homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » If Rush limbaugh is so smart (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: If Rush limbaugh is so smart
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 07, 2009 06:22      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____________________ TheMoMan Here __ Lets get away from Economic Policy and look at the true ideals of the Republican Party.

This is not a poll but I am going to open a can of worms. I have have watched many GOP supporters almost preach John Birch WIR (White Is Right) Some even support the KKK, and many think that white supremacy is the way things should be.

When I claim middle of the road, I mean ALL People have the same starting point. Help for the truly needy, No special programs for anyone.

Now on the Economy, lets face it the people that should have known better screwed it up for every one, so lets make the rules so they can't do that again. I worked and saved for thirty two years to have more than a pension and SS to live on, Thanks to the robber Barrons that money is gone. If I get any Income tax returned to me I am thinking of investing in the Big Three, They paid my wages while I worked, and right now they are a true bargain, and maybe I will be helping myself, you know invest in what you know. Those three companies and many other companies are what brought down Germany & Japan. The USA just flat out manufactured the Enemy. In our current state, very few steel mills, most Tool & Die job shops going under. Who could build the weapons of war? Would we have to have the jobs sent over seas to be manufactured?

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 11:10      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

The first major problem is that, like many Limbaugh listeners, you don't know what you are talking about.

Take a look at the graph in the link.

Kennedy reduced top marginal tax rates from 90% to 70%, about a 22% reduction. Reagan reduced top marginal rates from 70% to 28%, about a 60% reduction. That is not "weren't all that different", in fact it is really quite different.

(BTW, Looking at your lack of math skills, I have to challenge your geek credentials, here.)

How different?

Look at those huge Republican tax cuts in the 1920s. Where did they lead us? The Great Depression.

Look at those huge tax rates (70% or greater) from the mid 30s to the 1980s, what happened then? The high rates did not deter growth and innovation. In fact, it could be argued it spurred it on. We won a big war, successfully completed the Manhattan Project, the digital computer was invented, the U.S. Interstate Highway System was built, the transistor was developed, college education was affordable, the jet age revolutionized transportation and diplomacy, satellites revolutionized communication and weather prediction (took GW Bush to ignore it with Katrina), the internet was invented (ARAPNET 1969), Polio was cured, we put a man on the moon. the cell phone was invented, the American auto industry was at its zenith, American industrial growth was at an all time high. We had arguably the best-educated, best-trained workforce in the world -- and it was working. Oh, yeah, and Mister's Jobs and Wozniak gave us the personal computer.

Reagan's tax cuts gave us what? The space shuttle "Challenger" disaster, the S&L crises, and the worst recession since ... The Great Depression.

The economy didn't start growing again until George H.W. Bush broke his promise about reading his lips and new taxes.

But you and your Limbaugh-brand, Kool-Aid drinking friends allowed an all-Republican government to cut taxes again, and what happened? The worst economic depression since ... The Great Depression.

You are correct on one point, Mr. BRAIN-IS-FRIED, the Laffer curve does not take into account human behavior, which makes it a useless model. That is one of many reasons most economists to refer to it as "The Laugher Curve."

You still haven't addressed trickle-down economics. But you have most definitively established that you have very little grasp of the truth.

CP

OK. Insulting someone for not understanding someone whilst you skew the interpretation of data you present is somewhat unfair no? I took a look at the link you presented regarding marginal tax rates going back to 1913. I have some points I want to bring up, and if I am wrong feel free to point out how, I would like to understand this fully.

First I would like to point out that inflation is not taken into account regarding these tax rates. In other words, the marginal tax rate of 77% in 1918 was on income over $1,000,000. That would be equivalent to around $10,500,000 today. I don't think that if Obama, or any administration, raised the marginal tax rate to 70% on money made over 10 million a year there would be much to be upset about.

The largest margin would be around 1969, when money over $200,000 was taxed at a rate of 77%. However, that would be the equivalent of over a million dollars today. Again, if that were what was being proposed I think it would be generally more accepted.

My understanding is the the Obama reset in the marginal tax rate would put it around 40% (39.6%), on families who earn more than $250,000 a year combined yes? That is relatively a much higher tax rate on a lot more people. Comparing $200,000 in 1968 to $200,000 today is faulty at its core, missing that would show your lack of understanding, no?

