Mainly to our American readers, but other nations feel free to chip in...
Why's Obama dropped so badly in the opinion polls? Aside from not winning the right to host the Olympics (which take it from us Brits, is a financial blessing) and being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for not being Bush, it's hard to see what he's doing wrong on this side of the pond. You guys do want universal free health care right?
Here's the argument. I'm not making it, just saying it
-10.2% unemployment
-Trying to socialize 17% of the US economy
-A nearly $800BN stimulus plan that was nothing more than democratic dream spending and not stimulus
-10.2% unemployment
-TARP money to bail out loser automobile companies
-Obama global apology tour
-Blaming everything on Bush doesn't work after a year. Nut up or shut up.
-10.2% unemployment
-Afghanistan getting worse.
-Farting around for two months IN PUBLIC on new Afghanistan plan.
-10.2% unemployment
-Cap and ship (the jobs to China) program
-Open freaking borders still.
10.2% unemployment
The majority of the country, I believe, wants a decent health care system. The problem is that pollsters and critics get the spotlight cause they are controversial.
The polls they use to judge popularity of a president are just ridiculously inaccurate. Some are as little as 5000 people polled. And most of those are in Washington DC. This country has 300 million poeple living here, roughly half of them voting age. So a poll that asks 5000 people a question, without asking the other 149,995,000, seems pretty skewed. Also, those polling groups have political views, so that might make them prone to asking people of like mind instead of random people. Example; going to a Republican convention and getting opinions on health care reform; the response from that would ovbiously be negative, but the polling group would say this is the "countries view".
And the naysayers, pretty much anyone from Fox news, make the news because they say controversial things. The more controversial, the more people will watch. The more people, the more they can charge for advertisements. In the end, they don't care about the truth; they care only about their bottom line.
Flashman wrote:You guys do want universal free health care right?
Gods no.
Then again, I might be slightly biased as my parents were both doctors(but NOT private practice and my mother works in Insurance now, not pharmacies) and I'm in a medical major.
As for why Obama's losing popularity, the romance and beginning enchantment is gone.
But you can discount my opinion, because I didn't vote(I only vote when there's a candidate or issue I actually care about or feel something about).
Frazzled wrote:Here's the argument. I'm not making it, just saying it
-10.2% unemployment
-Trying to socialize 17% of the US economy
-A nearly $800BN stimulus plan that was nothing more than democratic dream spending and not stimulus
-TARP money to bail out loser automobile companies
-Obama global apology tour
-Blaming everything on Bush doesn't work after a year. Nut up or shut up.
-Afghanistan getting worse.
-Farting around for two months IN PUBLIC on new Afghanistan plan.
-Cap and ship (the jobs to China) program
-Open freaking borders still.
Some of these are a concern still, but some of these items are not Obamas fault.
- $800 bn stimulus - started by Bush and couldnt be stopped.
- 10.2% unemployment - because of greedy real estate developers and banks. This started nearly 2 years ago and the results are just coming to a head. You can't blame him for that. And the Gov did extend emploument benefits to something like 18 months, didnt they?
- The health care reform isnt socialization, its a government run option. An option that you are more them welcome to decline.
I try not to get involved in these types of arguments because I am not a political buff so I don't know all the info. If i'm wrong about a fact (a fact, mind, not an interpretation of an opinion) please let me know.
Frazzled wrote:Here's the argument. I'm not making it, just saying it
-10.2% unemployment
-Trying to socialize 17% of the US economy
-A nearly $800BN stimulus plan that was nothing more than democratic dream spending and not stimulus
-TARP money to bail out loser automobile companies
-Obama global apology tour
-Blaming everything on Bush doesn't work after a year. Nut up or shut up.
-Afghanistan getting worse.
-Farting around for two months IN PUBLIC on new Afghanistan plan.
-Cap and ship (the jobs to China) program
-Open freaking borders still.
Some of these are a concern still, but some of these items are not Obamas fault.
- $800 bn stimulus - started by Bush and couldnt be stopped.
- 10.2% unemployment - because of greedy real estate developers and banks. This started nearly 2 years ago and the results are just coming to a head. You can't blame him for that. And the Gov did extend emploument benefits to something like 18 months, didnt they?
- The health care reform isnt socialization, its a government run option. An option that you are more them welcome to decline.
I try not to get involved in these types of arguments because I am not a political buff so I don't know all the info. If i'm wrong about a fact (a fact, mind, not an interpretation of an opinion) please let me know.
Thats it. The recession was caused by a few people. Everyone else was innnocent. There were no other options beside the above stimulus plan that could have been chosen, right?
-Whats voluntary about a plan that requires you to have it or be fined? That mandates payment rates to doctors? Get real.
They could have done this and done serious good with two days of effort: 1. mandate portability of coverage; 2. coverage cannot fall away based due to catastrophic illness or preexisting condition. 3. elimination of state barriers on competition. 4. set up commissions to look in detail at other health systems in the world and done a detailed, ratio analysis of them to do the best for the cheapest. thats what I thought they were going to do and was going to be supportive of such, like in a big way.
This country has 300 million poeple living here, roughly half of them voting age.
Do you mean the age people commonly vote?
Im not sure what you mean by this, but I was just guessing that at last half of the countries population is over 18 years old. Those people (of voting age) should be asked the question as those are the people who will be voting in the next presidential election (at least I hope they do).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
paulguise wrote:
Some of these are a concern still, but some of these items are not Obamas fault.
- $800 bn stimulus - started by Bush and couldnt be stopped.
- 10.2% unemployment - because of greedy real estate developers and banks. This started nearly 2 years ago and the results are just coming to a head. You can't blame him for that. And the Gov did extend emploument benefits to something like 18 months, didnt they?
- The health care reform isnt socialization, its a government run option. An option that you are more them welcome to decline.
I try not to get involved in these types of arguments because I am not a political buff so I don't know all the info. If i'm wrong about a fact (a fact, mind, not an interpretation of an opinion) please let me know.
You're wrong about both of them.
I had three things listed. Am I wrong about them all or only 2 of them?
It's just that most of what he's done hasn't done to much for the economy (or at least none that can be seen yet) and people are starting to lose faith in the promises he had earlier in his career as president. People were hoping that Obama would be the big american band-aid for the economy and it's not quite turning out that way.
There's always two sides of every argument, and when it deals with politics they are both wrong. Someone is always going to disagree.
This. Everything else is really down to the political position in question, and the degree to which any given person is informed. Unemployment cuts across all demographics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulguise wrote: So a poll that asks 5000 people a question, without asking the other 149,995,000, seems pretty skewed. Also, those polling groups have political views, so that might make them prone to asking people of like mind instead of random people. Example; going to a Republican convention and getting opinions on health care reform; the response from that would ovbiously be negative, but the polling group would say this is the "countries view".
You have a point about sample size, but most (reputable, not network based) polls do a good job of achieving a well distributed sample.
This. Everything else is really down to the political position in question, and the degree to which any given person is informed. Unemployment cuts across all demographics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
paulguise wrote: So a poll that asks 5000 people a question, without asking the other 149,995,000, seems pretty skewed. Also, those polling groups have political views, so that might make them prone to asking people of like mind instead of random people. Example; going to a Republican convention and getting opinions on health care reform; the response from that would ovbiously be negative, but the polling group would say this is the "countries view".
You have a point about sample size, but most (reputable, not network based) polls do a good job of achieving a well distributed sample.
True that. Americans vote on their pocketbooks, and their victories. Bring us neither and you suck.
EDIT: I just realized I said I wasn't going to get into this conversation. Stepping out in case modding is necessary. ARGGHHJH!!!!
paulguise wrote:Im not sure what you mean by this, but I was just guessing that at last half of the countries population is over 18 years old. Those people (of voting age) should be asked the question as those are the people who will be voting in the next presidential election (at least I hope they do).
18 is the legal age to vote in the US. However, only 68% of people of voting age in America are even registered to vote according to the last census. In your average election, only 22% of registered voters between 18-24 vote, as opposed to 63% of registered voters aged 55+. That's not taking into account that 30-40% of registered voters don't vote every election or felons, who lose their right to vote depending on the state.
The Median age of voters in America in the 2008 election was 44 years old. 2008 also had the largest voter turnout in recent years with 61.7%.
Just because someone is of the legal age, doesn't mean they've registered or care enough to find a voting location. And some of us actively abstain for various reasons(such as my "I'm not going to vote for someone I could care less about just for the sake of voting").
For us, Afghanistan has become about how badly our troops are being treated by the current government both whilst they're out there and when they come back. I don't think anybody expects the war itself to be sorted out in the near future, but whether we should be there at all is starting to become an issue.
Thanks for the responses so far. I'm learning stuff, so keep them coming
Maybe because people are starting to realize that treating politics and politicians as a cult worship-worthy object is very silly? That following the words of self-righteous media pundits on supposed pulpits of compassion in proportion to their ratings is downright absurd? Maybe.... just maybe we are all starting to realize the world doesn't run on hopes and dreams and stunningly short sighted rhetoric and nostalgia and that it does in fact run on lobbies, behind the scenes handshaking, reach arounds, and shakedowns?
Maybe... no, no not a chance.
The red and blue kool-aids look very different, but are amazingly similar in taste.
Yes, Obama passed a stimulus bill, and it functioned exactly as stimulus is intended to. The fact that the majority of projects were based on Democratic predisposition is simply a function of the party in charge.
You can claim that it could have been spent more efficiently (though I really doubt it, and not because the bill was particularly efficient), or that stimulus isn't effective in the long run (it isn't meant to be), but claiming that what was done was not stimulus is just wrong.
Frazzled wrote:
Thats it. The recession was caused by a few people. Everyone else was innnocent. There were no other options beside the above stimulus plan that could have been chosen, right?
Are you operating under the notion that the stimulus plan was the cause of, and not the reaction to, the recession?
Frazzled wrote:
3. elimination of state barriers on competition.
You do realize how much havoc that would play with state's rights? There are plenty of national insurance companies, the state barriers are the result of regional statistics, and variation in legal code. That one change (more like many, small changes) would effectively lead to nationalized healthcare anyway as the only regulatory body with any authority would be the federal government. That, or all insurance companies would be forced to comply with the regulations as established by whatever state happened to be the strictest.
paulguise wrote:Im not sure what you mean by this, but I was just guessing that at last half of the countries population is over 18 years old. Those people (of voting age) should be asked the question as those are the people who will be voting in the next presidential election (at least I hope they do).
Ah, okay. It's more like 3/4 of the population that's of voting age, so I guess the estimate threw me off a little. Nevermind, I get what you're saying.
Flashman, the answer is that something like 48% of the population didn't vote for him in the first place. He won by a relative landslide in the electoral college, not necessarily the popular vote. Obama was more wildly popular overseas than in the U.S. to begin with. And as Frazz said, the shine comes off anyone when faced with 10% unemployment. And that pretty much sums it up.
paulguise wrote:Some of these are a concern still, but some of these items are not Obamas fault.
- $800 bn stimulus - started by Bush and couldnt be stopped.
- 10.2% unemployment - because of greedy real estate developers and banks. This started nearly 2 years ago and the results are just coming to a head. You can't blame him for that. And the Gov did extend emploument benefits to something like 18 months, didnt they?
- The health care reform isnt socialization, its a government run option. An option that you are more them welcome to decline.
