producers!
    Add p00pymcp00perton to Rail
  20. hell I could provide 100s of links that expose Keynesian failures and all you'll do is say that the problem is they didn't spend enough.

    It's an argument that you are putting the onus on me. I say the proof is in the 15T deficit, the fact that we spend 1 dollar for every 60 cents we bring in and common sense is really all that's needed to know that's unsustainable. The proof is that despite increasing the deficit by 50% doesn't have us any better off like you guys said it would.

    Can you give examples of your policies actually causing growth? Increased employment? Increased revenue? You realize if we calculated inflation the way we did in the 70's it would be at 8% right now? The real unemployment rate is double digits.

    You can attack me personally or prove me wrong. Or do both if you can, hell I don't care. The fact is you are dead wrong and instead of being adult enough to admit it you go off on me not providing stats that I and others have provided here over and over and over. It just doesn't matter with you guys, the answer is always more.

    You act like this is the first time you've seen this argument in OT.

    all of the links provided in the other multitude of threads on this subject haven't convinced you, I doubt rehashing them will. It would be like me saying in a GW thread, you got a link that says it's real?
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  21. Well I would consider myself an idiot when it comes to economics. And if fact that video was actually kind of a learning experience for me. The only thing I can say is we should prolly move opposite from what we have been doing because it doesnt seem to be working. Again I dont know shit about economics but I know enough to know that there is a lot of unemployment, the middle class is not doing so hot right now, and we have massive massive debt which Im pretty sure that is a bad thing. We dont seem to be moving on the right path. Before that video I really couldnt tell you the difference between Keynes and Hayek. But Keynes seems to be what we are doing now and it really doesnt seem to work tbh. Not sure why we dont try moving a different direction.
    Add cmval to Rail
  22.  
    Originally Posted by ginwilly View Post

    hell I could provide 100s of links that expose Keynesian failures and all you'll do is say that the problem is they didn't spend enough.

    It's an argument that you are putting the onus on me. I say the proof is in the 15T deficit, the fact that we spend 1 dollar for every 60 cents we bring in and common sense is really all that's needed to know that's unsustainable. The proof is that despite increasing the deficit by 50% doesn't have us any better off like you guys said it would.

    Can you give examples of your policies actually causing growth? Increased employment? Increased revenue? You realize if we calculated inflation the way we did in the 70's it would be at 8% right now? The real unemployment rate is double digits.

    You can attack me personally or prove me wrong. Or do both if you can, hell I don't care. The fact is you are dead wrong and instead of being adult enough to admit it you go off on me not providing stats that I and others have provided here over and over and over. It just doesn't matter with you guys, the answer is always more.

    You act like this is the first time you've seen this argument in OT.

    all of the links provided in the other multitude of threads on this subject haven't convinced you, I doubt rehashing them will. It would be like me saying in a GW thread, you got a link that says it's real?

    what the fuck are you on?? You made an assertion, poopy asked if you could prove it, you then responded with another question. Moreover, poopy never made an assertion (other than that you can be a think skinned blowhard), so how can he be "dead wrong?" Then, in the post i quoted, you ask more questions!!! So to answer the bolded, yes the onus is on you. More questions and appeals to common sense dont qualify as evidence for your assertion.
    Add Mr. Smith to Rail
  23. The Society for Neuroeconomics are doing some cool research on why traders follow the herd even if it's the wrong thing to do to protect reputation, why people change their opinions to conform with groups and why we continue economic policies that don't work.

    Google Vasily Klucharev and Kaisa Hytönen. It's pretty fascinating really.

     
    Originally Posted by Mr. Smith View Post

    what the fuck are you on?? You made an assertion, poopy asked if you could prove it, you then responded with another question. Moreover, poopy never made an assertion (other than that you can be a think skinned blowhard), so how can he be "dead wrong?" Then, in the post i quoted, you ask more questions!!! So to answer the bolded, yes the onus is on you. More questions and appeals to common sense dont qualify as evidence for your assertion.

    what the fuck are you on? I answered the question you bolded (directly following) with common sense. We have increased spending drastically with stagnant short-term affect and long term damage. I can link a thousand links that say the same thing but it's been done. Besides, I can also link a thousand articles by the Krugman's of the world whose default answer is either we didn't spend enough or "imagine how bad it would be if we didn't mortgage the future"?

    I followed up with questions of my own on why he thinks Keynesian economics works in spite of evidence to the contrary. I wasn't aware I wasn't allowed to do this.
    Add ginwilly to Rail
  24. Getting back on track - i was reading some stuff on Brad Delong's site and he posted this link to one of Ron Paul's letters. I understand that RP is now saying he didn't read all of these letters and now distances himself from them but wtf - i mean, this is just crazy writing on his behalf and under his name.