And for the record, while we did raise the marginal tax rate and lower the amount needed for people to qualify during WWII, it was still a tax on only the richest American's. It did not dip into the middle class, unless you consider people in today's world making $2,500,000 a year middle class. This would be the equivalent of taxing people making $19,500 in 1942 as a FAMILY and including anyone above that point in the marginal tax rate. This has never been done before in our history, at least not anywhere I could find on your chart. Maybe someone should challenge your lack of "geek credentials". You are qualified for the arrogance club, however.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 12:19      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by reign99:
Insulting someone for not understanding someone whilst you skew the interpretation of data you present is somewhat unfair no?

Skewing the interpretation?

How?

CP's posting was a response to Brainisfried's claim that JFK's tax cut was similar to Reagan's.
CP's link correctly shows that JFK's tax cut (from 91% to 70%) was modest in comparison to Reagan's (70% to 28%).

Where's the skewing?

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 14:08      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
_________________ TheMoMan Here __ If Rush limbaugh is so smart, why didn't he run for President, come on, Rush put your money where your mouth is declare you are a candidate or shut up.

This guy is worse than a Monday Morning Quarter back. No experience just a draft dodging coward that got out of the selective service (draft) because he had a pimple on his sitter downer.

Nothing but a naysayer, damn either do something or get out of the way of the people that are doing something.

OK so are you implying that:

A) where all the "smartest" people eventually end up is in government

OR

B) private citizens do not have the right to voice their opinion about anything unless they are willing to run for public office.

Please clarify.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 14:09      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
reign99 wrote:
My understanding is the the Obama reset in the marginal tax rate would put it around 40% (39.6%), on families who earn more than $250,000 a year combined yes?

No.

Your understanding is, in fact, wrong.

Obama is allowing the tax breaks that the Bush adminstration passed to expire on the date that they were scheduled to expire. The expiration date was not Obama's idea. It was put into the tax breaks when they were written the congress that wrote them.

So no, Obama is not resetting the tax rate. It's reverting exactly the way it was designed to.

That is relatively a much higher tax rate on a lot more people.

Actually, no, it's not.

Going from 35% to 39.6% is a 4.6% increase which only applies to the income over $250,000. This means that if you manage to earn $300,000, you'd only pay $2,300 more in taxes since the first $250,000 is taxed at the same rate it was taxed at before the tax cuts expired.

So... 4.6% sounds like a significant amount, but it's not 4.6% of the total income. In point of fact, in the $300,000 example given, it is 0.77% of the total income. Less than 1%.

So go ahead... cry all you want about the poor people making more than $250,000 a year (2% of the population!) ... we don't really care. Someone who makes 240 times as much, if not more, than the 10.6% of the population that live below the poverty level* is not suffering just because they pay a few thousand more in taxes. They're still rich compared to the vast majority of the population.

Hearing your arguments, though... I suspect that you were one of the 11 people who showed up for Joe "OMFG those taxes would affect me if I wasn't such a loser and actually made that much money" the Plumber's book signing.

*from the last census results availble, I'm sure it's higher now that the economy has been destroyed.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 14:22      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by reign99:
Insulting someone for not understanding someone whilst you skew the interpretation of data you present is somewhat unfair no?

Skewing the interpretation?

How?

CP's posting was a response to Brainisfried's claim that JFK's tax cut was similar to Reagan's.
CP's link correctly shows that JFK's tax cut (from 91% to 70%) was modest in comparison to Reagan's (70% to 28%).

Where's the skewing?

"Look at those huge tax rates (70% or greater) from the mid 30s to the 1980s, what happened then? The high rates did not deter growth and innovation. In fact, it could be argued it spurred it on. We won a big war, successfully completed the Manhattan Project, the digital computer was invented, the U.S. Interstate Highway System was built, the transistor was developed, college education was affordable, the jet age revolutionized transportation and diplomacy, satellites revolutionized communication and weather prediction (took GW Bush to ignore it with Katrina), the internet was invented (ARAPNET 1969), Polio was cured, we put a man on the moon. the cell phone was invented, the American auto industry was at its zenith, American industrial growth was at an all time high. We had arguably the best-educated, best-trained workforce in the world -- and it was working. Oh, yeah, and Mister's Jobs and Wozniak gave us the personal computer."