I try not to get involved in these types of arguments because I am not a political buff so I don't know all the info. If i'm wrong about a fact (a fact, mind, not an interpretation of an opinion) please let me know.
That's the trick. He's the man in the office, he gets the blame. It sucks, but there it is.
The onset of increasing unemployment cannot have possibly been Obama's fault - it can only be a consequence of the background financial climate. Unemployment is even slower to change than the economy - the current situation is a result of what happened 12 months ago. Whether or not more could be done to slow this increase, it would be beyond any president to have turned it around by now. And he only steers the boat - the senate has just as much say in what actually happens. You'd have to be a pretty smug cappy to say otherwise.
However, I can see how increasing disillusion and despair would affect BO's popularity at the moment. It's not like he had any serious opponents in his presidency campaign, and now that the 'black magic' has worn off, we can actually look at this guy sensibly.
Jimmy Carter was voted in because America was still pissed off at the Republicans (i.e. Nixon) but never got the chance to kick him out.
He waffled around and did alot of window dressing and great ideals speeches.
He then got kicked out after 1 term because the US realised he was pretty innefectual.
The reason I don't think you will see Obama voted out...
The media (except Fox) still see him as the dream child of the modern era who with great dreams and great ideals will lead all Americans to a utopian future. And they just won't attack him.
The republicans will have to find a doozy of a candidate. Palin = no, 40 year old governor/senator/congressman with nice family who is in fact currently having an affair with a campaign advisor/doing ice/corrupt = no. Which doesn't leave many left.
For me Juliani, if the republicans sucked it up and accepted him would be just the right candidate, great with independents, great with liberals, proven record in governance.
*facepalm*
Ive been saying that for ALMOST a year now lol. The man really IS a great politician and really does care for this country. Hopefully he gets seen for this by the next election, and he becomes the next president.
Also the reason I think most people dont like Obama as much now, is they ARE realizing that yes he IS the first "black" president, but uh.... what else has he done? That and everytime I hear him speak, he annoys me, his voice literally gets on my nerves lol
Ron Paul has also visited Alex Jones... I mean really though, that is about all I need to know. People change and whatnot, but Ron Paul, is simply not presidential material.
Americans are (in general) selfish and impatient. We've no tolerance for actually having to invest time and effort.
10% unemployment is a joke. Its much higher - but the people who aren't drawing unemployment or stopped looking for jobs in the last 90 days don't count to that number.
Having not really accepted that part of Obama's speech
President Barack Obama wrote:
...the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.
Nobody really *wants* to man up and take the time to get this fixed.
We were voraciously greedy for decades and our favored children (born and raised in these fat times) are running our country grasping at every moment of power as they fail to comprehend that they are themselves the cause of our failure. America is a geriocracy by default with the *average* age of our leaders pushing 60 (56 in the House, 61.7 in the Senate) - the oldest being 97. Perhaps this is part of our difficulty in adapting to changes we can see we need, yet have no desire to give up our current comforts to pay for them.
If we don't invest the patience we won't yield results.
Oldgrue wrote:Americans are (in general) selfish and impatient. We've no tolerance for actually having to invest time and effort.
Hyperbole.
10% unemployment is a joke. Its much higher - but the people who aren't drawing unemployment or stopped looking for jobs in the last 90 days don't count to that number.
Given various factors, I would call it out at 12% flat, with a possibility of 15%. But... I do live in California...
Having not really accepted that part of Obama's speech
President Barack Obama wrote:
...the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time.
Nobody really *wants* to man up and take the time to get this fixed.
We were voraciously greedy for decades and our favored children (born and raised in these fat times) are running our country grasping at every moment of power as they fail to comprehend that they are themselves the cause of our failure. America is a geriocracy by default with the *average* age of our leaders pushing 60 (56 in the House, 61.7 in the Senate) - the oldest being 97. Perhaps this is part of our difficulty in adapting to changes we can see we need, yet have no desire to give up our current comforts to pay for them.
If we don't invest the patience we won't yield results.
If you really think that the majority of U.S. citizens (arguable the majority of our illegals as well) don't know the meaning of hard work... you are clearly, and sorely mistaken. Problems in the system, tend to collect in very specific places, particularly in management, which in total, comprise the minority of our overall work force. People have been overworked for years, and overall, they are getting fed up with being behind the pay curve. Work get paid well? You are in the minority there, along with the rest of the various forms of being a U.S. citizen, of the minority.
I do think it's a bit immature to blame Bush or even Obama (ah crap, now I'm defending the guy) for the current economic situation. Iraq war did not help but this country has been declining economically since even before Bush Sr.
We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.
So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.
We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.
Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.
So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.
You do realize the bank bailouts were directly related to keeping the economy from totally collapsing right? Or do you think that the consumer economic model you hate so much would survive having peoples ATMs empty?
As for the rest of it, would you like to explain why? Why was the stimulous a joke? How can you blame him for paying attention to a resurgent taliban in afghanistan?
This is a perfect example of why the opinion polls are low. Americans by in large are undereducated, reactionary, and expect immediate results for longterm problems. Obama rode in on a high wave of enthusiasm, and while he's done a fairly good job so far he hasn't fixed the entire world yet in his first year. Did you ever see the video of the fat guy that had to wait to get his chicken sandwich in macdonalds? He started shouting, cussing, screaming, and repeatedly mentioning that he wanted his chicken. It was a funny video, he made quite a scene.
Thats America. The impatient, self entitled, fat dude. Except the video isn't as funny.
Are Americans willing to work hard? I'm starting to question it more. We're really spoiled, and do look like the land of plenty relative to a *lot* of places.
I percieve that we're very reluctant to sacrifice on the short term for a long term gain. Immediate gratification is practically part of the cultural identity. Its nearly deified in out gadgets, music, and entertainment. Its a hard addiction to break.
I'll confess to the luxury of a perverse position in our economy - a highschool dropout earning more than the Maryland median household income performing a skilled white collar job function (telecommunications infrastructure). Dakkaites seem relatively affluent in general though. My co workers are like everyone else - they want more luxuries and to expend less to do so. They are also between ten and thirty years older than I am. (This says so much about phone companies!)
I am unconvinced that Management is the parent of our issues, as my union experience suggests that the Union is as intractable in its proclaimed defense of 'the proletariat'. I continue to suspect our people are still generally fat dumb and happy, and content to fight over the scraps of a few hours of work kept in their pocket rather than contributing to the society at large. (I'm also a fan of flat taxes, but that's neither here nor there.) The perception that a day's wage might go to someone else is anathema to us culturally when we do not see immediate returns. "What's in it for me?" compounds with a cultural distrust of government.
Our young have heard promises of wealth in x job for so long we've lost sight that some experience is critical to that goal. We want it all. Now. We want a 'pay curve' to reflect our self image rather than effort. I doubt anyone gets paid what they think they're worth.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.
He's sounding like someone who thinks that the rubbish being made these days in the third world and China that lasts a couple of years (if lucky) then falls apart, so you can buy more rubbish quality replacements is pretty lame.
The loss of the ability to make something that works and lasts for ages is almost lost, however the fast pace of technological change, especially in electronics makes it not feasable.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Is Germany also an impatient, self entitled, fat dude?
Apparently the U.S. is full of people that are fatter, more impatient, and more self entitled, than ANY OTHER NATION.
What a freaking crock; at what point does asking for a goddam well made meal, become unalterably evil?
This is fail, fething fething fail, laced with apathy and lack of patience. Fat man asks for a burger well done, and the U.S. is ending? Take your goddam medication.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Apparently the U.S. is full of people that are fatter, more impatient, and more self entitled, than ANY OTHER NATION.
We don't have to be the fattest, most impatient, and self-entitled nation to be a fat, impatient, and self-entitled nation.
I may not be particularly fat, but I'm certainly impatient, and frequently catch myself behaving in a way which indicates a sense of entitlement (its almost required by expectation when trying to crack an industry).
That said, this isn't a condition limited to those seeking employment. Most corporations that I have experience with tend to be exceedingly risk-averse with respect to hiring. That's why you get 'entry level' positions that require 5 years of industry experience, and internships that require the intern to pay for his time at the office.
We don't have to be the fattest, most impatient, and self-entitled nation to be a fat, impatient, and self-entitled nation.
To be considered substantially more than others... yes, yes we do indeed.
I may not be particularly fat, but I'm certainly impatient, and frequently catch myself behaving in a way which indicates a sense of entitlement (its almost required by expectation when trying to crack an industry).
Anecdotal, good times at Taco Bell though Eh? To be clear, we should separate the difference, clearly, from tacos, and recreated markets.
That said, this isn't a condition limited to those seeking employment. Most corporations that I have experience with tend to be exceedingly risk-averse with respect to hiring. That's why you get 'entry level' positions that require 5 years of industry experience, and internships that require the intern to pay for his time at the office.
We are a country of disposables. For those who can afford it (or who can't) everything is disposable. Buy a new car and in 2 or 3 years when something goes wrong you buy another instead of fixing the old because nobody wants a 3yo car (facepalm). Buy new furniture and replace it in 2-3 years (or sooner depending on kids/pets). Buy new clothes and in 6-9 months Hollywood and fashion mags say they are out of style so buy new and throw out the old. Cell phones are for the most part a dime a dozen. I know people who go through 3 or 4 cell phones a year, either due to being careless or just wanting the next newest thing. My ex gf was like that. She went through 4 cell phones in 6 months.
Yes, thats how the consumer economic model works. Thats what MAKES it work. You should probably take a few macro econ classes before you begin to tear down the concept of disposable consumption, you're sounding pretty damn communist right there.
So as much as it sickens me to do so I don't blame Obama for the economic situation. I do blame him for worrying about a socialist health care policy, war in Afghanistan and bank bailouts and making those priorities OVER helping the economy. The stimulus plan was a joke.
You do realize the bank bailouts were directly related to keeping the economy from totally collapsing right? Or do you think that the consumer economic model you hate so much would survive having peoples ATMs empty?
As for the rest of it, would you like to explain why? Why was the stimulous a joke? How can you blame him for paying attention to a resurgent taliban in afghanistan?
This is a perfect example of why the opinion polls are low. Americans by in large are undereducated, reactionary, and expect immediate results for longterm problems. Obama rode in on a high wave of enthusiasm, and while he's done a fairly good job so far he hasn't fixed the entire world yet in his first year. Did you ever see the video of the fat guy that had to wait to get his chicken sandwich in macdonalds? He started shouting, cussing, screaming, and repeatedly mentioning that he wanted his chicken. It was a funny video, he made quite a scene.
Thats America. The impatient, self entitled, fat dude. Except the video isn't as funny.
Way to miss the fething point. The economic model is fethed up if it means waste. The rest of the world gets along just fine and I bet they are less wasteful than we are. It does not take someone buying 6 cell phones per year to make the economy grow. 20 years ago people hung onto luxuries for more than 3-4 months because they weren't easy to get and the economy did not suffer. The cell phone equivalent 20 years ago was probably the boom box. I don't recall any of my friends going through 6 boom boxes in one year.
I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.
As to saying that stuff made now lasts 2-3 years at most being the reason people replace it 2-3 years is putting words in my mouth. In no way, shape or form did I say gak lasts only 2-3 years so it is replaced that often. It is replaced that often because we as a society are wasteful and don't give a gak and just want the latest and newest technologies. My computer is 6 years old, my car is 11 years old, my stereo is 15 years old and you know what? They still work and I have no desire to replace them just yet. Well, computer is the first of those things to get replaced because for me a 6yo computer does not do what I want it to do but it's going to my father who CAN use it so it's not being entirely wasted.