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf
    Add saxman to Rail
  25.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    (how can you force a church to grant marriage rights to someone when the church doctrines do not support same).

    Who would force a church to grant marriage rights? Does the Catholic church have to marry any two people just because our government says a man can marry a woman? Your statement makes no sense in that context. As for your love of Keynesian policy perhaps you can explain why we rebuilt and even surpassed the level of aggregrate demand we had prior to the recession and yet have not had the recovery that Keynesiam would suggest should happen.

     
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    the gay marriage stance just doesn't make sense to me - a church is a religious organization that in most cases is opposed to it (excepting perhaps some of the very liberal churches such as united churches). I just don't see how you can force them to marry gays. Civil unions offer a compromise by recognizing gay couples, and it would be up to the states to grant them additional rights afforded to couples.

    What makes you think we currently force churches to marry any woman and man that wants to marry? Since when are churches forced to do anything. Your logic is lacking in reality.

     
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    Supremo - marriages are granted by the churches. Civil unions are granted by the courts or their delegates.

    Not true.
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  26.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    Getting back on track - i was reading some stuff on Brad Delong's site and he posted this link to one of Ron Paul's letters. I understand that RP is now saying he didn't read all of these letters and now distances himself from them but wtf - i mean, this is just crazy writing on his behalf and under his name.

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/1...icitation2.pdf

    I'm thinking Alex Jones isn't a bad fit as VP after all.
    Add kellykip to Rail
  27. i am viewing marriage in the biblical sense as a religious ceremony conducted by an ordained person of the church. I am viewing any union of a couple outside of the church as a civil union (i realize the certificate they are given is called a marriage certificate).

    Therefore, churches are not required to marry people that do not represent the beliefs of the church.

    Does an atheist couple get married in a church or do they have a civil union granted by a representative of the state?

    Not familiar with the stat you quoted showing we have surpassed the level of aggregate demand? Can you give me a link?
    Edited By: saxman Dec 28th, 2011 at 05:36 AM
    Add saxman to Rail
  28.  
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    i am viewing marriage in the biblical sense as a religious ceremony conducted by an ordained person of the church. I am viewing any union of a couple outside of the church as a civil union (i realize the certificate they are given is called a marriage certificate).

    Therefore, churches are not required to marry people that do not represent the beliefs of the church.

    Does an atheist couple get married in a church or do they have a civil union granted by a representative of the state?

    Not familiar with the stat you quoted showing we have surpassed the level of aggregate demand? Can you give me a link?

    You can't use "civil union" in one context where it means anyone married by a judge and is equivalent to marriage as far as the law is concerned and "civil union" in the context of a legal construct that is only used for the union of same sex partners and is not equivalent to marriage as far as the law is concerned. In this country we refer to those that got a "civil union" from a judge as "married", legally and by definition. The idea of a civil union for gay marriage is the idea of a new legal construct that is not equivalent to marriage. Making a law stating that homosexuals can get married too does not force churches to do anything that they don't do now. Ron Paul has the best idea in that government should have no say in who gets married and should make no privileges of it either.

     
    Originally Posted by saxman View Post

    Not familiar with the stat you quoted showing we have surpassed the level of aggregate demand? Can you give me a link?

     

    People, please look at the data. They are conveniently available to one and all at the website maintained by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the outfit that generates the national income and product accounts for the United States. According to these data, real personal consumption expenditure recovered from its recession decline by the fourth quarter of 2010. Continuing to grow, it now stands (as of the most recent data, for the second quarter of 2011) even farther above its pre-recession peak.

    http://blog.independent.org/2011/09/...ady-recovered/

    Also note that when you defend Keynesian answers for current problems they never accounted for having a deficit like we had going into the recession. Pretty sure the philosophy assumes we pay off the debt during good times and build the debt up during bad to "prime the pump".
     3
    Add Dyzalot to Rail
  29. fivethirtyeight new Iowa predictions

    Nate Silver updated his Iowa projections after this PPP poll.

    Chance of win:
    Paul 60%
    Romney 31%
    Gingrich 4%

    Paul leads Romney 38-13 with the 48% of likely caucus voters who don't regularly watch Fox News.

    Romney up 34-12 with seniors...but Paul up 35-11 with voters under 45.

    Iowa Republicans support Romney over Paul 22-20. But Dems/indys planning to vote prefer Paul 39-12.
    Add LVpokerdealer to Rail


  30. I dare anyone to watch this entire video, then show me a better candidate for our country in 2012, I'm all ears
    Add sousa1212 to Rail

Similar Threads