There. Huge marginal tax rates? My point is that he himself doesn't have a very good understanding of something while he was mocking someone else for the same thing. If I make the tax rate 100% but make the income limit six trillion dollars, who did I raise the marginal tax rate on? Raising the actually marginal tax percentage is only a piece of the puzzle, and focusing only on that one piece shows a lack of understanding. Trying to say that a 70% marginal tax rate by itself, while not comparing how many people it effected, was the cause of all of those good things mentioned is distorting the data. Which is skewing. I suppose I could have used a better word, like misrepresent the data, but I think skew still fits OK.

I'm not claiming I am a specialist on taxes, but obviously in this case I did, at the very least, have a better basic grasp then the OP. Unless I'm missing something, which is always possible.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 14:34      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
reign99 wrote:
My understanding is the the Obama reset in the marginal tax rate would put it around 40% (39.6%), on families who earn more than $250,000 a year combined yes?

No.

Your understanding is, in fact, wrong.

Obama is allowing the tax breaks that the Bush adminstration passed to expire on the date that they were scheduled to expire. The expiration date was not Obama's idea. It was put into the tax breaks when they were written the congress that wrote them.

So no, Obama is not resetting the tax rate. It's reverting exactly the way it was designed to.

That is relatively a much higher tax rate on a lot more people.

Actually, no, it's not.

Going from 35% to 39.6% is a 4.6% increase which only applies to the income over $250,000. This means that if you manage to earn $300,000, you'd only pay $2,300 more in taxes since the first $250,000 is taxed at the same rate it was taxed at before the tax cuts expired.

So... 4.6% sounds like a significant amount, but it's not 4.6% of the total income. In point of fact, in the $300,000 example given, it is 0.77% of the total income. Less than 1%.

So go ahead... cry all you want about the poor people making more than $250,000 a year (2% of the population!) ... we don't really care. Someone who makes 240 times as much, if not more, than the 10.6% of the population that live below the poverty level* is not suffering just because they pay a few thousand more in taxes. They're still rich compared to the vast majority of the population.

Hearing your arguments, though... I suspect that you were one of the 11 people who showed up for Joe "OMFG those taxes would affect me if I wasn't such a loser and actually made that much money" the Plumber's book signing.

*from the last census results availble, I'm sure it's higher now that the economy has been destroyed.

Wow, you are grumpy. Yeah I realize he's letting tax cuts expire, which is why I used "reset" instead of "raise". And this is not on "people" making $250,000 a year individually, it's on FAMILIES. Which means it's on people making $125,000 a year, if they both make that much as a husband and wife super hero duo (they don't actually need to be super heroes though).

Oh, and I got the "married couple" thing from the OP's original link, which specifically says at the top:

"The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)"

Now, I don't know how many people in the US make more than $125,000 a year, but it's probably higher than 2%. I know I'm not one of them. Also, how does this effect small business, anyone know?

Apparently I struck a nerve. Didn't mean to upset you so much. I'll try to tone down my crazy "rhetoric" as not to offend your delicate sensibilities. Need time to change your panties between your response and my next post?

I HEART JtP! YAY!

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 15:37      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know how many people in the US make more than $125,000 a year, but it's probably higher than 2%.

You're right... you don't know... and yet you're willing to stand up and prove your ignorance and argue your opinion as if it were factual.

Go do the math with the most recently available data for yourself. 2% was, in fact, the rounded UP figure and it's for households, not individuals.

Are you done making a fool of yourself in public yet?

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 16:19      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:

Are you done making a fool of yourself in public yet?

Probably not...
Posts: 5848 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 16:21      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
I don't know how many people in the US make more than $125,000 a year, but it's probably higher than 2%.

You're right... you don't know... and yet you're willing to stand up and prove your ignorance and argue your opinion as if it were factual.

Go do the math with the most recently available data for yourself. 2% was, in fact, the rounded UP figure and it's for households, not individuals.

Are you done making a fool of yourself in public yet?