So to some I may appear to be an uneducated dumbass Minnesota hick but if being smart means having a degree in economics or poli-science or some other such BS field of study than you go on thinking you are smarter than me. You might know the ins and outs of American spending habits but you are also the moron who has to pay some guy $80/hour to fix your car when I can do all the work myself and just have to pay for parts. You pay $500 in labor to replace a transmission. I pay $0. So who's the dumbass now? LOL.
For the last time nobody who is out of a job and being forced to live on welfare gives a damn about resurgence of taliban in Afghanistan. That is why Obama is unpopular. He is focusing on the wrong stuff. Fix the damn country first.
Follow along so I don't have to repeat myself. A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY CARED MORE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY THAN PLEASING THE U.N OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN ENTITY WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM WITHIN OUR BORDERS, NOT WITHOUT. I capitalized it so you can read.
So again, nice attack on my character and painting me as a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Anecdotal, good times at Taco Bell though Eh? To be clear, we should separate the difference, clearly, from tacos, and recreated markets.
Of course its anecdotal, I'm not attempting to prove anything. I'm simply making an observation based on my lifelong interaction with US culture.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'recreated markets' part.
Wrexasaur wrote:
So all corporate positions affiliated with perpetuating such a demeanor, as to present the obvious circumstances that can be directly attributed to the U.S.'s neck biting attitude, along with our burger snuggling sub-conscious? Sure... why not.
I am not a Vampire, I am a freaking Goliath, who happens to snack on your blood... occasionally. Just on occasion though. I concur too.
You can't simply look at it as a matter of corporation vs. people though. It isn't as though people join an HR department and become Morlocks. They're still human, and they still interact with, and help to define, the culture in which they live.
Fateweaver wrote:Follow along so I don't have to repeat myself. A PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY CARED MORE ABOUT THIS COUNTRY THAN PLEASING THE U.N OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN ENTITY WOULD FIX THE PROBLEM WITHIN OUR BORDERS, NOT WITHOUT. I capitalized it so you can read.
Okay, the majority of the things you mentioned, are simply not wasted. In fact, we are in an age of recycling, that has never been seen before. You might be able to present some sort of fact, addressing that we are producing a larger portion of goods per capita, but that has little reflection the fact that we are also, recycling more than ever before.
Give Wrex a bulldozer, a crew, and a dump. You get stuff... now think about that in the perspective that you are approaching this from. I, and a considerably small crew, can create goods, and services out of refuse; beyond any rational rate expected in the last 50 years.
dogma wrote:
Not even in that instance. We simply need to be fatter, more impatient, and more self-entitled than 51% of the nations on the planet.
!/3 to Dogma, I win. I won't even go into disputing evidence.
Wrexasaur wrote: So all corporate positions affiliated with perpetuating such a demeanor, as to present the obvious circumstances that can be directly attributed to the U.S.'s neck biting attitude, along with our burger snuggling sub-conscious? Sure... why not.
I am not a Vampire, I am a freaking Goliath, who happens to snack on your blood... occasionally. Just on occasion though. I concur too.
You can't simply look at it as a matter of corporation vs. people though. It isn't as though people join an HR department and become Morlocks. They're still human, and they still interact with, and help to define, the culture in which they live.
You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level. Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less. If it happens to matter to me that I was not affected by strange and realistically moral decisions, but my neighbors, and family were... who gives a damn though, who really freaking cares?
Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.
It is waste when you don't use something for it's full life. Just because you can recycle a cell phone (and think about how many people actually take an old cell phone in to get recycled, rather than just throwing it in the garbage) does not mean a person needs a new one just because they get bored with it or whatnot.
Waste is waste, it doesn't matter if it CAN be recycled. Question is, are people recycling? Some due but I'm sure most don't. What happens if you get pissed at your cell phone and throw it out your car window at 65? It's not going to get recycled laying in 100 pieces alongside the interstate or highway, now is it?
Fateweaver wrote:It is waste when you don't use something for it's full life. Just because you can recycle a cell phone (and think about how many people actually take an old cell phone in to get recycled, rather than just throwing it in the garbage) does not mean a person needs a new one just because they get bored with it or whatnot.
Waste is waste, it doesn't matter if it CAN be recycled. Question is, are people recycling? Some due but I'm sure most don't. What happens if you get pissed at your cell phone and throw it out your car window at 65? It's not going to get recycled laying in 100 pieces alongside the interstate or highway, now is it?
The answer is yes, they are, and we (along with the rest of the world) have created entirely new practical economies in china, due to that simple fact. If you do not recycle it, you are a minor contributor to the problem facing the entire planet, and they are the savior... I am seriously not going to have this conversation though...
Fateweaver wrote:
I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.
Its not because any given person might have an economics degree, its because that's how the economy works. If everyone buys less, then everyone also earns less. At least until the entire economy readjusts downwards in order to account for the upsurge in poverty. At which point everyone is still probably earning less in gross terms, but might be earning the same amount in terms of purchasing power (unlikely, due to global demand curves).
Fateweaver wrote:
For the last time nobody who is out of a job and being forced to live on welfare gives a damn about resurgence of taliban in Afghanistan. That is why Obama is unpopular. He is focusing on the wrong stuff. Fix the damn country first.
It doesn't work that way. Unless you want Obama to start spending more money on stimulus/tax cuts, there simply isn't anything to be done beyond wait.
Fateweaver wrote:
So again, nice attack on my character and painting me as a moron who doesn't know what I'm talking about.
He didn't say you're a moron, he said you don't know what you're talking about. These are distinctly different criticisms. In fact you admitted to the latter one earlier in that post. Its not the end of the world. It isn't like you can't do some research, and learn something.
It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.
Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.
By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?
!/3 to Dogma, I win. I won't even go into disputing evidence.
To be perfectly accurate the comparison to other nations isn't necessarily relevant. All that needs to be established is that people in the US exhibit the traits of impatient, and self-entitlement, and that those traits individually, or in combination, contribute to the issues faced by our country.
Wrexasaur wrote:
You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level.
The morality, or personal judgment, of the matter is irrelevant. Even if you have no attachment to another human, they are still human and will behave as such. The fact that humans don't identify with those other humans who exist outside a certain perceptual radius is simply a trait exhibited by the species.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less.
They exist to make money. The government exists to restrain that instinct in those instances where it isn't held in check by internal forces.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.
I mean, the government cares, at least to the extent that living conditions are relevant to national power and stability (which turns out to be quite a lot). They certainly don't care about any given person, but that's not their role.
Fateweaver wrote:It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.
Regardless of the fact that this information should have been provided to you, via your eduational insititution, I agree on an even plane with you. Being able to exist in this plane, without having to submit to rather circumstantial evidence, is very relevant to both of our federal rights.
Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.
Period, and exlamation point, because, it freaking is. SOME people waste, most do not. If we could actually understand on a universal level, the kind of impact these decisions were having on use, most of these decisions being made, would not be made. People may be selfish, and practically evil to me, bu that cannot change the fact that we are in this whole giant boat, together.
By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?
By your logic, we are simply contributing to natural selection. This is the main reason that I have a problem with that obtuse attack. I, and you, are both fighting through this together, and if you do not believe me (along with the large commodity of participants you have), I hope you have the nightmare I have... and soon.
Me... you... and a freaking asteroid... who the feth wins?
Being wasteful is generally not a good thing. If someone is wasting their money, it means someone has produced a good/service that is being wasted. It would have been better for the person wasting their money to have spent it on something else, or to have not spent it on anything.
If everyone decides not to spend much money, they won't work as much either, and thus won't get as much money. Naturally, this is because there's little sense in working hard to produce a bunch of things that people don't really want to buy. A bad thing if you want everyone to have a lot of stuff (that they would buy with money), but not necessarily a bad thing if they'd rather kick back and relax with less stuff.
Alternatively, people could purchase just as much as they always do, and work just as much as they always have, and simply put more thought into their purchases (keeping some older stuff that still has value, etc), thus getting more utility out of the money they're spending. That's pretty much an upward move in any sense, but then you have to ask yourself "why are people wasting their money on new phones, when they could be buying stuff that's more useful to them?" It could be for multiple reasons, but one of them may simply be "they're not wasting their money, new phones really are what they desire".
Fateweaver wrote:It's not like you can't stop painting with me a broad paintbrush dogma. You like to attack my character as well. I have no desire to learn how economy works.
I'm not attacking your character now. I may have in the past, but I certainly don't remember doing so. I think you're confusing character with comments.
Fateweaver wrote:
Again, America did fine 20 years ago being a lot less wasteful than it is now so tell me again how buying 15 cellphones a year helps America. All I see it doing is helping the Chinese or Taiwanese or Japanese economies.
The phones are made abroad, but sold here. Every single person that's involved in the sales chain from the coast to the local Verizon is part of the US economy, and every cell phone purchased ensures they have jobs.
Also, 15 cell phones is hyperbole. Most people do not buy 15 cell phones in a year. Most people do not buy 4 cell phones in a year.
Fateweaver wrote:
By your logic I shouldn't learn how to fix my car because paying some grease monkey $500 for 6 hours of labor is beneficial to me in the long run. That's essentially what I'd do if I bought 6 cell phones a year. Giving someone a job?
If learning to fix your car is economically beneficial to you, then you should learn to fix your car. It wouldn't be economically beneficial to me, because the time spent learning to fix a car could be spent studying to pass something like a CPA exam, which would net me more money in the long run than doing my own car repairs.
Since we're playing hyperbole: If what we're chasing is material efficiency (there's also temporal efficiency) we should all live in huts, and hunt our own food. Next to no waste! I guess the last 8,000 years of human history were a mistake.
dogma wrote:To be perfectly accurate the comparison to other nations isn't necessarily relevant. All that needs to be established is that people in the US exhibit the traits of impatient, and self-entitlement, and that those traits individually, or in combination, contribute to the issues faced by our country.
That is all mate .
Wrexasaur wrote:
You are as human as I identify with you. No more, and no less. You are a rock, in a pile of rocks, and you mean diddly squat to me on a personal/moral level.
The morality, or personal judgment, of the matter is irrelevant. Even if you have no attachment to another human, they are still human and will behave as such. The fact that humans don't identify with those other humans who exist outside a certain perceptual radius is simply a trait exhibited by the species.
(editing messed this post up...)So... Cat lady doesn't care about anything but cats? How is that irrelevant, in a time where mass scamming is taking place? I am not trying to hyperbolize this, just add a bit of balance into the mix.... FFS... .
Wrexasaur wrote:
Yeah anyway though. Large companies exist to drain from people, no more, and no more goddam less.
They exist to make money. The government exists to restrain that instinct in those instances where it isn't held in check by internal forces.
Blood... money, who the feth can tell the difference? The government exists for a lot of reasons, none of which maintain inherent monopoly on said restraint. To be sure though, you do have a literal response to this, I am sure.
Wrexasaur wrote:
Not that company, probably not that government, even they both try very hard to appear to do so. Very hard.
I mean, the government cares, at least to the extent that living conditions are relevant to national power and stability (which turns out to be quite a lot). They certainly don't care about any given person, but that's not their role.
