Paul Ryan and I understand how the economy works, we understand how Washington works, we will reach across the aisle and find good people who like us, want to make sure this company deals with its challenges. We’ll get America on track again.
Wha-huh?
I'm sure it's just a slip of the tongue, fortunately it's not like the President ever has to speak to audiences or has his words scrutinized....
And in anticipation... No. The country should not be run like a business. Businesses are there to make money for the owners, which usually means serving the customers. If you're not a customer a company need not care about you, if fact it would be wrong to spend resources doing so.
Governments are here to protect the rights of the citizens, all of them.
A completely opposite philosophy, one reason businessmen have proven bad presidents.
Meh. Either it was a mistake and he's just used to financial meetings where that kind of thing is said or he's just pushing his business experience by saying the economy is a giant company.
That said, given that the republican platform is supposed to condemn the concept of planned or controlled economies at every possible level it's weird that they embrace their sooncoming singular control of it so much.
If you're in a state that's using more federal aid then paying in taxes, you might want to move before they shut the state down and sell it off piecemeal
d-usa wrote: Remember, it's not what they say. It's how they convey it and what we hear.
Righto!
Obviously, it's a slip... buuuut... sure, why not run gov like a business. You know.... have a budget for one?
I'd love to see a mission statement, a 4 year plan, and a 30 year plan.
Oh... Absolutely!
You have the first two in every campaign ever given. A 30 year plan would fail miserably and wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: If you're in a state that's using more federal aid then paying in taxes, you might want to move before they shut the state down and sell it off piecemeal
Red states make up a majority of those which I consistently find amusing. Republican voters consistently vote against their own interests in both the long and short term.
sirlynchmob wrote: If you're in a state that's using more federal aid then paying in taxes, you might want to move before they shut the state down and sell it off piecemeal
Red states make up a majority of those which I consistently find amusing. Republican voters consistently vote against their own interests in both the long and short term.
The point of a business is to make a profit. The point of a government is to provide essential services and laws for its people. The latter is antithetical to the concept of making a profit.
Mannahnin wrote: The point of a business is to make a profit. The point of a government is to provide essential services and laws for its people. The latter is antithetical to the concept of making a profit.
Its easy enough to replace "Making a Profit" with "improve our country's infrastructure and support our community"
Obviously, it's a slip... buuuut... sure, why not run gov like a business. You know.... have a budget for one?
Are you under the impression that businesses don't go over budget?.
Of course businesses go over/under budgets...
But... the question is... do we even HAVE a formal fed budget?
IIRC for the last 3 years Congress has basically had 'continuing resolutions' which means keep doing what you did last year.
So basically a holding pattern rather than bold decisions, or indeed any decisions at all. And that comes back to the inability of the two parties to work together.
whembly wrote: Obviously, it's a slip... buuuut... sure, why not run gov like a business.
*looks at the infinite failure and greed of the business community that has caused a second great depression that Obama just barely managed to prevent becoming as bad as the first*
Dunno, perhaps I don't want the government to be run like most businesses because most businesses are run in a profoundly stupid way, even compared to the government? Most big businesses have insane setups where executives are more concerned with lining their own pockets and the pockets of the shareholders-- or even at the expense of hte shareholders-- than they are with actually running the company and providing long-term growth.
Short-term-ism is not something that I would want to elect anyone off of, and that's pretty much the only thing that's going on in the business community right now.
Its easy enough to replace "Making a Profit" with "improve our country's infrastructure and support our community"
Right, replace something that can be quantitatively assessed with something that can be qualitatively assessed. Good idea, and totally a simple change.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Or, instead of going with your insane strawman argument, we put stronger regulations on businesses.
Of course, you want to believe that all democrats are crazy communist pinkos.
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Considering they'll do that anyway if it means they save money it's moot point...
You need to regulate private companies otherwise they'll crap over everyone.
Obviously you don't over-regulate them or just remove them entirely but you can't just have a totally free market. Otherwise it'd be horrible...
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Or, instead of going with your insane strawman argument, we put stronger regulations on businesses.
Of course, you want to believe that all democrats are crazy communist pinkos.
I don't want to believe that...