Fair enough, however I would like to point out it was you who bellowed at me about "the poor people making over $250,000 a year". If you had said families/households making $250,000 a year prior I would have checked the stats myself. My misunderstanding.

This still takes away from what my original point was anyway, which is that when taking inflation into account comparing all of those early numbers to today like the OP was is ridiculous.

Ed. - Actually I'd be interested in seeing percentage of population affected by the marginal tax rate on a year by year basis on the same chart. I would have to imagine it couldn't have been much higher than 2% ever, but who knows?

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 17:43      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suspect reign99 that it doesn't really matter if we prove you wrong over and over again, that cutting taxes is the right thing to do in very situation is a matter of faith on the right, so reality must be reshaped to fit in with your beliefs. These are the zombie ideas of the right, it matters not how many times they are shown to be false, in how many different ways we disprove them, you will pop up again stating them as fact.

Many years ago when Reagan was running for president, there was a similar political consensus that had existed in most western democracies since WW2 that one of the main aims of government should be to try to create a fairer and more just society with equality of opportunity for all. The success or failure of any government was judged largely on how much this aim had been achieved. He challenged that idea, and said use a bit of common sense, and look at the actual results of some of these policies, how government action is not always the solution to a problem, and sometimes adds to it.

Now however the new orthodoxy is that of the right. You believe with little or no evidence to back that belief up, that the only sound economic policy is to cut tax, and that all government action will fail, that the free market and money are the only effective way of regulating every aspect of society, and government's only aim should be to reduce itself. Now the boot is so firmly on the other foot that it is us that have to say like Reagan, let's use a little common sense, see the actual result of your policies. Did for example slashing red tape release creativity and innovation on Wall Street, or just encourage the greed that has brought us to this financial crisis? It is ironic that Reagan's party, which used to pride itself on being the party of ideas, should have subsided so quickly into a series of narrow dogmas which cannot be questioned. Every movement it is said becomes a business, before degenerating into a racket. That's where the Republicans are now. Sad.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 18:04      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by reign99:
Actually I'd be interested in seeing percentage of population affected by the marginal tax rate on a year by year basis on the same chart. I would have to imagine it couldn't have been much higher than 2% ever, but who knows?

I expect it applied to far more than 2% in 1988, when it kicked in at a mere $29,750.

Oops, sorry, that's looking at numbers from the past, which is 'ridiculous'.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 18:33      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by reign99:
Actually I'd be interested in seeing percentage of population affected by the marginal tax rate on a year by year basis on the same chart. I would have to imagine it couldn't have been much higher than 2% ever, but who knows?

I expect it applied to far more than 2% in 1988, when it kicked in at a mere $29,750.

Oops, sorry, that's looking at numbers from the past, which is 'ridiculous'.

Come on, that was a three year experiment by that site. It certainly wasn't the norm over the rest of the years.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 18:41      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
I suspect reign99 that it doesn't really matter if we prove you wrong over and over again, that cutting taxes is the right thing to do in very situation is a matter of faith on the right, so reality must be reshaped to fit in with your beliefs. These are the zombie ideas of the right, it matters not how many times they are shown to be false, in how many different ways we disprove them, you will pop up again stating them as fact.

Many years ago when Reagan was running for president, there was a similar political consensus that had existed in most western democracies since WW2 that one of the main aims of government should be to try to create a fairer and more just society with equality of opportunity for all. The success or failure of any government was judged largely on how much this aim had been achieved. He challenged that idea, and said use a bit of common sense, and look at the actual results of some of these policies, how government action is not always the solution to a problem, and sometimes adds to it.

Now however the new orthodoxy is that of the right. You believe with little or no evidence to back that belief up, that the only sound economic policy is to cut tax, and that all government action will fail, that the free market and money are the only effective way of regulating every aspect of society, and government's only aim should be to reduce itself. Now the boot is so firmly on the other foot that it is us that have to say like Reagan, let's use a little common sense, see the actual result of your policies. Did for example slashing red tape release creativity and innovation on Wall Street, or just encourage the greed that has brought us to this financial crisis? It is ironic that Reagan's party, which used to pride itself on being the party of ideas, should have subsided so quickly into a series of narrow dogmas which cannot be questioned. Every movement it is said becomes a business, before degenerating into a racket. That's where the Republicans are now. Sad.