The government cares as long as it behaves as it should. Recently however, I could heavily debate that, but... I frankly do not care about anything besides my personal life right now... Is this circumstance? Fething no, at all, in any division, in any reality, no. I could blame this on a lot of things; but mainly, I would blaim my personal situation, directly on the government, due to incompetence in both administrations.
You can call me a statistic, I would prefer, to be called a non-partisan observer.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Alternatively, people could purchase just as much as they always do, and work just as much as they always have, and simply put more thought into their purchases (keeping some older stuff that still has value, etc), thus getting more utility out of the money they're spending. That's pretty much an upward move in any sense, but then you have to ask yourself "why are people wasting their money on new phones, when they could be buying stuff that's more useful to them?" It could be for multiple reasons, but one of them may simply be "they're not wasting their money, new phones really are what they desire".
This.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
So... Cat lady doesn't care about anything but cats? How is that irrelevant, in a time where mass scamming is taking place? I am not trying to hyperbolize this, just add a bit of balance into the mix.... FFS... .
The fact that she only cares about cats doesn't change the fact that something she doesn't care about is still a human, nor does it eliminate her humanity. Its not relevant because we were talking about human behavior in the American economy. At least that's what I thought we were talking about?
dogma wrote:The fact that she only cares about cats doesn't change the fact that something she doesn't care about is still a human, nor does it eliminate her humanity. Its not relevant because we were talking about human behavior in the American economy. At least that's what I thought we were talking about?
Yes we are, indeed.
The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?
You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.
Disposing of waste costs money. If we produced 1/5th the waste we do that would reduce cost to dispose of waste by an equal amount (in theory) thereby cutting spending.
I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).
Fateweaver wrote:You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.
Disposing of waste does cost money, but overall it costs potential investment. You know who is winning this fight? China is, fething period.
Beyond this, and to cut through the minor hyperbole, I would be surprised if even 1/10 (rather 1/100) threw out their new phones multiple times a year. Some people do, most people do not. Give me a fething job, recycling this snap already...
I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).
You and those other thousands of people buddy, hundreds of thousands of people... but yes, we suck, and we should just suck it up.
But no, that is not how "free enterprise" works. If you fail, you fail hard, and enjoy your plummeting BTW.
Wrexasaur wrote:
The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?
Meaning. I'm using the word 'human' to indicate the species. The colloquial usage tends to be more akin to a moral imperative: ie. people who engage in activity X are not human simply means that humans should not engage in activity X. The colloquial meaning varies, but the technical meaning doesn't (except in really abstract discussion of genetics).
Wrexasaur wrote: The fact remains that the definition of human slides quite a bit, given various perspectives, and contextual evidence. You call it a banana, I call it a dozen wasted lives, what exactly is the difference there? A border?
Meaning. I'm using the word 'human' to indicate the species. The colloquial usage tends to be more akin to a moral imperative: ie. people who engage in activity X are not human simply means that humans should not engage in activity X. The colloquial meaning varies, but the technical meaning doesn't (except in really abstract discussion of genetics).
Okay, two directions at once, let's do this...
Opt A.) Humans are humans, and humans are not but humans, when being viewed through the eyes of other humans.
Opt B.) Humans are just animals competing, through various means, to the exact same goals that other living being are; involving, of course, domination, and self-replication.
To be fair though, I do not blame the people responsible for any of the problems that I face (note that I did not mention a mountain, I mentioned people), I just replace the lack of proper relevance they place upon me, directly unto them. They are rocks, as I am a rock, in this pile of rocks, and the fact that they are higher in that pile of rock; speaks only to the assumption that they play a greater role in falling faster, and potentially farther.
But a rock to a rock, is not more than a human makes it.
To be clear, specify the specific type of human (unless you are directly inferring that all human is equal, disregarding common stereotypes) you are indicating, or are you referring the the species as that of a dog. I am. We are dogs, but you (not dogma) can react however you like to that statement. I am a goddam banana, and I have a fething apple pie grenade, welcome to hell... diggity dog.
Wrexasaur wrote:
But a rock to a rock, is not more than a human makes it.
Essentially, yeah. Humans play a lot of games to differentiate themselves from one another, and often that gets confused with the physical (and behavioral) similarities we all share.
dogma wrote:Essentially, yeah. Humans play a lot of games to differentiate themselves from one another, and often that gets confused with the physical (and behavioral) similarities we all share.
Humans do play a lot of games, and they exponentially succeed at no longer being human, reconciling the historical differences (contextual), of course.
We play so many games in fact, that it is hard to tell what is actually true. If we can define what we are directly through science, why is it so hard to implement the understanding "universally". Meh... I don't really want to know....
I'm uneducated in the fact I don't get into economics or politics or ass kissing of immigrants and the organizations that do. My education lies in knowing how to fix a car, build a computer from the ground up and firearms and military tactics. My education may not be as glamorous as some of you soapbox speakers who think because you have an economics degree you somehow can justify that America being wasteful is alright.
Don't worry, I read down the rest of the thread before posting this. I really just have one thing to say in this instance though. If you don't know what you're talking about. If you have no education in the field, and if you don't even want to because it's somehow offensive to you, despite you not knowing what it is thats offensive, then don't ever speak about it. Because you don't know anything about what you're saying. Do you want me telling you how to fix your car? No? Then stop posting about the economy, because you have no good advice to give. It's likely why half of your posts are hyperbole ridden rants when anything about obama or the economy shows up.
You see economic growth, I see waste. We won't change our views on that. Someone buying a new cell phone every time Apple or Samsung or someone else comes out with a better one JUST to have the better one might contribute to the economy but they are also creating more waste meaning more cost to dispose of waste.
Waste disposal is such a ludicrously small margin of of the economic issue that it's not even worth talking about. If you want to talk about waste as in the aggregate use of natural resources then fine. We're using up a lot of oil and lithium very quickly, but the cellphone market is hardly a commanding part of that, and it's hardly difficult to recycle and dispose of circuit boards and some metals.
I didn't actually get a degree in computer building OR car repair, I learned over a period of 20 years watching my dad and bro work on cars, learned computer repair and building from a buddy of mine who owns a computer repair/custom build shop. I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years. It is just beneficial to me right now knowing how to do most simple car work (though transmission isn't exactly simple but I can do it).
I have a new media degree, meaning I can basically tell you the social ramifications of youtube and how it works. I'm going for a more advanced version of it so I can tell you how facebook works and how it will effect your ad campaigns. I'm getting a digital arts minor so I can make your website, your advertisement, shoot your video, and then know where on the internet to put it for maximum effect because It's good to have multiple interlacing skills.
I learned about economics by taking one class, reading an hour of the news every day, and reading a few books. Its not hard to learn things, economics are not particularly complicated, they are by in large a science of simple observation. Don't play ignorance if you want to shout your opinions from a pulpit, it's not hard to learn these things and they are valuable to know.
You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract. Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt. Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take. You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract. Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt. Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take. You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....
Of course we waste more than any other country, we have something close to the population and GDP output of the european union. However our economy is far from abstract, while we lack the incredible industrial output of china we still produce a significant amount of physical goods by comparison to other western countries. However production of physical goods are not all that exist. We pioneer and sell a vast amount of technology throughout the word, we are the leaders in every form of entertainment and production software by a massive margin, we are hugely dominant in virtually every other form of entertainment industry as well. On top of all that we are the planets breadbasket. We produce more food and export more food than any other nation on earth by a significant margin. The view that "Oh we don't make very many shirts any more" and "We just throw away the things we buy" is such a limited and inaccurate view of the modern globalized economic model that it's not worth interacting with. Pure production economies are not particularly well protected from economic downturns as Germany or perhaps more important Japan showed us recently. The reason we are starting to fail (though it's true that it's been occurring for a lengthy period of time) is firstly uninforced "free trade" agreements with countries like china and Taiwan which are in aggregate losing us money overtime through the trade deficit, however a nation can run trade deficits and still grow so long as it's internal economic model is sufficient to support such a thing (as Americas should be). By in large our problem isn't outsourcing to developing nations, it's a developed nation, China, artificially maintaining the low value of it's currency, thus (questionably at the cost of it's own peoples wellbeing, though the concept of providing more jobs vs providing better paying jobs is a conversation in itself) promoting itself as the worlds greatest material goods exporter on the planet. We can not produce things in competition with a developed nation like china when it is willing to keep it's own people poorer in order to ensure the continued growth of it's production economy, the idea that Americans simply produce "better" goods is wrong. Our high quality goods then need to compete with a significant number of other developed nations that specialize in the same thing (Cars in America, Japan, And Germany for example) and they need to be able to do it more cheaply than the competition, the efficiency of which is something Americans have seemingly forgotten how to manage (though the collapse is actually bringing a lot of that back as Ford and Microsoft are showing).
We are not going to "cure" our economy until china stops holding its currency. However they are not going to stop buying ours until they have no other choice, when they do their own will begin to rise and we wont be there to buy their goods any more. It's a symbiotic relationship right now, they are just at the advantage. To advocate "Buy American" is to go towards trade protectionism, which while helpful sometimes is a very, very, dangerous road, as the perception of protectionism by the most powerful economy on earth abroad will cause all it's competitors to do the same. Which is a race to the bottom.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract.
Well, you can deny it, because waste is hardly an easily defined concept. Are you claiming that waste is anything that is thrown away, or that waste is anything that is thrown away unnecessarily?
Incidentally, if its the former, Canada produces the most waste in the world. If its the latter, defined by household waste, Denmark produces the most.
As for an abstract economy, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the way our financial system works, or the fact that we rely on service industries?
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt.
The fact that we don't export on balance with imports has more to do with the lack of global demand, in concert with high domestic production costs, than anything else. As demand rises abroad, and the cost to manufacture decreases domestically (most likely through improved manufacturing techniques), our net exports should increase. If they don't it will simply be a function of shipping costs vis a vis our geographic position. There's a case in that for establishing better relations with South America, but that's another thread.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take.
I'm not sure what you mean by basic economics. But assuming you're referring to classical theory: I'll just say that economics doesn't work like a science. Principles which are taught as foundational can be, and very often are, invalidated by more advanced models. Classical theory doesn't have a whole lot to say about our current situation because it was never designed to account for information as a commodity, or even the ability to outsource domestically owned production.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.
The fact that we live in a consume economy is irrelevant. All that tells us is the method by which we determine what to purchase, and therefore to produce. The point you're trying to make is that we don't produce enough of what we have determined to purchase, and (probably) that we show little sensitivity to international markets. Though, as I said above, that's a function of US cost of living, and cultural bias, exceeding that which can supported by the wages derived from manufacturing positions.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....
Any discussion of personal value is largely pointless. There's no way to measure it, and no way to arrive at any conclusive point beyond "I think people should value possession less/more/as much as they value possession." as supported by anecdotal preference.
It should also be pointed out that the desire possess more, and therefore to consume, is derived from having a high degree of value with respect to possessions.
As far as saving money goes, you have a point. Though its a point that invalidates any discussion of waste.
ShumaGorath wrote:Of course we waste more than any other country, we have something close to the population and GDP output of the european union.
So you are saying its ok to waste? One a person to person ratio, we waste more then anyone else. That is bad for both the environment and for our natural resources...
ShumaGorath wrote:However our economy is far from abstract, while we lack the incredible industrial output of china we still produce a significant amount of physical goods by comparison to other western countries.
Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?
ShumaGorath wrote:However production of physical goods are not all that exist. We pioneer and sell a vast amount of technology throughout the word, we are the leaders in every form of entertainment and production software by a massive margin, we are hugely dominant in virtually every other form of entertainment industry as well.
True, but there are other outlets that are rapidly growing. Germany, France, China and Bollywood are growing at an unbelievable pace in terms of entertainment.
ShumaGorath wrote:On top of all that we are the planets breadbasket. We produce more food and export more food than any other nation on earth by a significant margin. The view that "Oh we don't make very many shirts any more" and "We just throw away the things we buy" is such a limited and inaccurate view of the modern globalized economic model that it's not worth interacting with.
Considering the US's Ag industry accounts for less then 1% of our GDP, and a major portion, if not a slim majority, of the food we produce for export is given away as charity, that isn't exactly the strongest point to rely on.
ShumaGorath wrote:Pure production economies are not particularly well protected from economic downturns as Germany or perhaps more important Japan showed us recently. The reason we are starting to fail (though it's true that it's been occurring for a lengthy period of time) is firstly unenforced "free trade" agreements with countries like china and Taiwan which are in aggregate losing us money overtime through the trade deficit, however a nation can run trade deficits and still grow so long as it's internal economic model is sufficient to support such a thing (as Americas should be).
Well when a country like China owns around 20% of our national debt, it makes it a bit hard to enforce trade agreements. Germany and Japan have both had major economic problems for years, they have just recently gotten much worse. Double digit unemployment there is nothing new, and has been the status quo for some time.
ShumaGorath wrote:We are not going to "cure" our economy until china stops holding its currency. However they are not going to stop buying ours until they have no other choice, when they do their own will begin to rise and we wont be there to buy their goods any more. It's a symbiotic relationship right now, they are just at the advantage. To advocate "Buy American" is to go towards trade protectionism, which while helpful sometimes is a very, very, dangerous road, as the perception of protectionism by the most powerful economy on earth abroad will cause all it's competitors to do the same. Which is a race to the bottom.
Who said anything about protectionism? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, the whole point of your argument is still somewhat fuzzy. So yes, we produce movies and music, and we grow a lot of corn, that still doesn't make much sense in terms of a truly strong economy. You seem to be arguing more for the relative influence of the US, instead of the durability and strength of our economy. The model that we currently have set up is reliant on cheap expendable labour, which we can use to make cheap products. Since the level of poverty in the world is starting to go down, we can see that this model is not going to last forever. This is especially true considering the limited options we have in terms of countries that have the industrial capability that is necessary to fuel the West's appetite. I am instead advocating a much more balanced approach to the economy, forgoing some of our spoiled tendencies and being less inclined to spend all the time. I personally believe in saving money and wisely budgeting out what you have. If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.
Personal value does have some weight in arguing waste. If you are a person who sees a cell phone as just something to have to communicate and then throw away when something faster/better/more feature rich comes along than of course you won't value ANYTHING.
This article explains it. We are one of the largest producers of electronic waste in the world but we are the worst at disposal and recycling of said waste. So my point stands. It is very sad to know that we are using up our VERY LIMITED fossil fuels to produce all the plastics that just end up laying in a landfill somewhere awaiting export to china so they can benefit from our greed and wastefulness.
It might be how the economic model is but it doesn't make it right NOR does it make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. My point was that we are wasteful, not that I don't agree it doesn't make our country money and that we COULD still be a world power producing 80% less waste than we do, we just don't want to or care that we are so wasteful (vast majority anyway, not trying to paint a broad stroke here).
So you are saying its ok to waste? One a person to person ratio, we waste more then anyone else. That is bad for both the environment and for our natural resources...
Read Dogmas post!
Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?
Export and production are very different things.
True, but there are other outlets that are rapidly growing. Germany, France, China and Bollywood are growing at an unbelievable pace in terms of entertainment.
Please cite something when you're going to use the term "unbelievable". Otherwise people won't believe you because you said it wasn't real.
Considering the US's Ag industry accounts for less then 1% of our GDP, and a major portion, if not a slim majority, of the food we produce for export is given away as charity, that isn't exactly the strongest point to rely on.
Sorry, I thought I said produced. Not "How much of our GDP it makes up".
Well when a country like China owns around 20% of our national debt, it makes it a bit hard to enforce trade agreements. Germany and Japan have both had major economic problems for years, they have just recently gotten much worse. Double digit unemployment there is nothing new, and has been the status quo for some time.
Then get used to it, things aren't that bad right now, even in this time of downturn. By shoring up our practices in relation to banking and production efficiency we can just keep on chugging, it doesn't take some sort of massive paradigm shift in how we run ourselves to fix things up a bit. It just takes tighter regulation in the financial industries.
Who said anything about protectionism? Not me, that's for sure. Anyway, the whole point of your argument is still somewhat fuzzy. So yes, we produce movies and music, and we grow a lot of corn, that still doesn't make much sense in terms of a truly strong economy.
It makes as much sense as any other production argument.
You seem to be arguing more for the relative influence of the US, instead of the durability and strength of our economy. The model that we currently have set up is reliant on cheap expendable labour, which we can use to make cheap products. Since the level of poverty in the world is starting to go down, we can see that this model is not going to last forever.
At which time we will begin producing domestically again, causing prices to rise hand in hand with increased domestic pay from those industries (which are typically untrained), welcome to globalized economics. I'm arguing that we are far into the swing of a foreign import economy, and that it's not going to change any time soon, no matter how much everyone gnashes their teeth.
This is especially true considering the limited options we have in terms of countries that have the industrial capability that is necessary to fuel the West's appetite.
What does that sentence even mean? There are literally hundreds of countries "capable" of fueling the wests appetite (which is an erroneous term anyway, japan is not western, nor is china or india and they have all the same "appetites").
I am instead advocating a much more balanced approach to the economy, forgoing some of our spoiled tendencies and being less inclined to spend all the time. I personally believe in saving money and wisely budgeting out what you have. If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.
When everyone saves everyone loses money because everyone stops buying what everyone is producing and everyone starts to lose their jobs. Do you know what caused the credit downturn to become something globally destructive? People started saving because they figured their money would be worth more tomorrow. Thats not how capitalism works, some saving is a good thing, but you're seemingly not suggesting that, you're somehow labeling "responsibility" as "saving" and telling people to go do it. You're not actually advocating anything because you are painting with far too broad of a brush and talking about an act that is anathema to the idea of capitalism (saving lot's of money).
JEB_Stuart wrote:Like say Germany who, up until two years ago, was the World's largest exporter?
They still are. We're third, incidentally. Its not that we don't export anything. Its that we import far more than we export by virtue of high demand.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
If Americans would live below their means there wouldn't be major problems with credit crunches or the like.
We'd also have a whole ton of wasted economic potential. In any case, its pointless to advocate a cultural change. No one will listen to you unless they have cause to do so, and that cause will only be provided by a shift towards an economy of unskilled labor, which itself will only reach preponderance with the rise of markets in the rest of the world.
dogma wrote:
Well, you can deny it, because waste is hardly an easily defined concept. Are you claiming that waste is anything that is thrown away, or that waste is anything that is thrown away unnecessarily?
Incidentally, if its the former, Canada produces the most waste in the world. If its the latter, defined by household waste, Denmark produces the most.
Where do you get your figures? The US consistently shows up as the most wasteful country and people in the world. Neither Canada nor Denmark even show up in the Top 10. Here is one source:http://greenanswers.com/q/63410/recycling-waste/garbage/what-countries-produce-most-trash/ The US, despite being less then 5% of the world's population, produces over 30% of the world's waste. We throw more food, furniture, tools, etc away every year then anyone else.
dogma wrote:As for an abstract economy, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the way our financial system works, or the fact that we rely on service industries?
A little bit of both. I will admit that when I was younger the concept of our financial system was almost as baffling as the Mystery of the Trinity...at least I figured our financial system out.
dogma wrote:The fact that we don't export on balance with imports has more to do with the lack of global demand, in concert with high domestic production costs, than anything else. As demand rises abroad, and the cost to manufacture decreases domestically (most likely through improved manufacturing techniques), our net exports should increase. If they don't it will simply be a function of shipping costs vis a vis our geographic position. There's a case in that for establishing better relations with South America, but that's another thread.
Agreed, that is what I have always thought. I have been advocating more advanced methods of manufacturing, especially through robotics, for some time now...But yes, better for another thread.
dogma wrote:The fact that we live in a consume economy is irrelevant. All that tells us is the method by which we determine what to purchase, and therefore to produce. The point you're trying to make is that we don't produce enough of what we have determined to purchase, and (probably) that we show little sensitivity to international markets. Though, as I said above, that's a function of US cost of living, and cultural bias, exceeding that which can supported by the wages derived from manufacturing positions.
Your not preaching something to me that I don't already know or think. Except for the consumer model. There are some major ethical issues that it raises, and other things as well, but I really don't have the energy to go in depth on every post I make today...and those issues are another thread...
dogma wrote:Any discussion of personal value is largely pointless. There's no way to measure it, and no way to arrive at any conclusive point beyond "I think people should value possession less/more/as much as they value possession." as supported by anecdotal preference.
I like how you took a few words and made that into my main point. That is not even close to what I was saying, and I hesitated putting it in there in the first place.
dogma wrote:As far as saving money goes, you have a point. Though its a point that invalidates any discussion of waste.
Do tell why....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
They still are. We're third, incidentally. Its not that we don't export anything. Its that we import far more than we export by virtue of high demand.
Fateweaver wrote:Personal value does have some weight in arguing waste. If you are a person who sees a cell phone as just something to have to communicate and then throw away when something faster/better/more feature rich comes along than of course you won't value ANYTHING.
No, its just means that you value cutting edge technology. It doesn't mean that you don't value cell phones, as you're clearly purchasing a cell phone, and therefore assigning it value.
The reason personal value has no bearing on overall waste is that it can't be measured. We can discuss per capita waste, but that's different.
My point is that it's waste. No matter how you slice it that person throwing their old cell phone away every few months when something new comes out is being wasteful and that is a problem due to us being a wasteful society.
It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created. I'm not a tree hugging hippie by any stretch of the imagination but economically sound or not our current economic model is NOT something to be proud of.
Producing more waste than any other nation in the world, creating low income jobs for the many foreigners and illegals in this country just because we as Americans are too damn worried about spending a few dollars/pennies more to get something of quality is a huge flaw in how our economy works. There is a reason retail chains like Wal-mart and Target thrive. It's due to the fact they cater to low quality goods and lots of Chinese imported goods to draw in people who don't care about quality and just buy cheap so they can justify throwing away whatever they bought without feeling guilty.
Not saying it's bad too import and export but when most of a nations goods are produced outside of that said nation (like the US) and relies on it's neighbors to provide it with goods and services that itself won't provide that is a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.
Fateweaver wrote:
It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created. I'm not a tree hugging hippie by any stretch of the imagination but economically sound or not our current economic model is NOT something to be proud of.
Of course the reason for creation is important. If waste is created because its a natural component of the industrial chain, then it isn't waste in the same sense as someone who sits around throwing $100 bills on a fire. Yeah, some people purchase new cell phones out of technological fetishism, but I doubt that contingent represents the majority of people. Don't mistake features which you have no need of for useless features.
Fateweaver wrote:
Producing more waste than any other nation in the world,
We don't, per capita, and that's the measure which is important.
Fateweaver wrote:
There is a reason retail chains like Wal-mart and Target thrive. It's due to the fact they cater to low quality goods and lots of Chinese imported goods to draw in people who don't care about quality and just buy cheap so they can justify throwing away whatever they bought without feeling guilty.
Dude, my designer shirts are, almost always, made in Asia. The origin of a product has no bearing on its quality. Wal-Mart and Target thrive because they offer cheap products, which are of similar quality to those items offered in more expensive department stores.
Fateweaver wrote:
Not saying it's bad too import and export but when most of a nations goods are produced outside of that said nation (like the US) and relies on it's neighbors to provide it with goods and services that itself won't provide that is a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.
No, its a recipe for a nation which will eventually have to enter the global economy on even footing with its competitors as those competitors rise in overall prominence. When it becomes cost effective to produce goods here, we will produce goods here.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Where do you get your figures? The US consistently shows up as the most wasteful country and people in the world. Neither Canada nor Denmark even show up in the Top 10.
You're looking at gross statistics. I don't care about gross statistics. I care about per-capita ones, or per-interval ones.
The US statistics I used (4.5 pounds per day) came from here.
I got my initial statistics pertaining to Canada from here, and then used Canadian populations statistics and a daily interval to refine them.
I got my statistics on Denmark, among others, from here, and used the same methods as per the Canadian case to refine them.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I like how you took a few words and made that into my main point. That is not even close to what I was saying, and I hesitated putting it in there in the first place.
I didn't make it into your main point, but it was a point you made, which lead me to address it. When you say the word 'people' and attach abstract notions like 'value' you are making a comment about personal behavior, and preferences.
dogma wrote:Do tell why....
From an individual perspective waste can be considered in terms of opportunity cost, as well as actual cost. Its a waste of opportunity, and ultimately currency, if you're simply saving money for the sake of saving money when your interests direct you towards alternative behavior.
Unless you're making a moral argument, and not an economic one?
Doesn't matter who is in office - the president is going to rank badly on public opinion polls since this is the worst economic period the US of A has faced since The Great Depression. Doesn't help that Faux News and basically the entire right has tried to demonize Obama but thats the nature of the game in this convoluted popularity contest aka partisan politics.
Fateweaver wrote:My point is that it's waste. No matter how you slice it that person throwing their old cell phone away every few months when something new comes out is being wasteful and that is a problem due to us being a wasteful society.
Cellphones have gone through an evolution to encompass the function of a camera, datebook (the PDA is dead. Long live the PDA.), and communication tool combining three devices into one. This one device uses less materials, and creates less waste at its end of life. That a person cycles through hardware rapidly could as easily be due to a lack of due care as consumer interest. Replacing a phone quarterly is an expensive proposition reflecting on an individual rather than consumer trends. The lifespan of a cellphone is as much a function of design as technology. Batteries tend to last between 5-800 discharge/recharge cycles - oddly close to the contract length of the phone and iterations of Moore's Law.
It doesn't matter WHY waste is created, what matters is that it IS created.
Humanity does not have the technology for total recycling. It is not currently cost effective for all commodities or materials.
Not saying it's bad too import and export... a recipe for that nation slicing it's own throat.
And when America chooses to produce products at a similar price point, I'd be glad to buy locally. I buy meats from my local butcher, lean toward local seasonal vegetables, but there's nobody that produces a phone here in the US. No supply means I have to meet my demand elsewhere thus feeding a global economy.
Which beggars the question: Why isn't it made here? Profit. Labor (I blame unions! But for another thread) and manufacturing are simply more cost effective elsewhere. Consumers aren't the villains in the story though. Without demand there would be no need to supply. Neither is that guy who is running the Executive Branch. He's the Janitor, and nobody's happy with how fast he's cleaning up.
Oldgrue wrote:I'll accept Cynicism over Hyperbole.
Are Americans willing to work hard?
What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.
What planet are you on? .... I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.
I can't begin to speculate why you have such a difficult life as to necessitate 60+ hour weeks.
I work for private business, am not eligible for overtime, as efficient as my business processes allow, and strangely my work gets done right in 40 hours.
Perhaps I haven't reached a level of diminishing returns you have, or am highly efficient in those 40 hours. Alternatively I'm a magical internet fairy and nothing ever breaks.
Oldgrue wrote:I'll accept Cynicism over Hyperbole.
Are Americans willing to work hard?
What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.
Either thats hyperbole or you live in some sort of Bizarre raegannesque super U.S. that none of us live in.
Frazzled wrote:What planet are you on? A 60 week is average for me. In my younger days I did 70 - 80 every god damn week. I don't know anyone outside that patheticness of government employees, that works under 50 hours.
I'm a Pathetic.
I work on Traffic Signals, so I will be out in a January snow storm at three in the morning because some drunk decides to stop on top of the signal, instead in front of it. Most of Worker-Bee Pathetics are in the same position. Your target is really Paper-Pushing Pathetics, who are strictly 8-5ers. The real difference is that we usually put in our eight hours and then several weeks during the year do 80 to 100. It sort of evens out.
It's not democracy, it's representative democracy. They work differently. Everyone who opposes the bill should write to their representative, since you do not have individual votes.
Obama is unpopular now for a handful of very basic reasons:
1) He was mostly elected as "not bush". Since then, things haven't changed very much.
2) The economy is awful. Not just bad for people in construction and manufacturing, but bad to the point that hardly anybody from my law school graduating class has an actual job as, you know, a lawyer.
3) There's no real history with Obama. With some presidents, they've been around the national scene and have long enough resumes that people are more likely to cut them a break. Reagan and GHW Bush were like that, while Obama's #1 resume line before president was backing into a Senate seat when his opponent had a nasty sex scandal. The point is, there's a time with a president like Obama that every moderate goes "maybe the kid's in over his head."
I grew up in michigan, and kept my legal residency there until a few years back. Jennifer Granholm is in her second term as governor, but if you look at polls while she stood for reelection she rarely broke 40% approval, and still won with 55% of the vote.
The moral of the story? Just because you're the best guy for a job doesn't mean you're good at it.
I would trade that useless turd Gordon Brown in for Obama in a second.
I strongly believe in Obama, I further believe that all he is doing, he is doing to fix things and to improve his country and the planet. He is making far reaching changes and his critics are being far too impatient, the good news will be in the long run...IF he is allowed to carry out the reforms he's trying to bring about.
Which other president in recent history has inherited such a gak storm? The economic depression, the eroded personal freedoms that had taken place under the previous administration, the vast amount of damage to international relationships caused by the previous administration, wars in two nations drawing hostility from across the Islamic world, a 10 trillion debt mostly owed to major rival China.
Your country is in the crapper because George W Bush Jnr put it there.
See that massive upturn after Clinton? That's just wars and... hmmm, nothing much else to show for it, for those of you grinding your teeth and muttering about 'oh another one blaming it all on Bush'... Well, that's cos it's ACTUALLY HIS FAULT.
I hear some saying 'well, he's had a year so why hasn't he sorted it out?' and I can't really express how staggered I am with it. How do you propose he sorts out 8 years of woeful mismanagement of the world's only superpower in one year?
fething up is easy, you can do it in a day, repairing it takes far longer. There are no 'quick wins' here, it's going to take time and it's going to hurt.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's not direct democracy, it's representative democracy. They work differently.
Fixed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:The economic depression,
Just a recession, for now. A pretty nasty one, though, as far as they go.
the eroded personal freedoms that had taken place under the previous administration,
You mean as a result of the Patriot Act and such? Obama supports that.
the vast amount of damage to international relationships caused by the previous administration,
People all around the world love Obama. They gave him a Nobel peace prize. He didn't inherit the hate directed towards Bush.
wars in two nations drawing hostility from across the Islamic world,
A big problem, I agree. There's no good way to deal with something like this; and whatever the best way is probably won't be revealed until a few years after we decide what to do.
a 10 trillion debt mostly owed to major rival China.
Another problem, but he's been contributing to our debt pretty heavily himself so far.
Obama's inherited a bad situation, but so did FDR and Nixon and such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:hardly anybody from my law school graduating class has an actual job as, you know, a lawyer.
Simple answer, because a generation of Young Americans got "Bush is really bad" confused with "Obama is really amazing" and now they have realised that he is merely a man, and cant change the world in a year, they think he sucks.
Welcome to the real world. Cynical Brits like me have known for a long time that ALL politicians are slimy little toads. Its simply a case of "who will screw me the least" not "who can change the world for the better" and i think alot of people have realised it.
Dont misunderstand me, i much prefer Obama to Mcain, if only for the republicans appalling choice of VP, but really, the furore and expectation surrouding BA was ridiculous. What on earth did they think he was going to do?!
Legalize gay marriage, reform healthcare, revisit foreign policy, and give articulate speeches.
Honestly, the notion that Obama's supporters see him as some form of world changing savior is ridiculous hyperbole. I was at one of the most liberal school in the nation during his campaign, and while the support for him bordered on the irrational when he was running against Hillary, it was not at all like that during the race against McCain.
The fact remains that the 'Young Americans' who supported him during the campaign probably still support him because he's doing most of the things they wanted him to do.
Honestly, the only thing I took away from this election is that most Americans seem to have learned tact, and communications skills on the internet: where everything is either awesome, or crap.
Honestly, the only thing I took away from this election is that most Americans seem to have learned tact, and communications skills on the internet: where everything is either awesome, or crap.
Apart from yourself and a select few (selected by me, of course ) - this website is not evidence for this. And yes, I'm aware that pointing that is, somewhat ironically, rather tactless.
Honestly, the only thing I took away from this election is that most Americans seem to have learned tact, and communications skills on the internet: where everything is either awesome, or crap.
Apart from yourself and a select few (selected by me, of course ) - this website is not evidence for this. And yes, I'm aware that pointing that is, somewhat ironically, rather tactless.
Sorry bro, but quite frankly... and seriously...
I.E., a obvious ploy, rather a well disguised, yet extremely misplaced ploy... and you fell into it. TIGER TRAP!!!
Find the information that Dogma is citing to prove this, and I will give you a cookie. If more people, with a higher quota of communication skills, have entered the arena; that is clearly a different meaning that what he directly implied. Lacking skills before, that awesome group, learned those skills, came online, and saved the goddam day. No... clearly, and epically no...
Take a large group, from different sites, and sample that. You will end up with roughly the same numbers as before. There have always been things that bump in the night, but the internet has little to do with communication. It has everything to do with presentation (inferring that a larger umbrella is needed, obviously).
Dont misunderstand me, i much prefer Obama to Mcain, if only for the republicans appalling choice of VP
Indeed, my decision would have been made that much harder if McCain hadn't of been running with Palin as his VP. I fething hate Palin, I can't believe there are people out there who seriously want her to run for president in 2012.
Anyway, unlike some I wasn't under the impression that Obama would magically make everything better just a few months into his presidency, I knew full well it would take time, so that could be why my opinion of him hasn't really changed drastically since. That doesn't stop other people from constantly trying to make me regret it, though.
Fateweaver wrote:I am working on my accounting degree now so that I know how to do 3 things that can score me cash. If I wanted to get ASE certified it is a 9mo course and could then have 2 degrees in less than 4 years.
Hang on, you're working on an accounting degree that has no Economics component? What kind of Commerce degree is that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't deny that the US not only wastes more then any other country in the world, but that our economy is almost completely abstract. Our industrial capacity is pretty much done for, we don't export nearly as much as we should, and we are falling further and further in to debt. Basic economics indicates that this is not a wise road to take. You are right Shuma, we are in a consumerist model for our economy, but you are wrong in not pointing out that it is a poor model at best, or a dangerous one at worst.If you think that he was using the purchase of cellphones as the cause of waste then you are either willfully ignoring his use of one example in order to put him down or you are naive. He makes an excellent point about waste and how people don't save money or value what they have, and that should have been acknowledged....
Throwing stuff away has nothing to do with a prosperous economy. There is no substantial link between the two. People are only talking about the two ideas because Fateweaver raised it as the cause of the struggling US economy, and Fateweaver has already explained his complete lack of knowledge and interest in economics.
People bemoan the loss of industrial capacity a lot, as some indicator of the decline of a country. Thing is, most industry is low value added, which is means that is very hard to be really good at it compared to other countries in the world. You need no organisational capacity, very little technology and absolutely no skill base to start up a textiles plant. As a result the source of advantage in textiles in low labour rates. As a result, the countries with very low labour rates dominate textiles and other low value added industry. It's worth noting that as China has grown it's income per capita the textile plants in the major cities have become non-competitive, and so they've moved into poorer regions in China, or even into the other poorer Asian countries.
Now, the big thing to remember is that the real measure of an economy is the income level. That is, economies that are providing their citizens with high incomes are better than economies providing their employees with low incomes. So how do you grow incomes while keeping low value added industry?
The answer is that you don't. Instead you shift your economy into industries that can sustain high incomes, and that means you shift to high value added industries, where organisational capacity and a highly skilled workforce are needed. You move into high tech manufacturing, into high end service provision. The only alternative is to pay the same wages as China.
Now, the US certainly has economic problems. There has been decades of solid growth in GDP, but this growth has centred entirely on the wealthiest people, and the result is a continual erosion of the middle class, to the point now where the median income is lower than it was in the 1970s. Savings are poor across the board, this limits the funds available for investment and causes the US to look overseas for investment capital - hurting the trading account (this is due in part to cultural values, in part to the set up of the financial sector and in part due to Greenspan trying to maintain growth rates through unsustainable monetry policy). And government debt is harming long term growth (people make a lot of noise about the stimulus but the stimulus probably should have been bigger than it was, the US budget problems are long term problems, due to unsustainble deficits during good economic conditions - and that's a problem with the overall lack of party accountability for the budget at the political level, too little whip control and too much regional politics leads to horrendous levels of pork barrelling... good luck solving that one).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jamessearle0 wrote:erm i cant fething stand that he got the nobel peece prize for doing feth all, what a prik
You know he didn't award the nobel peace prize to himself, right? That you're calling him a prik because of decisions other people made. Obama didn't deserve the prize, but he didn't campaign for it and appeared quite embarrassed when he received it.
If I was to call your post the most inciteful post on US politics in 2009, it wouldn't be true. But would be a prik because someone else gave you undue credit?
sebster wrote:
Hang on, you're working on an accounting degree that has no Economics component? What kind of Commerce degree is that?
Accounting is usually considered a technical specialty in the US. You will pick some of it up if you earn an economics, or business, degree. But you usually don't get any economics, or business training if you earn an accounting degree.
The majority of US educational programs, in my experience, are highly specialized. If you want anything like a liberal arts education you pay through the nose (like I did).
dogma wrote:Accounting is usually considered a technical specialty in the US. You will pick some of it up if you earn an economics, or business, degree. But you usually don't get any economics, or business training if you earn an accounting degree.
The majority of US educational programs, in my experience, are highly specialized. If you want anything like a liberal arts education you pay through the nose (like I did).
Yeah, I don't think you need the education across the board that you'd get from a liberal arts degree, but to be anything other than a tax clerk you need a foundational understanding of economics.
Do they do finance and management accounting? Or is it just IFRS and the tax code and you're out the door?
sebster wrote:Yeah, I don't think you need the education across the board that you'd get from a liberal arts degree, but to be anything other than a tax clerk you need a foundational understanding of economics.
Do they do finance and management accounting? Or is it just IFRS and the tax code and you're out the door?
All of my friends who did accounting all received training in more then just tax code. But maybe my uni's accounting program was more broad on purpose....
sebster wrote:
Do they do finance and management accounting? Or is it just IFRS and the tax code and you're out the door?
Depends on the program. Four year degrees are usually comprehensive, while two year degrees will give you the basics and then feed you to the CPA exam. Though there aren't very many 2 year accounting degrees outside of states with a two tier CPA certification.
The one I'm enrolled in is a 2 year. No economics involved, just taxes and income and all that book keeping jazz.
I'm sure I'd be better with an economics or business degree but I can scratch out a decent living on a 2 year degree and if I'm so inclined I can be a mechanic on the side. I'm also going to get my A+ and Microsoft certifications too. Just have to take a test and pass. That can also yield me money until I complete my degree.
I won't make $150/hour as an accountant but I'll make enough to be happy.
Fateweaver wrote:The one I'm enrolled in is a 2 year. No economics involved, just taxes and income and all that book keeping jazz.
I'm sure I'd be better with an economics or business degree but I can scratch out a decent living on a 2 year degree and if I'm so inclined I can be a mechanic on the side. I'm also going to get my A+ and Microsoft certifications too. Just have to take a test and pass. That can also yield me money until I complete my degree.
I won't make $150/hour as an accountant but I'll make enough to be happy.
If you're looking at billing out at the highest possible rate then you're looking at public practice, and thinking about it again the economics and finance might not be missed that badly. I come from a company accountant perspective, so I tend to look at what’s important to doing my job, but in practice it is probably quite different.
Thanks for the info anyway. Over here accounting is a three year degree, and that includes mandatory micro and macro units, and even some economic history. I was just surprised that someone could get an accounting qualification without it, but thinking about it a bit more I’ll just chalk it up to being just another thing that gets done differently over there
If I was to lean toward more of an administrative position prospective than I'd be required to take some eco classes. As it stands I'll probably end up being just a lowly bookkeeping clerk with this degree but I don't want to get into the ins/outs of economy and what not. I'm into number crunching, not watching numeric trends or learning numeric theory.
Decent pay (enough to raise a future family with) and can always become my own mechanic or pc repair technician/software tech with a little extra effort and a few dollars more.
sebster wrote:Yeah, I don't think you need the education across the board that you'd get from a liberal arts degree, but to be anything other than a tax clerk you need a foundational understanding of economics.
Do they do finance and management accounting? Or is it just IFRS and the tax code and you're out the door?
All of my friends who did accounting all received training in more then just tax code. But maybe my uni's accounting program was more broad on purpose....
Its not. Business majors in undergrad in my school were required to take micro and macro economics, and a new technologies course where they told us nonsense like "the wheel" was going to revolutionize everything. Pfft. If logs were good enough for pop they were good enough for me.
This has been quite absorbing so far. As an "outsider" I'm not going to comment too much.
My observation is that we live in a media controlled world now which needs regular news or change in order to sell itself. If this change is not forthcoming on a regular basis, than the media gets bored and switches to negative reporting because it's easier to get a response from the public by being critical.
In reality, one year is far too short a time period to expect real change to occur, but we don't really live in reality anymore.
Now, the US certainly has economic problems. There has been decades of solid growth in GDP, but this growth has centred entirely on the wealthiest people, and the result is a continual erosion of the middle class, to the point now where the median income is lower than it was in the 1970s. Savings are poor across the board, this limits the funds available for investment and causes the US to look overseas for investment capital - hurting the trading account (this is due in part to cultural values, in part to the set up of the financial sector and in part due to Greenspan trying to maintain growth rates through unsustainable monetry policy). And government debt is harming long term growth (people make a lot of noise about the stimulus but the stimulus probably should have been bigger than it was, the US budget problems are long term problems, due to unsustainble deficits during good economic conditions - and that's a problem with the overall lack of party accountability for the budget at the political level, too little whip control and too much regional politics leads to horrendous levels of pork barrelling... good luck solving that one).
It's unfortunate that these issues will likely not be addressed until a total U.S. economic collapse occurs, there is simply too little political will to deal with these problems, both in government, and in the citizens.
Frazzled wrote:
Its not. Business majors in undergrad in my school were required to take micro and macro economics, and a new technologies course where they told us nonsense like "the wheel" was going to revolutionize everything. Pfft. If logs were good enough for pop they were good enough for me.
Business and accounting aren't always the same program.
Frazzled wrote:They are not? I've not seen otherwise. Accounting is a substrata of business.
Not in the 2 year technical degree field. Often times accounting is treated as a focus of a more mathematics based degree focus. It's difficult to fit the business, math, accounting, and gen eds into the same AS degree.
Undergrad business majors in my public university also has accounting under the business umbrella. You have to take a set of 'core business courses' in order to major in a business specialty which includes macro/micro eco, business communication (aka speech class), etc. Accounting 101 also is a part of the core business knowledge ditto with business calculus and other not so fun classes.
Yeah, that's usually true, but you can get different degrees from the same department.
Some places have as many as 5:
Bachelor of Business Administration - usually comprehensive
Bachelor of Accounting - always confined to accounting
Bachelor of Business - less accounting, more entrepreneurship/human resources/etc.
Bachelor of Business Science - economics and accounting
Bachelor of Public Administration - varies a lot, but generally a greater focus on government and non-profits
Welcome to the land of designer degrees. One of the likely culprits for the high cost of American higher education.
Just to answer the opening question "So why's Obama so unpopular all of a sudden?"
Simple. He's the president.
Doesn't matter if you're Jesus H Christ, half the world will hate you just because of your job title, and the other half will hate you just because the first half does.
I can't say that I speak for everyone, but here is my opinion:
* I am a fiscally conservative, socially moderate republican.
* You don't spend your way out of a depression or a recession. IT DID NOT WORK for FDR's new deal. The war got us out of that mess (not advocating or condeming war, no flaming please), not his SPEND, BUILD, SPEND, BUILD approach. That was actually making the depression worse, brought on debt that future generations would have to pay.
* I am still upset with Bush and congress for issuing tax-cuts during wartime.
* I am still upset with Bush and congress for issuing tax-rebates during wartime.
* I am upset with Obama's current plan to spend, spend, spend our way out of this depression...during 2 wars.
* I am still upset with the lack of oversite that allowed real estate speculators and lending agencies to cause the house prices to inflate and then crash. Did a number to many American's credit. Plus, with housing values in the tank, people would have to take a big loss to sell their homes.
*McMansions. People being house-poor, being granted credit they didn't warrant, for houses they didn't need.
*A socialized healthcare system being rushed through congress, that will cost billions, that is ill-defined and top heavy.
*No caps on law-suits for medical malpractice leading to insane malpractice insurance premiums, adding to our insane health care costs.
*Bailing out US automakers with some of them need to die off, anyway.
* Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for Health Care reform for every swinging-dick in the US.
*Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for bailouts of Automakers.
* Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for bailouts of lending agencies with poor, if not criminal, lending habits.
Is all of this Obama's fault? hell no. But he is continuing what Bush started. As always, IMHO, YMMV, OMG, WTF, BBQ.
Flashman wrote:Why's Obama dropped so badly in the opinion polls? <snip> You guys do want universal free health care right?
From where I sit it's buyer's remorse. Everyone wanted a black president but didn't consider that they were electing a socialist as well. Now they realize this guy wants to turn our society on it's head and don't like it.
And NO I don't want universal "free" health care. Nothing in life is free... Government cannot give you something that it first does not take away from someone else under threat of violence.
You don't spend your way out of a depression or a recession. IT DID NOT WORK for FDR's new deal. The war got us out of that mess (not advocating or condeming war, no flaming please), not his SPEND, BUILD, SPEND, BUILD approach. That was actually making the depression worse, brought on debt that future generations would have to pay.
I love the conservative revisionist history approach to the new deal. Somehow it only started "not working" several decades after it had worked. All of a sudden the "wartime economy" pulled us out of the economic stupor, despite things like having a large percentage of the male population drafted into a job that (heres a hint) was a government funded one that in effect produced and serviced nothing. What's the difference between a soldier fighting overseas and a construction worker "payed to fill the holes he just dug" economically? Nothing. A military is just an inefficient continuous stimulus package with the added bonus of fighting wars (as opposed to renewing roads or fixing bridges, filling the hole you dug is just a phrase, they don't actually do that).
I am still upset with Bush and congress for issuing tax-cuts during wartime.
* I am still upset with Bush and congress for issuing tax-rebates during wartime.
The war was actually more of a purple elephant in a room full of cobras. What they should not of done was cut taxes and give ineffectual rebates during a time of economic downturn. The MPtS ensures that during a "recession" cutting taxes is one of the worst things you can do to stimulate growth.
* I am still upset with the lack of oversite that allowed real estate speculators and lending agencies to cause the house prices to inflate and then crash. Did a number to many American's credit. Plus, with housing values in the tank, people would have to take a big loss to sell their homes.
Raeganomics: The study of loosening the reigns so that wall street can hang itself.
*McMansions. People being house-poor, being granted credit they didn't warrant, for houses they didn't need.
Commoditized debt isn't that bad of a concept, and it works, but then a knife is a wonderful tool until you start playing with it. You can't really blame people for buying houses that they didn't need, it's simple human nature, what you should blame is the banking institutions that allowed it and the culture that propagated the myth that everyone in america is entitled to a home.
*A socialized healthcare system being rushed through congress, that will cost billions, that is ill-defined and top heavy.
The system is actually pretty well defined. It's just an incredibly complex and (still) constantly rewritten document thats hard for the lamen to read. Add fox news to that and you get death panels and populist outcry forcing numerous concessions into what COULD be a good piece of legislation. Thats democracy for you, good ideas never survive a bored and ignorant populace.
*No caps on law-suits for medical malpractice leading to insane malpractice insurance premiums, adding to our insane health care costs.
They actually barely even scratch your healthcare costs. The big issue is the no-competition insurance system and the backwards practice of healthcare pay boosts for targeted procedures and medicines that are unnecessary (this is so ludicrously prevalent that it's almost an institution of it's own).
*Bailing out US automakers with some of them need to die off, anyway.
Well if you look at it objectively the jobs lost by their massive bankruptcies and more banks failing due to the sudden losses would actually have the net effect of costing the nation more. You have to disassociate natural selection from business, as thats how we got in this pit in the first place.
* Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for Health Care reform for every swinging-dick in the US.
As opposed to you subsidizing private insurance? Do you know how private insurance agencies work? Do you know how the healthcare bill being pushed works? It doesn't sound it from this post.
*Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for bailouts of Automakers.
It's that or have your currency devalued by the large shock to the u.s. economy anyway.
Expecting me (Mr. Middle Class) to pay for bailouts of lending agencies with poor, if not criminal, lending habits.
So you wanted the U.S. economy to collapse totally due to a run on the banks? Or do you somehow think that they did this for no reason? Do you want the dollar to trade at a fifth the value it currently does? Because that would make it hard for you to buy anything. Do you think the politicians wanted to do this? It certainly doesn't look good on their resume, though it should, since it shows that they have the foresight to not cling to the ridiculous idea of "natural selection in business". Though it certainly is politically nice and easy to say that you were "against" the bailouts as a conservative politician, as it gives you a nice boost in the polls with your voterbase of people that have no fething clue how currency works.
Green Git is my idol.
Yes, you both must get along very well in bizarro america where Obama is a socialist robber baron and our trash means our economy is dangerously unsustainable compared to the rest of the world.
kronk wrote:
* You don't spend your way out of a depression or a recession. IT DID NOT WORK for FDR's new deal. The war got us out of that mess (not advocating or condeming war, no flaming please), not his SPEND, BUILD, SPEND, BUILD approach. That was actually making the depression worse, brought on debt that future generations would have to pay.
So all those tanks, planes, and ships we built during the war were free? Just build, build, build? Not spend, build, spend, build?
kronk wrote:
* You don't spend your way out of a depression or a recession. IT DID NOT WORK for FDR's new deal. The war got us out of that mess (not advocating or condeming war, no flaming please), not his SPEND, BUILD, SPEND, BUILD approach. That was actually making the depression worse, brought on debt that future generations would have to pay.
So all those tanks, planes, and ships we built during the war were free? Just build, build, build? Not spend, build, spend, build?
Which presidential candidate wouldn't have done what Obama did when it comes to the economic crisis? Can you imagine the gak storm a president would have if he let one of the most iconic American companies like GM go down and have even more Americans unemployed?
@Cane: That's the problem right there. Being 'in charge' of a country isn't about doing right by the people who live there, it's about sucking the right c***s and licking the right r***s to make sure you stay in your 'position of power'.
J.Black wrote:@Cane: That's the problem right there. Being 'in charge' of a country isn't about doing right by the people who live there, it's about sucking the right c***s and licking the right r***s to make sure you stay in your 'position of power'.
Sad, but true :(
Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.
Cane wrote:...Can you imagine the [censored] storm a president would have if he let one of the most iconic American companies like GM go down and have even more Americans unemployed?
GM employed a handful of people (few thousand) compared to the many millions of jobs our economy is hemorrhaging. Where is the bailout for other companies that employ hundreds of thousands whose results are down 40% or more? What about industries of millions?
He just "saved" GM as payback for the cash and support the unions provided him and his Democrat peers.
GM employed a handful of people (few thousand) compared to the many millions of jobs our economy is hemorrhaging.
IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.
Where is the bailout for other companies that employ hundreds of thousands whose results are down 40% or more? What about industries of millions?
It's a lot harder to save an "industry" of disparate elements. Though they did bailout the auto "industry" and it does, down the line, provide jobs for hundreds of thousands to millions of americans. Then again, you would probably say the same no matter what their target was.
He just "saved" GM as payback for the cash and support the unions provided him and his Democrat peers.
Do you have a book I can buy also? I'm going to have quite the collection here!
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.
Wow, do you just sit at home chewing lemons all day, or is there another reason for your 'seinfeld-esque' attitude to life?
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yes, all politicians are evil ingrates that just want to stay in power. Thank you for that little bit of brilliance. You must spread this message, I can't believe more people don't believe as you do. Do you have a book? I want to start a book club about this message.
Wow, do you just sit at home chewing lemons all day, or is there another reason for your 'seinfeld-esque' attitude to life?
@reds8n: *cowers before the lash*
I dunno, are you green, fuzzy, and do you live in a trashcan (if so, I'm sorry mister Grouch, you are a western institution all of your own and have every right to be grouchy)? How would you suggest someone combat a post like yours?
Don't tussle with Shuma, J, its not a winning proposition.
He may be the only person on this board as angry and bitter as I am. Thats an achievement I have to respect.
Not that your post wasn't filled with insights beyond the ken of mortal beings or anything....
Umm. I responded in a sarcastic obsessive "Seinfield-esque" manner because your post was an essentially contentless, pointless, reasonless, and unsupported assertion that democracy is inherently broken because everyone in government is there for the simple purpose of staying in power. How do you expect someone to respond to it? With logic and reason? Thats like debating the guy on the corner screaming about how the world is going to end on the finer points of his rant.
Don't tussle with Shuma, J, its not a winning proposition. He may be the only person on this board as angry and bitter as I am. Thats an achievement I have to respect.
I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.
ShumaGorath wrote:IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.
This is correct. Whether or not you believe the carmakers should have received assistance, there are many, many more jobs in related companies that would be in trouble if GM and company failed. Bush likely would have done the same thing, although for some inexplicable reason he wouldn't have been labeled a dirty, filthy socialist by the right-wingers.
The POTUS is in a no-win situation with regards to bailouts and such. Do something, and people will grumble about government welfare. Do nothing, and people will grumble as related companies all over the country fall like dominoes and more people lose their jobs. It'd be the same situation if it was Bush or McCain or Taft or Jefferson. As many people said during the prez race (but apparently have since forgotten), it's hard to imagine who'd really want to be POTUS right now.
ShumaGorath wrote:IIRC it was a few hundred thousand down the chain when you include dealers (which would almost certainly go out of business along with the supplier), parts makers, and other services dependent on the supply chain of the brand.
This is correct. Whether or not you believe the carmakers should have received assistance, there are many, many more jobs in related companies that would be in trouble if GM and company failed. Bush likely would have done the same thing, although for some inexplicable reason he wouldn't have been labeled a dirty, filthy socialist by the right-wingers.
He would have been labeled as a traitor. Either would have been nailed. Like you had said, no-win.
Umm. I responded in a sarcastic obsessive "Seinfield-esque" manner because your post was an essentially contentless, pointless, reasonless, and unsupported assertion that democracy is inherently broken because everyone in government is there for the simple purpose of staying in power. How do you expect someone to respond to it? With logic and reason? Thats like debating the guy on the corner screaming about how the world is going to end on the finer points of his rant.
Do you really take all things you read on the internet at face value?
1) Content can be provided if you really like.
2) Pointless from your viewpoint maybe. But clearly not pointless enough to stop you ignoring it.
3) I don't recall you asking my reasons.
4) Unsupported? Have you ever moved out of your parents basement?
I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.
Like that except I work out, can use a gun, and I'm strangely beautiful.
Do you really take all things you read on the internet at face value?
As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.
2) Pointless from your viewpoint maybe. But clearly not pointless enough to stop you ignoring it.
Of course not. I combat ignorance and trolling with aggressive sarcasm. I would be more up front about it, but this is a moderated forum.
3) I don't recall you asking my reasons.
Nope. I don't either. Probably because if you had them you should have stated them. When stating an extreme opinion, don't make it baseless.
4) Unsupported? Have you ever moved out of your parents basement?
I'll have three degrees within a year and I live in an apartment. What does that have to do with the fact that you basically just shouted into a thread with an irrelevant and extreme opinion that you now refuse to support?
ShumaGorath wrote:
As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.
It was actually a downward inflection. The one i normally reserve for my shoes
ShumaGorath wrote:
As this is written text and you have no body of work for me to compare it to yes. This isn't a conversation. The upward inflection of your voice doesn't come across the information superhighway.
It was actually a downward inflection. The one i normally reserve for my shoes
I can only imagine the shriveled hateful husk of pain and fury that I'll be in a decade.
Like that except I work out, can use a gun, and I'm strangely beautiful.
Old people can use a gun. We invented random shooting at passersby. You don;t think that sport just appeared out of no where? You are talking to Frazzled after all.
all difference between healthcare reform and the horrorshow going through Congress.
.