Frankly, I truly think that most of them don't do this job for altruistic reasons (yes both Republicans & Demcrats).
What I'm tired of the sweeping generalization that businesses are "bad" and executive are screwing the public/workers just to line their pocket.
That is spoken by the "gimmie dat" mentality... and yet, you'll replie with some variation of "you just want them to pull themselves out by their bootstraps"... well, my retort would be... if you can, then yeah, pull yourself up by your fething bootstraps.
That is sensationalism... hence my vague commie snark.
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Considering they'll do that anyway if it means they save money it's moot point...
You need to regulate private companies otherwise they'll crap over everyone.
Obviously you don't over-regulate them or just remove them entirely but you can't just have a totally free market. Otherwise it'd be horrible...
There is a fine balance here... yes, some regulations are needed to keep 'em honest.
But, where's the line?
And where/when do you accept the results of our choices?
Amazing that business anywhere else in the world except the USA are making a profit. How is there even any business alive in the regulatory chokehold that is Europe...
Businesses aren't inherently bad but they aren't exactly beholden to their customers...
Their prime responsibility is to those that own them and their shareholders. Not their workers or their customers...
I wouldn't trust them in some areas unless they were regulated in some way...
Pharmaceuticals for example.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Has anyone else noticed that Whembly, our reigning King of the Strawmen, doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism?
Grey Templar wrote:Its easy enough to replace "Making a Profit" with "improve our country's infrastructure and support our community"
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.
There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.
There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world
That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.
[....] one reason businessmen have proven bad presidents.
Really? i was under the impression of just the opposite, all of the best presidents at one point owned their own company and did well in the private sector
i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.
after rank (from best to worst, top 10) is political views(conservative or liberal), then name, then ones marked with * owned their own businesses, followed by what they did before becoming politicians
1. (L/C)Abraham Lincoln * Land Surveyor, Lawyer 2. (C)Franklin D. Roosevelt * Lawyer 3. (C)George Washington * Land Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier 4. (L/C)Theodore Roosevelt * Public Official, Rancher, Soldier 5. (L)Harry S. Truman * Farmer, Men's clothing retailer 6. (C)Woodrow Wilson * Lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University 7. (L/C)Thomas Jefferson * Land Surveyor, Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner 8. (L)John F. Kennedy Writer, Sailor (Navy Lieutenant) 9. (C)Dwight D. Eisenhower * Soldier, General, President of Columbia University 10. (L)Lyndon B. Johnson Teacher, Public Official
so assuming ones that portrayed both sides can be counted as a half, 4.5 of the top 10 presidents were liberal with 5.5 being conservative, thats too close to say conservatives are better, but of the ones that owned businesses, 5.5 were conservative while 2.5 were liberal, thats a significant gap. more than double. also the top 7 owned their own business with only 2 not huffintonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/presidents-entrepreneurs_n_1684521.html) which is known to be extremely liberal in its views have posted that the worst presidents were entrepreneurs, but their "list" of presidents who ran business is even shorter than my list (compiled independantly of theirs) and skips over several conservative president entrepreneurs, in fact, it only seems to highlight 3 "bottom tier" presidends: Hoover (the man behind the hoover dam) and the 2 Bush's. with a list of only 9 presidents out of 44, of which at least 25 are known to have owned or managed a business. while i only focused on the top 10, they focused on the bottom, of which they failed to make a compelling argument. if you have anything to add to this, please do.
I think by 'business owner' people in the thread, and specifically KK, meant presidents who have owned companies, in the vein of Mitt Romney, not just presidents that have owned a farm.
Also, I don't know why you've put that Lincoln and FDR were business owners, they were lawyers (or a lawyer and a lawyer/land surveyor) which I'm fairly sure doesn't qualify as 'business owner'
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Canada, France, Japan and heck Trinidad seem to be doing fine with their national health insurance systems.
i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.
No, you will be coding in a manner that is sympathetic to your point. That is not the same as presenting bald research, despite what academics will tell you*.
*Most of them are trying to justify their jobs, not describing reality.
I was thinking more of the president's whose main claim to fame was business, George W Bush (though better known for his failed businesses) and Herbert Hoover.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.
Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.
Has anyone else noticed that Whembly, our reigning King of the Strawmen, doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism?
.
So, what do you mean by "socialism"? There's different flavors of socialism:
There's Marxism...
There's Social Democracy...
There's Market Socialims...
THere's Central Planning Socialism (aka USSR)...
??
Maybe we're missing each other?!
When I infer "socialism" I'm talking about the "central planning" planning part...
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.
There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world
That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.
Certainly, I should have clarified, the tax rates aren't the major cause of corporations leaving the US. I was refuting his belief that we have a low corporate tax rate (though businesses usally have an actual rate of 10-20% well short of the 35-35% they should be paying)
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.
There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world
That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.
Certainly, I should have clarified, the tax rates aren't the major cause of corporations leaving the US. I was refuting his belief that we have a low corporate tax rate (though businesses usally have an actual rate of 10-20% well short of the 35-35% they should be paying)
i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.
No, you will be coding in a manner that is sympathetic to your point. That is not the same as presenting bald research, despite what academics will tell you*.
*Most of them are trying to justify their jobs, not describing reality.
...."list" of presidents who ran businesses... if you have anything to add to this, please do.
Your list is crap, and clearly sourced from Wikipedia.
my compilation was made in 20ish minutes at 2am for me, wikipedia was the only source of information i could find that wasnt a heavily biased "news" site, who cares if i listed public official first? that is irrelevant to my point, as the list was made in chronological order. my argument wasn't about successful businesses. and since when is George Washington a horrible president? he obviously did better than many to be ranked 3rd of 44 in public polls... and when doing research, you find information that supports your argument, i even included some information that didnt support my argument and proceeded to debunk it. you just attacked my research without citing anything where i cited everything.
Well. In a business sense. I see bringing back US troops from Europe (except Ramstein), Middle East (except Kuwait), Asia (most of the troops there), Bosnia and Kosovo, and Africa. Drawdown the additional brigades per Army division. A couple of carrier fleets get mothballed.
Seal the US borders from illegal immigration.
Increase NGP, oil and coal. Install solar farms in the desert, wind turbines and tidal turbines.
Jihadin wrote: He also said balancing the budget is a bad idea.
\
It is, if your running a surplus then you're doing something very wrong
No, you're saving money for the future when some gak hits the fan. Or you're paying off your debts, which means less interest payments.
The only people that should ever be saving money are households, a business should be reinvesting profits and a gov should either reduce taxes or increase spending if they are running a surplus.
The political parties espouse two obviously different philosophies, neither right nor wrong. Republicans believe in individual achievement for the good of the whole. Democrats believe in collective achievement for the good of the individual. But right now, individuals are collectively hurting. And the Democrats are in power. That’s a mighty big challenge to overcome(DNC).
my compilation was made in 20ish minutes at 2am for me, wikipedia was the only source of information i could find that wasnt a heavily biased "news" site, who cares if i listed public official first?
I do, because I do this for a living. Presidential rankings are nonsense because they always turn on the ideology of the ranker.
presidential rankings would be based on their approval rating, which would be a fair way of assessing most popular (and more successful, because you dont get popular being unsuccessful, which is a mystery of Obama, but thats something else)
how does my criteria of "OWNED a business, successful or not" make all presidents business owners?
many presidents were slave owners, and many presidents make mistakes their first time around (never argued otherwise) George Washington also was the first with little previous experience to help him. again, you cite no facts, have no sources, just attack my argument with your beliefs.
I think that the US needs someone who is going to try and make ends meet financially.
A country cannot just keep running deficits.
Eventually it all falls in a heap like it has in Greece and there simply won't be enough money in the world to save you.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote: I think that the US needs someone who is going to try and make ends meet financially.
A country cannot just keep running deficits.