Actually, I've admitted when I was wrong as it's been pointed out to me. Also, I stated in my earlier posts when I was unsure of any opinions I had. I did not assert everything as fact as you imply. I however have yet to hear an admission of error regarding the inflationary aspect of the aforementioned numbers, which consequently lead to your all out assault on me.

Regardless, I do not believe the answer to everything is "cut taxes", no more than you (I hope) do not believe the answer to everything is raise taxes. There is always a balance necessary between promoting business growth and paying for necessary services: infrastructure, caring for those who can't care for themselves, public education, etc. Honestly I'm not even 100% sure how my pointing out that the original point being made couldn't be validated by the data presented lead into me being an insane conservative wackjob who likes to hump tax cuts...but it did, and it's awesome.

I actually like the way you presented the Reagan aspect, it makes good sense. Maybe I'm wrong again here, and feel free to correct me if it's the case, but are we not preparing to be at one of our higher government spending as percentage of GDP points in our nations history? I'm not panicking over this, don't get me wrong, just that if it were true I don't think being a teensy bit concerned about government spending is so bad.

I like government for a lot of reasons, one of which is I don't live in some anarchistic dystopia. Then again, too much and we have the 1984 dystopia. So as far as the marginal tax issue goes, I concede it's nothing of note, relative to the past 25 years in particular. I really never had any interest in arguing that point but it was fun.

ed. I actually went and read through some articles after this post. The NY Times had an article (op-ed) recently regarding the percentage of GDP that is governmental spending:
"When Obamatons Respond"

Long story short, 20% to 27%, but they say they will bring it back to 22% in a few years. The arguments they make for a temporary increase make sense, but like I said earlier, it should be our duty as citizens to be wary of such promises and ensure they are fulfilled.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
PropellerHead
Newbie Larva
Member # 23167

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 22:18      Profile for PropellerHead     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
reign99_______
Your posts seem to revere the Reagan years as something wonderful and magical. Were you alive then? If so, were you awake?
Just wondering because I was there and saw it all. Trust me, they were not great years. Reagan paved the way for the new republican conservative party mentality: Illegal wars in far off lands, large scale drug trafficking, lies, deceit, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, ... Yep, Reagan set the example for smirky and snarly to continue the onslaught of global raping and pillaging.
This is nothing to be proud of. Show some dignity and just skulk off to some dark out of the way corner for a few years. People will eventually forget just how bad conservatives are and may once again vote the fox back into the hen house, so to speak. For now, just shut the fsck up and leave us be. The world needs a few years to recover from all the damage the conservative scum have inflicted.

--------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Posts: 7 | From: Fairbanks AK | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 10, 2009 23:31      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
reign99 wrote:
I would like to point out it was you who bellowed at me about "the poor people making over $250,000 a year". If you had said families/households making $250,000 a year prior I would have checked the stats myself. My misunderstanding.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were under the impression that "people" was singular rather than plural and that families and households are made up of something other than "people."

Is English your second language? Third? Forty-seventh?

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 07:23      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PropellerHead:
reign99_______
Your posts seem to revere the Reagan years as something wonderful and magical. Were you alive then? If so, were you awake?
Just wondering because I was there and saw it all. Trust me, they were not great years. Reagan paved the way for the new republican conservative party mentality: Illegal wars in far off lands, large scale drug trafficking, lies, deceit, spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, ... Yep, Reagan set the example for smirky and snarly to continue the onslaught of global raping and pillaging.
This is nothing to be proud of. Show some dignity and just skulk off to some dark out of the way corner for a few years. People will eventually forget just how bad conservatives are and may once again vote the fox back into the hen house, so to speak. For now, just shut the fsck up and leave us be. The world needs a few years to recover from all the damage the conservative scum have inflicted.

Did you even read my posts? I never brought Reagan up. He was brought up multiple times before I ever typed the name once, and that was in response to the idea of what he represented in terms of moderating ideology. I thought it was a good take on it, especially when bringing it forward to today and comparing it back the other way.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 07:26      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
reign99 wrote:
I would like to point out it was you who bellowed at me about "the poor people making over $250,000 a year". If you had said families/households making $250,000 a year prior I would have checked the stats myself. My misunderstanding.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were under the impression that "people" was singular rather than plural and that families and households are made up of something other than "people."

