By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Republicans holding us hostage yet again.

badgenome on 22 March 2013
Kasz216 said:

That might be part of it... but consider Occupy Wallstreet whose main message was "Lobbiests have too much power and are buying officials off.  Give officials more power so they won't be bought off! "

I think a lot of people just don't understand how to stop corruption.

Yeah, that is also a big part of the problem.

But if you really feel like you have no voice, the most logical thing to do is make your vote count for more. Which decentralization of power would do. More control over your own life seems like something everyone should want, but I get the feeling that the allure of attaining a "permanent majority" - however stupid that idea is - is so great that the teams (Republicans after the 2004 election, Democrats today) can't help but salivate over the idea of winning the whole damned shooting match and forcing the enemy tribe to eat shit forever.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 22 March 2013
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

That might be part of it... but consider Occupy Wallstreet whose main message was "Lobbiests have too much power and are buying officials off.  Give officials more power so they won't be bought off! "

I think a lot of people just don't understand how to stop corruption.

Yeah, that is also a big part of the problem.

But if you really feel like you have no voice, the most logical thing to do is make your vote count for more. Which decentralization of power would do. More control over your own life seems like something everyone should want, but I get the feeling that the allure of attaining a "permanent majority" - however stupid that idea is - is so great that the teams (Republicans after the 2004 election, Democrats today) can't help but salivate over the idea of winning the whole damned shooting match and forcing the enemy tribe to eat shit forever.

That's probably true....

but i don't think it's a consious choice so much as it is people getting in that tribe mindset and therefore it colros everyones perceptions that way.

It's like how a lot of the left wing media wouldn't give Rand Paul an ounce of credit for his drone stance despite the fact that it's exactly the kind of thing they should love.  (And to give credit to Code Pink, they sent Ron Paul a bunch of stuff as a thank you.)

Or how basically no Republican gave Obama any credit for basically running the whole war on terror as if he was Dick Cheney until after the elections and well  Rand Paul started up his anti-drone speech. 



tres on 22 March 2013

race is the cause of all the angst.  come on plotting since day 1.  before the ink was dry he was some wide eyed radical destroying the country.  as far as i know hes  a reaganite.  but the right since 2008 took a nose dive in a pile of elephant dung and are determine to drag the entire country with them.

the troop loving republicans voted against the veterans jobs bill.

the mandate in the affordable care act came from the freaking heritage foundation.  but now to right wingers is a socialist plot.  ooooo give people health care how sadistic is that guy.

since 2008 all theyve done is block the government from properly function.  to the point were they rally against even stuff they were for pre-barack.

if hes for it theyre against it.  you cant deny that..

they are so twisted and delusional if barry said ok the tax rate is 0 percent they'd raise it to 100.  if he said he was for guns they strip everybody of them.  if he said he was against abortion they propose to kill all babies.  yeah thats kinda extreme but it's exactly how they act.

what is it about him that they would rather destroy the country they love(which is a joke) instead of giving him even a small victory.

this will be my last post on the topic so i can stay above moderation...  lol



richardhutnik on 22 March 2013
spaceguy said:
richardhutnik said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
How about the fact that "leftist" shouldn't even be in a 21st century political vocabulary lol. You shouldn't even be saying that word if you don't know how to use it in the proper context.

Leftist refers to Marx, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Stalin and Lenin. It doesn't apply to american democrats, who you're obviously trying to demonize. Let me guess... you heard it on fox news. Where else would you hear it but right-wing media lol.

You do realize the next Democratic nominee for president is going to be left of Karl Marx.  At least that is how the rhetoric goes.  If Obama is as much left as he is spun to be, the next Democratic nominee for president is going to have to be left of Marx.


LOL obama uses all republican ideas from the 80's. Lol You don't even know who marx is. Obama is a moderate Republican. So what s your proof? NOTHING! FOX news told me to say that.

Do I need to bold part of message that gives context for talking?  See my above reply there and the bolden part, to see, where I come from.  If you don't get it, even when bolded, I may have to stop using sarcasm.



Kasz216 on 22 March 2013
richardhutnik said:
spaceguy said:
richardhutnik said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
How about the fact that "leftist" shouldn't even be in a 21st century political vocabulary lol. You shouldn't even be saying that word if you don't know how to use it in the proper context.

Leftist refers to Marx, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Stalin and Lenin. It doesn't apply to american democrats, who you're obviously trying to demonize. Let me guess... you heard it on fox news. Where else would you hear it but right-wing media lol.

You do realize the next Democratic nominee for president is going to be left of Karl Marx.  At least that is how the rhetoric goes.  If Obama is as much left as he is spun to be, the next Democratic nominee for president is going to have to be left of Marx.


LOL obama uses all republican ideas from the 80's. Lol You don't even know who marx is. Obama is a moderate Republican. So what s your proof? NOTHING! FOX news told me to say that.

Do I need to bold part of message that gives context for talking?  See my above reply there and the bolden part, to see, where I come from.  If you don't get it, even when bolded, I may have to stop using sarcasm.

It's worth noting he considers Mr. Khan to be a "moderate republican at best".

So even if he gets where your coming from.... that's no gurantee that reply doesn't fit.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 22 March 2013
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
spaceguy said:
richardhutnik said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
How about the fact that "leftist" shouldn't even be in a 21st century political vocabulary lol. You shouldn't even be saying that word if you don't know how to use it in the proper context.

Leftist refers to Marx, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Stalin and Lenin. It doesn't apply to american democrats, who you're obviously trying to demonize. Let me guess... you heard it on fox news. Where else would you hear it but right-wing media lol.

You do realize the next Democratic nominee for president is going to be left of Karl Marx.  At least that is how the rhetoric goes.  If Obama is as much left as he is spun to be, the next Democratic nominee for president is going to have to be left of Marx.


LOL obama uses all republican ideas from the 80's. Lol You don't even know who marx is. Obama is a moderate Republican. So what s your proof? NOTHING! FOX news told me to say that.

Do I need to bold part of message that gives context for talking?  See my above reply there and the bolden part, to see, where I come from.  If you don't get it, even when bolded, I may have to stop using sarcasm.

It's worth noting he considers Mr. Khan to be a "moderate republican at best".

So even if he gets where your coming from.... that's no gurantee that reply doesn't fit.

My comment was more of political sarcasm pointed at the spin out of the GOP side, an talk radio propping it up, that Liberal is evil, and to be able to get people to stomach their own candidate, the GOP spin side has to make the other side ever increasingly more and more liberal.  I am so tempted to not go here any longer actually, particularly if people don't get it.



Kasz216 on 23 March 2013
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
spaceguy said:
richardhutnik said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
How about the fact that "leftist" shouldn't even be in a 21st century political vocabulary lol. You shouldn't even be saying that word if you don't know how to use it in the proper context.

Leftist refers to Marx, Castro, Chavez, Mao, Stalin and Lenin. It doesn't apply to american democrats, who you're obviously trying to demonize. Let me guess... you heard it on fox news. Where else would you hear it but right-wing media lol.

You do realize the next Democratic nominee for president is going to be left of Karl Marx.  At least that is how the rhetoric goes.  If Obama is as much left as he is spun to be, the next Democratic nominee for president is going to have to be left of Marx.


LOL obama uses all republican ideas from the 80's. Lol You don't even know who marx is. Obama is a moderate Republican. So what s your proof? NOTHING! FOX news told me to say that.

Do I need to bold part of message that gives context for talking?  See my above reply there and the bolden part, to see, where I come from.  If you don't get it, even when bolded, I may have to stop using sarcasm.

It's worth noting he considers Mr. Khan to be a "moderate republican at best".

So even if he gets where your coming from.... that's no gurantee that reply doesn't fit.

My comment was more of political sarcasm pointed at the spin out of the GOP side, an talk radio propping it up, that Liberal is evil, and to be able to get people to stomach their own candidate, the GOP spin side has to make the other side ever increasingly more and more liberal.  I am so tempted to not go here any longer actually, particularly if people don't get it.

No, i got that.  My point is.. he's so far to one side even knowing the context amy not have mattered.



leatherhat on 23 March 2013
spaceguy said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
It's impossible for Social Security to go broke as long as there are more employed americans than retirees. The social security trust fund isn't the utility used to fund SS, it's just additional funds. If you don't know how the program works you should probably just refrain from commenting at all.

Boehner admitted on NBC that there "is no immediate debt crisis." He actually said this. Then he goes and prolongs this pathetic, joke of a republican tactic to generate fear in uneducated americans. The debt crisis isn't an immediate problem, it's a problem but not something that needs to be focused on during the midst of a horrific global economic crisis that will probably last another 6yrs.

Austerity isn't working for the Eurozone. It's OBVIOUSLY not working when you come to the realization that Europe is going into a double dip recession. Germany was better off than other European countries, it didn't experience the same fallout. Using Germany to justify austerity (which is obviously failing) is just stupid. You look like a fool who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Balanced budgets don't meant anything. America has run on deficits for a very long time, the economy actually functions on a small deficit. That is the goal, a small deficit. Nobody is signing any clinton-era "balanced budgets." One balanced budget doesn't do anything if the year after we go back to deficits. That is our reality.

Yeah, so these political threads are pretty sad. It's like fox news threw up in here lol. Good Luck!


I just ignore KASZ because his facts are useless and he uses his power to shield himself. This site is full of people that don't understand Economics at all. I laugh at most of their replies. People of this site are just horribly informed. He always answers back to me and always disagree's and than uses Rush Limbaugh facts to prove his points. Better yet he uses Koch brother research. He has used it alot and I called him on it. However I  get banned for even talking to the guy.

User was banned for this post and several others - Kantor


Whatever your politics Kasz is one of the most informed and thoughtful posters on the subject.



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

BatMaxExposedWorld on 23 March 2013
Kasz216 said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
It's impossible for Social Security to go broke as long as there are more employed americans than retirees. The social security trust fund isn't the utility used to fund SS, it's just additional funds. If you don't know how the program works you should probably just refrain from commenting at all.

Boehner admitted on NBC that there "is no immediate debt crisis." He actually said this. Then he goes and prolongs this pathetic, joke of a republican tactic to generate fear in uneducated americans. The debt crisis isn't an immediate problem, it's a problem but not something that needs to be focused on during the midst of a horrific global economic crisis that will probably last another 6yrs.

Austerity isn't working for the Eurozone. It's OBVIOUSLY not working when you come to the realization that Europe is going into a double dip recession. Germany was better off than other European countries, it didn't experience the same fallout. Using Germany to justify austerity (which is obviously failing) is just stupid. You look like a fool who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Balanced budgets don't meant anything. America has run on deficits for a very long time, the economy actually functions on a small deficit. That is the goal, a small deficit. Nobody is signing any clinton-era "balanced budgets." One balanced budget doesn't do anything if the year after we go back to deficits. That is our reality.

Yeah, so these political threads are pretty sad. It's like fox news threw up in here lol. Good Luck!

1) That's not how the system works, people actually pay in less in a month then they will get when retired.  This can be shown by the fact that Social Security is running a deficit and does rely on the social security trust fund currently.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ops_period.cgi

If you'll notice, Payroll tax contributions are lower then Benefit payments.  (Though the incoming total is higher then the outgoing total, because of interest payments on the governmennt IOUs to itself.)

Net cash flow has been negative since 2009.

Hence why checks will be delayed if we hit the debt ceiling.  They need to wait for the money to come in to pay off the bonds to pay retirees.

 

2) Germany was better off then other Europeon countries largely because of Austerity in the first place.  How in the world would the average person live off of what they pay in  week in social security taxes?

Additionally, you don't seem to know what a double dip recession is.   For there to be a double dip recession, there needs to be... well growth.  Outside Ireland I don't believe any of the austerity countries have had growth yet.  Which is as expected since you have to wind down all the bad debt and economic readjustmenet.

 

3)  No real economists support longterm deficits.   John Maynard Keynes is held up as the main left wing economist and he HATED deficits.   He thought all debt should be temporary, short term and self liquidating.   He just thought that letting bad debt and readjustment of markets was too painful in the short term, and therefore advocated a smalll short term deficit to spread out the pain. 

This is a GREAT example of a completely uninformed user, who literally has no idea what he's talking about. Yet this uninformed person continues to waste my time with quotes and replies based on a complete lack of knowledge on every issue he's discussing lol.

 

You actually claimed that the eurozone had no growth and they AREN'T in a double dip. Welcome to FACTS. Lol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/15/eurozone-double-dip-recession

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/15/eurozone-double-dip-recession-contagion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9679140/Eurozone-in-double-dip-recession-as-it-happened.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/the-eurozone-looks-like-it-is-entering-another-deep-recession/

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-15/economy/35121640_1_euro-zone-euro-zone-economy-contraction

You should take my advice lol. Much like the DOMA issue - when I embarrassed you to the point where you ran from the thread, never to return again.... Don't post unless you know what you're talking about. You don't want me to point out how pathetically stupid the rest of your reply was. Do yourself that favor.

You're not smart enough to get out of this. I know this because I'm smarter than you. I want you to remember this, ok.

: )



Kasz216 on 23 March 2013
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
Kasz216 said:
BatMaxExposedWorld said:
It's impossible for Social Security to go broke as long as there are more employed americans than retirees. The social security trust fund isn't the utility used to fund SS, it's just additional funds. If you don't know how the program works you should probably just refrain from commenting at all.

Boehner admitted on NBC that there "is no immediate debt crisis." He actually said this. Then he goes and prolongs this pathetic, joke of a republican tactic to generate fear in uneducated americans. The debt crisis isn't an immediate problem, it's a problem but not something that needs to be focused on during the midst of a horrific global economic crisis that will probably last another 6yrs.

Austerity isn't working for the Eurozone. It's OBVIOUSLY not working when you come to the realization that Europe is going into a double dip recession. Germany was better off than other European countries, it didn't experience the same fallout. Using Germany to justify austerity (which is obviously failing) is just stupid. You look like a fool who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

Balanced budgets don't meant anything. America has run on deficits for a very long time, the economy actually functions on a small deficit. That is the goal, a small deficit. Nobody is signing any clinton-era "balanced budgets." One balanced budget doesn't do anything if the year after we go back to deficits. That is our reality.

Yeah, so these political threads are pretty sad. It's like fox news threw up in here lol. Good Luck!

1) That's not how the system works, people actually pay in less in a month then they will get when retired.  This can be shown by the fact that Social Security is running a deficit and does rely on the social security trust fund currently.

http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ops_period.cgi

If you'll notice, Payroll tax contributions are lower then Benefit payments.  (Though the incoming total is higher then the outgoing total, because of interest payments on the governmennt IOUs to itself.)

Net cash flow has been negative since 2009.

Hence why checks will be delayed if we hit the debt ceiling.  They need to wait for the money to come in to pay off the bonds to pay retirees.

 

2) Germany was better off then other Europeon countries largely because of Austerity in the first place.  How in the world would the average person live off of what they pay in  week in social security taxes?

Additionally, you don't seem to know what a double dip recession is.   For there to be a double dip recession, there needs to be... well growth.  Outside Ireland I don't believe any of the austerity countries have had growth yet.  Which is as expected since you have to wind down all the bad debt and economic readjustmenet.

 

3)  No real economists support longterm deficits.   John Maynard Keynes is held up as the main left wing economist and he HATED deficits.   He thought all debt should be temporary, short term and self liquidating.   He just thought that letting bad debt and readjustment of markets was too painful in the short term, and therefore advocated a smalll short term deficit to spread out the pain. 

This is a GREAT example of a completely uninformed user, who literally has no idea what he's talking about. Yet this uninformed person continues to waste my time with quotes and replies based on a complete lack of knowledge on every issue he's discussing lol.

 

You actually claimed that the eurozone had no growth and they AREN'T in a double dip. Welcome to FACTS. Lol.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/15/eurozone-double-dip-recession

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/15/eurozone-double-dip-recession-contagion

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9679140/Eurozone-in-double-dip-recession-as-it-happened.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/11/the-eurozone-looks-like-it-is-entering-another-deep-recession/

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-11-15/economy/35121640_1_euro-zone-euro-zone-economy-contraction

You should take my advice lol. Much like the DOMA issue - when I embarrassed you to the point where you ran from the thread, never to return again.... Don't post unless you know what you're talking about. You don't want me to point out how pathetically stupid the rest of your reply was. Do yourself that favor.

You're not smart enough to get out of this. I know this because I'm smarter than you. I want you to remember this, ok.

: )

 

I wouldn't be talking about intellegence when shouting "Hey I'm an alt!" at a Mod.... considering you have 18 posts... none of which are in any DOMA related thread.  If you actually have a legitamite reason for having an alt... I'd suggest mentioning it.  The forum rules are pretty clear on alts and ban dodging.

Outside which... I can't imagine what your talking about, since generally I avoid gay rights threads outside of just generally supporting them.  If you are anti-gay and reponded to me, I probably just didn't even notice honetly.

I mean, maybe you were that crazy guy who didn't think the Don't Ask Don't tell lawsuit didn't set a precedent despite the fact that the appeals court specficially mentioned that it did, and that such precedent was null and void now?   Which... I left because well, you don't get better proof then the judges talking specifically about the precedent it would of set had it been allowed to stay on the books.   Well outside getting a higher up court to judge to say the opposite, but still... as far as random internet arguements go, that's pretty much as high as it gets. 

That said, I do have to admit I was wrong.  

I wasn't thinking about the Eurzone in general and thought you were talking about individual countries undertaking austerity.   As using the Eurzone as a whole is just... well stupid.  

Since the countries that are pulling down the Eurozone GDP further aren't nessisairly the same.  For example the biggest losers to Europeon GDP last quarter were Cyprus and Slovenia.