Eventually it all falls in a heap like it has in Greece and there simply won't be enough money in the world to save you.
exactly. what dont people understand about $16 TRILLION (16 thousand thousand thousand thousand Dollars)?
jordanis wrote: presidential rankings would be based on their approval rating, which would be a fair way of assessing most popular (and more successful, because you dont get popular being unsuccessful, which is a mystery of Obama, but thats something else)
Popular doesn't mean "good". Bush I was a great President, but he was also a 1 term President because he was unpopular.
what is your definition of ownership? mine is what you see in the dictionary: " To have or possess as property" in that definition everything i have said is the truth
YET AGAIN you attack me without actually proving me wrong, only SAYING I am wrong, with no information to back up your claim, when every one of my claims can be factually backed up. STOP attacking me and legitimately prove me wrong, cite information, give me links, i did, why can't you?
jordanis wrote: what is your definition of ownership? mine is what you see in the dictionary: " To have or possess as property" in that definition everything i have said is the truth
That's a circular definition if there ever was one.
how? its pretty straight forward to me: if you dont possess or have the property/capital/whatever you dont own the business.
Automatically Appended Next Post: would you people please stop just saying "your wrong" without providing proof? thats like saying "that woman is a witch!" because she has a wart on her nose. your proving nothing and its not a valid attempt at debate.
jordanis wrote: what is your definition of ownership? mine is what you see in the dictionary: " To have or possess as property" in that definition everything i have said is the truth
YET AGAIN you attack me without actually proving me wrong, only SAYING I am wrong, with no information to back up your claim, when every one of my claims can be factually backed up. STOP attacking me and legitimately prove me wrong, cite information, give me links, i did, why can't you?
No, I think I'll keep attacking you because: 1. It is fun. 2. You can't defend yourself. 3. You probably will not accept any reasonable standard of proof.
Word to the wise: Citation does not replace argument.
I was simply poking fun at the horrible definition, not at the content of your posts. Definitions that send back to almost identical terms are bad definitions. Since property/ownership is a legal term, you should check the legal definition.
You have ownership to what you can claim the three rights of fructus, usus, and abusus, or in layman terms, the right on the product of that thing (like the young of a beast), on it's use, or on it's disposition, either by modification or destruction.
citation doesnt replace argument, of course, but it reinforces and validates claims, and you twisted what i said, i didnt say "to allege to have or possess as property" your the one incapable of an actual defense, your claims are empty and your argument is weak. you claim my information was wrong, but do not prove it, you say my definition of ownership is wrong, but do not give a better one, you continue to use irrational conjurations and twists of my statements to back up your convoluted argument which has no basis in reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: I was simply poking fun at the horrible definition, not at the content of your posts. Definitions that send back to almost identical terms are bad definitions. Since property/ownership is a legal term, you should check the legal definition.
You have ownership to what you can claim the three rights of fructus, usus, and abusus, or in layman terms, the right on the product of that thing (like the young of a beast), on it's use, or on it's disposition, either by modification or destruction.
That's a definition.
and your definition even further backs up my argument, Thank you.
jordanis wrote: citation doesnt replace argument, of course, but it reinforces and validates claims...
No it doesn't. If X is wrong 7 billion people can cry out to the contrary, but it will still be wrong. Citation is an academic circle jerk, especially given that there's like 5 academics in the modern world that have had original ideas.
....and you twisted what i said, i didnt say "to allege to have or possess as property" your the one incapable of an actual defense, your claims are empty and your argument is weak.
Wait, weren't you the guy talking about supplying citation when refuting points?
Either way, I never said what you're quoting me as having said.
you claim my information was wrong, but do not prove it, you say my definition of ownership is wrong, but do not give a better one, you continue to use irrational conjurations and twists of my statements to back up your convoluted argument which has no basis in reality.
1: You haven't presented any information outside your beliefs. That you believe you have is a big problem.
2: Proof in social science is not generally "proof" least of all when the initial statement comes from Wikpedia.
3: Its nice of you to use big words that you likely don't know the meanings of, it makes i easier for me.
jordanis wrote: what is your definition of ownership? mine is what you see in the dictionary: " To have or possess as property" in that definition everything i have said is the truth
I own everything I say I own, awesome.
i didnt say you own everything you say you own, where did you get that?
1: i have presented information outside of my beliefs (huffington post article) and proved it incorrect and to contain falsifications. 2: wikipedia is only considered an innacurate because SOME documents can be altered, many of the more controversial topics are locked and my only be edited by wikipedia employees. in almost every, according to Dummies.com (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/is-wikipedia-reliable.html) wikipedia is reliable, but one should be wary and check the sources (i did just that) when using it as a source. 3: i use big words because i do know the meaning of them, if you think i am using them wrong, you must not know their definition, and that is not my problem.
my entire argument was that the best rated (by popularity) Presidents at one time before their Presidency owned a business, big or small, successful or not. i proved exactly that, now if you want to rip my argument apart for not proving something that i wasn't intending to prove, go ahead, but that would be irrelevant and like this argument person 1:"apples are good." person 2:"no, because oranges." person 2's argument is both irrelevant to person 1 and incomplete. now go ahead and claim that i am person 2 and make a fool of yourself.
jordanis wrote: what is your definition of ownership? mine is what you see in the dictionary: " To have or possess as property" in that definition everything i have said is the truth
I own everything I say I own, awesome.
i didnt say you own everything you say you own, where did you get that?
1: i have presented information outside of my beliefs (huffington post article) and proved it incorrect and to contain falsifications.
2: wikipedia is only considered an innacurate because SOME documents can be altered, many of the more controversial topics are locked and my only be edited by wikipedia employees. in almost every, according to Dummies.com (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/is-wikipedia-reliable.html) wikipedia is reliable, but one should be wary and check the sources (i did just that) when using it as a source.
3: i use big words because i do know the meaning of them, if you think i am using them wrong, you must not know their definition, and that is not my problem.
my entire argument was that the best rated (by popularity) Presidents at one time before their Presidency owned a business, big or small, successful or not. i proved exactly that, now if you want to rip my argument apart for not proving something that i wasn't intending to prove, go ahead, but that would be irrelevant and like this argument person 1:"apples are good." person 2:"no, because oranges." person 2's argument is both irrelevant to person 1 and incomplete. now go ahead and claim that i am person 2 and make a fool of yourself.
1. Yeah, the sideboob post. They're not that good. Very poor journalism, very opinionated. Proving them wrong should be like proving fish breathe water.
2. You presented ONE poll out of the several polls listed on your article. Whether or not Wiki is accurate is irrelevant if you present lopsided information.
Jihadin wrote: Well. In a business sense. I see bringing back US troops from Europe (except Ramstein), Middle East (except Kuwait), Asia (most of the troops there), Bosnia and Kosovo, and Africa. Drawdown the additional brigades per Army division. A couple of carrier fleets get mothballed.
Seal the US borders from illegal immigration.
Increase NGP, oil and coal. Install solar farms in the desert, wind turbines and tidal turbines.
...that be a good start.
A good start that doesn't actually have a measurable impact on the economy and takes decades to do.
Mind you I'm probably no fun at all right now, spent about eight hours in a water park, I'm mildly sunburned and deeply sore, and it'll probably take at least one more shower before my hair gets back to being soft again.
Mind you I'm probably no fun at all right now, spent about eight hours in a water park, I'm mildly sunburned and deeply sore, and it'll probably take at least one more shower before my hair gets back to being soft again.
EIGHT hours at the h20 park! Daang... I'd be crispy by then...
3: i use big words because i do know the meaning of them, if you think i am using them wrong, you must not know their definition, and that is not my problem.
Really? The guy that can't be bothered to capitalize is going to pretend he has a superfluous grasp of the English language.
We should see something similar for Obama later on in the week.
Its Rasmussen, which has been tracking with a strong Romney lead the whole campaign. Most every poll is showing basically unchanged polling results before and after the convention, so there really hasn't been a bump. This is supported by the ratings for the convention, which were down about 30% on 2008.
It's kind of confirming the overall campaign story for both sides - static.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: But... the question is... do we even HAVE a formal fed budget?
Yes. You're getting confused with the failure to pass a new budget each year. When that happens you get spending capped at last year's budget, while various bits of spending have their sunset clauses cut off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote: IIRC for the last 3 years Congress has basically had 'continuing resolutions' which means keep doing what you did last year.
So basically a holding pattern rather than bold decisions, or indeed any decisions at all. And that comes back to the inability of the two parties to work together.
It's in part the inability to work together, but also because no-one wants to take ownership for the gak sandwich financial situation the federal government is in. Whichever party passed a budget that's halfway plausible would have to have a massive deficit, and then the other side could just hammer them over that deficit.
No congressman wants to go back to his district having voted for that. So instead you get continuing resolutions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.
Its one of the myths of that free market thing* politicians made up that regulation is automatically anti-business. Regulation and government authority is essential in ensuring market places work for both the consumer and the business. Think of standardising weights and measures. Think of how airlines work within a timetabling schedule set by government authority, so they don't have to keep in constant communication with other airlines to make sure they're not accidentally putting their planes in the same places at the same time.
And then look at the only banks in the world that maintained profits during the GFC - they're here in Australia. And they remained profitable because we put in place a regulatory authority that prevented the CDS that drove the financial collapse.
Regulation can be a restriction on business. Other times it can provide the framework to produce a competitive market that delivers for both business and the consumer. It really depends on the quality of regulation.
*I think many people fail to realise that the free market is not a concept in economics. It's a thing made up by politicians to justify no regulation. Economists talk about the perfect market, which is a concept that doesn't look for no regulation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jordanis wrote: so assuming ones that portrayed both sides can be counted as a half, 4.5 of the top 10 presidents were liberal with 5.5 being conservative, thats too close to say conservatives are better, but of the ones that owned businesses, 5.5 were conservative while 2.5 were liberal, thats a significant gap. more than double. also the top 7 owned their own business with only 2 not huffintonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/presidents-entrepreneurs_n_1684521.html) which is known to be extremely liberal in its views have posted that the worst presidents were entrepreneurs, but their "list" of presidents who ran business is even shorter than my list (compiled independantly of theirs) and skips over several conservative president entrepreneurs, in fact, it only seems to highlight 3 "bottom tier" presidends: Hoover (the man behind the hoover dam) and the 2 Bush's. with a list of only 9 presidents out of 44, of which at least 25 are known to have owned or managed a business. while i only focused on the top 10, they focused on the bottom, of which they failed to make a compelling argument. if you have anything to add to this, please do.
How is George Washington listed as a conservative? What in the nine shades of hell is conservative about leading a revolution and the building the world's first liberal democracy? Those are some really radical things to do.
Also, Hoover had little to do with the Hoover Dam. It was approved before his presidency, and completed after. It's name was a matter of considerable contraversy for some time, as it only became known as the Hoover Dam when a Hoover appointee started calling it such, without any approval from any government naming agency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: The only people that should ever be saving money are households, a business should be reinvesting profits and a gov should either reduce taxes or increase spending if they are running a surplus.
No. Who told you that?
First up, reinvesting profits is saving - it's building up equity. The alternative is paying a dividend.
And yes, governments should run surpluses. They should do this to build up funds so that when economic times are poor they can run deficits. And they should also run surpluses in periods of high economic activity to take heat off the economy - when demand exceeds the productive capacity of the economy you get excessive price inflation and importing, and having tax revenue greater than expenditure can reduce that.
jordanis wrote: 2: wikipedia is only considered an innacurate because SOME documents can be altered, many of the more controversial topics are locked and my only be edited by wikipedia employees
Point of fact; there are no articles on Wikipedia that are only editable by employees of the Wikimedia foundation (that I'm aware of, anyway).
I presume what you are talking about is a protected page, recognizable by the lock in the top right: these are generally locked to prevent non-registered users from altering a page. So, anyone with an internet connection and who is willing a few minutes registering an account may still edit these pages. The lock is to discourage casual vandalism.
The only pages that have the kind of protection you state - only editable by Wikimedia Administration - are templates used for articles and banned users, not articles proper. Allowing these to be edited by edited by non-savvy may break large chunks of the site itself; the protection is for technical reasons, rather then editorial control.
I would like to point out that Wikipedia does have an accuracy rate comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica, so people really should respect it as a source.
youbedead wrote: I would like to point out that Wikipedia does have an accuracy rate comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica, so people really should respect it as a source.
Because it's the most edited info source it means it also the most corrected info source on the web besides if you doubt Wikipedia's sources you can always check the links at the bottom or compare it with a similar article from an other site to see if there's much variance on the info.
youbedead wrote: I would like to point out that Wikipedia does have an accuracy rate comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica, so people really should respect it as a source.
I find myself doubting that. It's one thing to be factually correct, it's another to be a rich source of information. The articles on Wiki might have a good rate of accuracy, but as a source of information, the content really isn't the same as Encyclopedia Britannica.
I could have replaced a few of my university courses by lectures on EB and would have obtained the exact same amount and quality of information.
Wikipedia could've done the same for only one course, Descartes. Every other one I've checked (I make killer 40+ pages notes doc ) weren't worth the read.
youbedead wrote: I would like to point out that Wikipedia does have an accuracy rate comparable to the Encyclopedia Britannica, so people really should respect it as a source.
I find myself doubting that. It's one thing to be factually correct, it's another to be a rich source of information. The articles on Wiki might have a good rate of accuracy, but as a source of information, the content really isn't the same as Encyclopedia Britannica.
I could have replaced a few of my university courses by lectures on EB and would have obtained the exact same amount and quality of information.
Wikipedia could've done the same for only one course, Descartes. Every other one I've checked (I make killer 40+ pages notes doc ) weren't worth the read.
Absolutely, I was only commenting on the factual accuracy of it. Saying 'you got that from wiki so it must be wrong' is a fallacious argument
And then look at the only banks in the world that maintained profits during the GFC - they're here in Australia. And they remained profitable because we put in place a regulatory authority that prevented the CDS that drove the financial collapse.
And then look at the only banks in the world that maintained profits during the GFC - they're here in Australia. And they remained profitable because we put in place a regulatory authority that prevented the CDS that drove the financial collapse.
Swedbank is an Australian company?
The Canadian Banks would like to disagree with you as well. We did just fine thanks.
Ahtman wrote: How is a 1999 cover listed as the original music video? If you're going to bring the Styx you must actually get Styx! Accept no substitute.
Frazzled wrote: 5 year plans were a definite USSR thing. more tractor factories Comrade! And now I shall drink some vodka...
Having a 5 year plan was a hallmark of many marxist revolutionary governments. Notably they still exist in China, the one remaining proven test case for a planned economy. A 5 year plan is relatively useless in a democracy as there is no way to keep the legislative process on that sort of time frame and no guarantee that anything written in the plan can move through the legislature.
Frazzled wrote: 5 year plans were a definite USSR thing. more tractor factories Comrade! And now I shall drink some vodka...
Having a 5 year plan was a hallmark of many marxist revolutionary governments. Notably they still exist in China, the one remaining proven test case for a planned economy. A 5 year plan is relatively useless in a democracy as there is no way to keep the legislative process on that sort of time frame and no guarantee that anything written in the plan can move through the legislature.
Plus without all the flags and parade of tanks and tractors its not nearly as epic kewl.
Frazzled wrote: 5 year plans were a definite USSR thing. more tractor factories Comrade! And now I shall drink some vodka...
Having a 5 year plan was a hallmark of many marxist revolutionary governments. Notably they still exist in China, the one remaining proven test case for a planned economy. A 5 year plan is relatively useless in a democracy as there is no way to keep the legislative process on that sort of time frame and no guarantee that anything written in the plan can move through the legislature.
Plus without all the flags and parade of tanks and tractors its not nearly as epic kewl.
We still do a lot of parades with our fleet. Supercarriers are pretty boss.
Wait, people claim that socialism/communism doesn't work while at the same time claiming that the guys with the 5-year plans have a better economy than ours?
Frazzled wrote: 5 year plans were a definite USSR thing. more tractor factories Comrade! And now I shall drink some vodka...
Having a 5 year plan was a hallmark of many marxist revolutionary governments. Notably they still exist in China, the one remaining proven test case for a planned economy. A 5 year plan is relatively useless in a democracy as there is no way to keep the legislative process on that sort of time frame and no guarantee that anything written in the plan can move through the legislature.
Plus without all the flags and parade of tanks and tractors its not nearly as epic kewl.
We still do a lot of parades with our fleet. Supercarriers are pretty boss.
Wait, people claim that socialism/communism doesn't work while at the same time claiming that the guys with the 5-year plans have a better economy than ours?
Yes, welcome to being a republican. You just sort of ignore the fact that the party platform doesn't make sense and is purely contrarian.
Frazzled wrote: 5 year plans were a definite USSR thing. more tractor factories Comrade! And now I shall drink some vodka...
Having a 5 year plan was a hallmark of many marxist revolutionary governments. Notably they still exist in China, the one remaining proven test case for a planned economy. A 5 year plan is relatively useless in a democracy as there is no way to keep the legislative process on that sort of time frame and no guarantee that anything written in the plan can move through the legislature.
Plus without all the flags and parade of tanks and tractors its not nearly as epic kewl.
We still do a lot of parades with our fleet. Supercarriers are pretty boss.
True that. But there's something about a long line of lumbering T-55s to make one start belting out the Soviet anthem, drinking copious amounts of vodka, and invading Berlin. "is that a IS-2 in your pocket Comrade or are you just glad to see me?"
Communism is very good at jump starting an economy but it is unsustainable in the long term, just in the same that a pure capitalist economy is unsustainable
youbedead wrote: Communism is very good at jump starting an economy but it is unsustainable in the long term, just in the same that a pure capitalist economy is unsustainable
Communism works quite the opposite. It almost universally destroys the economy of the state or community where it is implemented. There are case scenarios where it succeeded, but that's more attributable to the controlled embrace of the industrial revolution by an agrarian society as happened in both the Soviet Union and later China. Logically the redistribution of wealth (which doesn't occur without overall loss in wealth) in a poor country results in an overall reduction of wealth and a multi year recessionary period as new economic policies are implemented and take effect. There is no case scenario of an already wealthy country turning to communist or collectivist policies, and no case scenario of a poor country turning to communism and having its economy subsequently "improved". Chinas economy didn't recover until they embraced limited free trade and a totalitarian economic model that is certainly not collectivist. The soviet union collapsed.
Jihadin wrote: They still hold a massive parade in Moscow every year by the military. Think our last US military ticket tape parade was after the first Gulf War.
I demand abrams rolling down penn ave and f-18s overhead playing "America:F*** Yeah" followed by our troops in extra fancy uniforms
Jihadin wrote: They still hold a massive parade in Moscow every year by the military. Think our last US military ticket tape parade was after the first Gulf War.
I demand abrams rolling down penn ave and f-18s overhead playing "America:F*** Yeah" followed by our troops in extra fancy uniforms
\m/ yeah!
We sorta do this... at sporting events we'll see the f-18s flying overhead or even the B-2 bombers!
Jihadin wrote: They still hold a massive parade in Moscow every year by the military. Think our last US military ticket tape parade was after the first Gulf War.
I demand abrams rolling down penn ave and f-18s overhead playing "America:F*** Yeah" followed by our troops in extra fancy uniforms
\m/ yeah!
We sorta do this... at sporting events we'll see the f-18s flying overhead or even the B-2 bombers!
Don't we do major Naval exercises every year???
at the very least i want gladiatorial games fought in the white house lawn
Ahtman wrote: How is a 1999 cover listed as the original music video? If you're going to bring the Styx you must actually get Styx! Accept no substitute.
YouTube is a cesspool of idiocy. never believe anything in a title there...
"Official" there is like "Pro Painted!!!11" on Ebay.
Jihadin wrote: They still hold a massive parade in Moscow every year by the military. Think our last US military ticket tape parade was after the first Gulf War.
I demand abrams rolling down penn ave and f-18s overhead playing "America:F*** Yeah" followed by our troops in extra fancy uniforms
\m/ yeah!
We sorta do this... at sporting events we'll see the f-18s flying overhead or even the B-2 bombers!
Don't we do major Naval exercises every year???
at the very least i want gladiatorial games fought in the white house lawn
There's a movement for the USMC to remove their sponsership in the UFC. I've done Division change of commands numerous of times....I've no desire to march down some street unless I'm paid TDY.
But but but but Sweden is under the thrall of godless socialism and if it isn't a third world country than maybe socialism is sometimes good? What about the godless part? Can that be good? I'm so confused, you guys, I'm so confused.