Is English your second language? Third? Forty-seventh?

People could have been plural in a singular sense considering our topic. For instance, it could also have meant multiple single people, which is how I took it to mean. Multiple single people would have been very different than multiple households. Like I said, I misunderstood. I'm glad I was able to clarify the way the English language works for you though.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 09:52      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Plural in a singular sense"

*ROFL*

I do hope you'll continue groping around desperately for an excuse like this. It's marvelously entertaining.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 10:57      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:


"groping around desperately"


I'd appreciate it if you'd leave your sex life out of this debate. At least start a new thread.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 12:34      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's rather commonly known that I'm celibate.

Try again.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 11, 2009 20:25      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
reign99 I apologise for automatically lumping you in with the closed mind ideologically pure right, but sadly those make up the vast majority of right wingers who post in the political threads here.

As far as being worried about the level of spending by the new administration, I understand this, but the exceptional nature of the situation we are in leaves little alternative. Indeed there are many that feel the stimulus package may be too little, too late. I don't want to rehearse the detailed economic arguments over this, mainly because I am not qualified to do so, but if you google "lower interest bound" "Japan's lost decade" or "the Great Depression" or read Paul Krugman's columns and blog in the NYT you will soon get the gist. The bottom line however is that we are in uncharted waters, that the ginormous stimulus package is a very desperate throw of the dice whose chances of success are unknown, and which will have serious adverse consequences when we have to start paying for it, whether or not it works. Even so it is much less dangerous than doing nothing. We are in out of sight of land, indeed we are not sure which direction it is, with no rescue in sight, but the odds of surviving are still better if we swim, rather than treading water.

I've lived and worked through several recessions over the last 40 years, and I have never seen one like this where the economy has hit the floor so very hard and so incredibly fast. I know nobody personally rich or poor who is unaffected this time, which is also exceptional. We are also only at the beginning of the real pain, when the bankruptcies, and unemployment will really gather pace, and the prospect frankly scares me. This time doing nothing and hoping things will right themselves is not an option.

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
reign99
Geek Larva
Member # 28007

Member Rated:
1
Icon 1 posted March 12, 2009 09:13      Profile for reign99     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
reign99 I apologise for automatically lumping you in with the closed mind ideologically pure right, but sadly those make up the vast majority of right wingers who post in the political threads here.

As far as being worried about the level of spending by the new administration, I understand this, but the exceptional nature of the situation we are in leaves little alternative. Indeed there are many that feel the stimulus package may be too little, too late. I don't want to rehearse the detailed economic arguments over this, mainly because I am not qualified to do so, but if you google "lower interest bound" "Japan's lost decade" or "the Great Depression" or read Paul Krugman's columns and blog in the NYT you will soon get the gist. The bottom line however is that we are in uncharted waters, that the ginormous stimulus package is a very desperate throw of the dice whose chances of success are unknown, and which will have serious adverse consequences when we have to start paying for it, whether or not it works. Even so it is much less dangerous than doing nothing. We are in out of sight of land, indeed we are not sure which direction it is, with no rescue in sight, but the odds of surviving are still better if we swim, rather than treading water.

I've lived and worked through several recessions over the last 40 years, and I have never seen one like this where the economy has hit the floor so very hard and so incredibly fast. I know nobody personally rich or poor who is unaffected this time, which is also exceptional. We are also only at the beginning of the real pain, when the bankruptcies, and unemployment will really gather pace, and the prospect frankly scares me. This time doing nothing and hoping things will right themselves is not an option.

I agree with you pretty much across the board there. Obviously you have some good real world experience to draw on here also which grants you wisdom I've yet to acquire. I am recently turned 31, and am learning everyday.

I appreciate what the Obama team is trying to do here, and I hope it helps. However there have been some positive signs at the foundations of the economy, namely in the banks. The fact that American's are once again saving a bit more of their money is good for our economical foundation, and probably helped to lead to some of those posted profits by banks. I'm not an economist, but hey, banks lend money they have on hand (or should be). So I think it goes without saying that more people saving allows for more people borrowing. Given the potential positive developments in the core, I at the least am interested in waiting a month or two more before any further major stimulus is put forth.

What we're experiencing now is not only financial shock but culture shock. People will be having to accept lower standards of living, but I don't think it is cause for absolute panic. We need to take our medicine, and those of us who saw through the facade must be prepared to help those in need, lest we all lose.

In all of this I have been frustrated. I have been a renter for going on eight years, cautiously spending and attempting to save as much as I can for an eventual home purchase down the line. I never spent beyond my means, and as such I have no real debt and a decent savings to draw from in case of emergency (job loss, car failure, etc.). During the past eight or so years, I have had to fight tooth and nail the general consensus that my way was dead, and "buy buy buy" was the new successful mantra. A lot like the grasshopper mocking the ants for the warm seasons only to come to them in the cold months for food and shelter.

I have come to realize however, that that frustration can only be that, an understood frustration. Life is not fair. I was blessed with an understanding of events and was able to avoid a great deal of pain (so far). I should be appreciative of that fact, and understanding of the truth that it is in my best interest to do all I can to keep this ship afloat for all.

Even while I know all of that, it still irks me when I think about it. I suppose that while I am human, which will last for some time I imagine, I won't be immune from those feelings.

I am however, infinitely appreciative of folks like yourself. Your understanding mentioned in earlier posts of the importance of a true two party system is one I wish more people would share. We are the backstops to each other, and regardless of which party at the time is conservative or liberal (as they flip occasionally), having the alternative is the important thing. Being able to say "OK, this has gone to far" is important, be it republican or democrat doing the talking.

Posts: 20 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 14, 2009 21:33      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheMoMan:
I have have watched many GOP supporters almost preach John Birch WIR (White Is Right) Some even support the KKK, and many think that white supremacy is the way things should be.

Actually, I suspect there are fewer true bigots in the Republican party than it seems.

After the big bushfires here last month, there were a couple of weeks of unusual political consensus. Politicians and pundits on both sides expressed their sympathy for the victims, and a determination to "do whatever it takes" to help them rebuild their shattered communities. It was truly refreshing to see the nation united by tragedy, putting aside their petty squabbles, rolling up their sleeves, and getting to work.

Of course, it couldn't last.

Within a couple of weeks, conservative commentators were complaining that the bushfire survivors were stupid, lazy, greedy, ungrateful, and sitting around on their arses "waiting for a handout". Aid to those who'd lost their homes and loved ones in the fires was criticized as "rewarding irresponsible behaviour".

Note: the victims of the fires were mostly white, middle-class aussies, so there's no suggestion of racism here as there was in the USA after the destruction of New Orleans. The fires took place in areas that return conservative politicians to both state and federal parliament, so it's not just a "put the boot into those who support the other team" reflex.

So why criticize those they'd expressed so much sympathy for a couple of weeks earlier?

I suspect it's because, on the hard-right, the urge to 'blame the victim' is so strong, that after two weeks they just couldn't help themselves.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted March 15, 2009 03:45      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
____________________ TheMoMan Here __ Well for some one 31 years old you sure have gall to tell someone more than twice your age that you know more than I.

____ The US tax code is a joke there is no fairness, every thing is slanted to the producers, in the hope that some of the wealth will trickle down. I know what trickles down and it ain't wealth. For thirty two years I saved to have more than my UAW pension and SS to live out my years, well that savings is gone 300K worth so don't try to tell me that the Conservative mantra works I have first hand experience that its gone.

____ These rates that are quoted only apply for those too dumb to not have tax accountants that can show offsetting investments. A few years ago GE ending up selling off tax credits because they didn't need them to get out of taxes. Is that fair to Joe the sweeper that cleans the offices of the bosses?

_____ This country needs a National sales tax on all non-food and Medical costs so every body pays at the same damn rate. Why should someone's house keeper pay a higher percentage than the house holder?

____ Now about Limburger, is he trying to become the Defacto head of the RNC. This man is nothing more than a Bigot. Using all of the fears of The John Birtch Society and the KKK to polarize the public.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5848 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0


homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam