Neither party represents the American people...

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » November 19, 2004, 10:57 pm

While republicans attacked dems for so long, saying we were all voting Kerry, because "anyone's better than Bush", it seems like you all did the very same thing. It seems many of you voted for Bush because you wanted anyone but Kerry.

Are we all in the same boat? Did we all just not like the opposing candidate so much that we voted for "the other guy"? If so, something is truly fucked with our 2 party system. We should not be given a choice between the lesser of two evils, but rather a choice of the greatest person out of a handful of great men and women.

I believe Americans have been screwed out of a good leader. I'm a liberal independant and I probably would have voted for McCain over Kerry, because he is true republican, and an honest, thinking man. I saw neither of our candidates as honest men, but more of trophy idols of our increasingly repugnant two party system.

Everyday Americans are not being represented. Both sides are being dominated by religion, corporations, and lobbyists. Christians and corporations obviously have the Republicans by the balls. Corporations also have Democrats by the balls, and Democrats overall are trying to appeal to everyone, without representing their loyal base on many issues.

Why are we suprised that our country is so divided? What better way to keep our country divided than to keep us all into two parties that are dominated not by indivual and independent thought, but by corporations, religions, and other lobbyists?

To me I think drastic change needs to happen. We need to unify, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans who have indepent thoughts and ideals and should be aligned with parties that best represent those ideals.

Plain and simple: One way or another, the two party system needs to go.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 19, 2004, 10:59 pm

The challenge is that only one candidate can even try to be moderate. To separate themselves they have to oppose each other on the key issues of the day, regardless of personal conviction. If both candidates were moderate neither would have a solid base and it'd be just a popularity/feel good/who looks better on camera election.

There's more sure, but I think that's a big part.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 19, 2004, 11:04 pm

You are never going to find a candidate who is a 100% match, but I can honestly say that Bush is a 90% match for me with the exceptions bring abortion and stem cell research. I feel just fine with the rest.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » November 19, 2004, 11:21 pm

So you agree with his economic policy? You agree that there should be no economic balance in place? It's ok to spend more than ever while cutting taxes? Guess yer not a conservative in a fiscal way, because Bush certainly does not represent the majority of conservatives when it comes to the economy. Maybe you will care when we have to start paying off this debt and the US dollar continues losing value, which Greenspan is already warning us of.

You like that he's given illegal immigrants an opportunity to take jobs from US citizens for political gain? Or did you not notice the huge jump hispanic Bush supporters since he put that policy in place. (biggest flipflop ever btw)

You don't mind that he's also sending jobs overseas so corporations don't have to pay minimum wage to Americans who need jobs, and instead can pay Indians and Pakistanis 50 cents an hour, while they lay people off here in the states?

Do you just think our economy is invincible or protected by God or what? It WILL come back and kick us in the ass if we let Bush continue to fuck over our economy.

These should be worries of a conservative republican. But apparently a narrow sense of "values" is more important.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 20, 2004, 12:01 am

Rekaar. wrote:The challenge is that only one candidate can even try to be moderate. To separate themselves they have to oppose each other on the key issues of the day, regardless of personal conviction. If both candidates were moderate neither would have a solid base and it'd be just a popularity/feel good/who looks better on camera election.

There's more sure, but I think that's a big part.

I don't think that you are giving the American people enough credit, which is unusual for you. In Britain, the Tory and Labour party had converging courses leading to a moderate centre. However, one party was still able to establish dominance without resorting to extreme platforms. Both parties now fight on the central field rather than forcing an unnatural polarization. Politicians should not resort to fearmongering to win their votes, and there are many countries that support political parties that are successful without doing so.

If one were to remove the sensitive topics and draw two moderate candidates, perhaps the American electorate could focus on the quality of their proposals to run the country, the content of their economic plans, and the details that so often ellude us in modern elections.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » November 20, 2004, 11:06 am

Absolute power corrupts absolutely =/ Although I think you have a great point Kev.

in terms of whoever was 90% behind Bush......fair play to you, I just guess it is down to how tolerant you are that hundreds of thousands of people die (in your name) whilst squandering the stockpiles of finance that you worked so hard for whilst alienating yourselves from the world whilst enjoying a pretend monarchy in the form of a retarded North Eastern family pretending to be from Texas.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 20, 2004, 1:32 pm

Welcome to the world Keverian, I think I am going to cry.

http://www.lp.org

Thanks for waking up!!!

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » November 20, 2004, 2:32 pm

Teenybloke wrote:Absolute power corrupts absolutely =/ Although I think you have a great point Kev.

in terms of whoever was 90% behind Bush......fair play to you, I just guess it is down to how tolerant you are that hundreds of thousands of people die (in your name) whilst squandering the stockpiles of finance that you worked so hard for whilst alienating yourselves from the world whilst enjoying a pretend monarchy in the form of a retarded North Eastern family pretending to be from Texas.

Thank you so much, Teeny, for realizing that the Bush clan are not really from Texas.

Not that a lot of this state isn't behind him, but there are actually pretty fair numbers here that aren't.

In a way, I agree with Kev here. I always have seen myself as fiscally conservative, but socially somewhat liberal. I believe firmly that the government should make no laws at all with respect to any religious beliefs unless a consensus on the subject can be made by scientists, theologians and philospohers (i.e. - when does life actually begin in the womb - until there is a general consensus on this matter, leave it the hell out of law). I believe in responsible government spending and in letting people opt to manage their own retirements. I believe in small federal government - but I also feel rather strongly about what should be included within that small government. I believe that government should be about maintaining freedoms, not limiting them.

I also believe in the right of all of my fellow citizens to enjoy equal treatment and protection under the law. There are, according to the Bill of Rights, certain freedoms that we all have as human beings in this country - not just as citizens, and certainly not just as <i>straight</i> citizens. I feel it utterly shameful that we are the only industrialized world power that provides no real healthcare option to it's citizenry. Is straight-up socialized healthcare the answer? No, not really - but there is a vast world between government run hospitals and HMO-driven healthcare that we need to explore.

I believe that our government spends too much money, and spends on things of little or no lasting value. How much money have we spent on abortion issues? How much on weapons programs, on junk science (i.e. commissioned studies by industry biased scientists to debunk things like the dangers of smoking, global warming, air pollution hazards, etc). How much money have we spend slinging mud at the other side of the political aisle, or looking into Janet Jackson's tit? On the war against drugs? We should cut back spending, but spend on things that last. We should focus on spending what money we do spend to make our country a better place for our children and their children. Environemntal issues, healthcare, viable mass-transit systems, science, and global integration.

I reject Keynesian and "trickle down" economics. They just don't work, and it's sad to me that they have become the core economic dogma of the Republican party since Reagan. Study after study after study has shown that the top quintile *doesn't* pump enough of that extra money back into the economy - they hoard it.

I believe in wholesale welfare reform and tort reform - the systems are too easily abused, and our welfare system bleeds money like a stuck pig. I do believe in the death penalty for *certain* crimes, not as an "eye for an eye," but as a deterrent. ...though I do waffle some on that one, it's a tricky topic for me to navigate personally.

I beleive that there should be certain limits imposed on capitalism. Our GINI index for a nation of our status is absolutely horrid. We have the worst wealth distribution disparity of any industrialized nation. I'm not saying socialism, but there do need to be some limits...caps...I don't know. All I do know is that there is *too* much of a wealth gap and it needs to close badly. If you're not familiar with the historical sociopolitical effects of a GINI index comparable to ours, I suggest Googling it. It's an eye-opener, for sure. We need to allow employees to unionize, and we need more workers' rights. America is rapidly losing its middle class, and the middle class is largely what drives a healthy economy and a happy labor pool. We work more hours for less pay, fewer benefits, and less vacation time per annum than almost any other nation, and we have no forum through which to demand improvements.

I believe in doing away with the electoral college. It's an outmoded and outdated idea, and serves no real purpose in a modern context. Let the popular vote count, and politicians will be forced to focus on the people, not on swing states that have disproportionate amounts of electoral votes.

So in short, I have no political party that currently speaks to me. There was a time when my views would be considered rather Republican, but not anymore. However, I also don't quite align with much of the Democratic party, though they are becoming more and more centrist. I find it amusing when Bush accused Kerry of being on the far left bank of the mainstream. Purely in terms of their espoused political views, Kerry was far more centrist than Bush. Such a turn of words was really just clever framing - by portraying the more centrist candidate as far left, the somewhat rightist candidate is then seen as centrist by comparison.

To sum me up in a nutshell:

Big government spending = bad
Government involvement in my personal life = bad
Government spending on useless shit = bad
Environmental initiatives = good
Science = good
Welfare = needs overhaul
Healthcare = good
Manage my own retirement = good
Absolutely unfettered capitalism = bad
True socialism = also bad
GINI index in the 40's = *very* *very* bad
war on drugs = too damned costly for too little reward. Why the hell is pot illegal, anyway?
Legistlation of any sort of religion or morality = bad, bad, bad
Big military = sure, but let's try to keep it reasonable and domestic, mkay? No hairbrained and expensive SDI or tactical nuke plans, and no unwarranted invasions.
Keynesian and TDE = bad
Boosting the middle class = good

I long for a good candidate.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » November 20, 2004, 2:33 pm

Welcome to your 20's Keverian ... things become more fucked up in your 30's, but you become numb to it.

Grats.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » November 20, 2004, 2:33 pm

wow. i didn't *quite* mean to ramble so much, it just sorta happened. it's early.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 20, 2004, 3:18 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:So you agree with his economic policy? You agree that there should be no economic balance in place? It's ok to spend more than ever while cutting taxes? Guess yer not a conservative in a fiscal way, because Bush certainly does not represent the majority of conservatives when it comes to the economy. Maybe you will care when we have to start paying off this debt and the US dollar continues losing value, which Greenspan is already warning us of.

You like that he's given illegal immigrants an opportunity to take jobs from US citizens for political gain? Or did you not notice the huge jump hispanic Bush supporters since he put that policy in place. (biggest flipflop ever btw)

You don't mind that he's also sending jobs overseas so corporations don't have to pay minimum wage to Americans who need jobs, and instead can pay Indians and Pakistanis 50 cents an hour, while they lay people off here in the states?

Do you just think our economy is invincible or protected by God or what? It WILL come back and kick us in the ass if we let Bush continue to fuck over our economy.

These should be worries of a conservative republican. But apparently a narrow sense of "values" is more important.

I agree 100% with his economic policy. Kerry wanted to subsidize companies for keeping jobs in the US. This is economic suicide. The best way to foster growth in an economy is to cut taxes and give people the means to create new wealth. Frankly, cutting taxes to the people who are creating new jobs (yes, the wealthy) is smart.

You cannot manhandle the American Economy. If you had studied economics (you obviously have not), you would know that subsidies are very bad. Look at the numbers. Programmers in Inida are paid 1/3 of what they are in the US. You would have to create MANY billions of dollars to surpass that difference.

It makes perfect sense that if person A is willing to work for X and person B is willing to work for 3X, hire person A. Over time, this difference will flatten, but the person who is still making money is the person who is hiring person A. Here is a hint. . .be that person.

I am a huge believer in free trade. This extends past commodities and into jobs. The people who will make money are the people who are smart enough and brave enough to start something on their own or the people who are so good that no one in India can compete.

You are not going to fix our economy by Subsidizing domestic jobs, you will absolutely ruin it.

As for the Federal deficit, I absolutely do not like it, but I absolutely support the tax cuts. What people need to realize is that it was not a good thing when the economy was running a surplus. Surplus = waste in economics. You need to use that money to build the economy. Iraq hurt economically, no doubt, but the theory to spend the surplus is the correct decision and it was done the correct way.

If the US was a corporation, surplus is fine (look at Microsoft), but surplus in a government agency means we are taxing too much and that money should be in the hands of the people who will build the economy (us), instead of sitting in a vault somewhere growing old.

Ultimately, the only correct way to fix the deficit is to grow commercial tax dollars (imports, sales tax, income tax). The way you grow these things is to foster growth in the economy. It cannot be done overnight, but we are seeing it every single month right now. So. . .yes. I would say I support the president's economic policy 10000%. If you really understood economics, so would you.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 20, 2004, 3:38 pm

If you really understood economics Avestan you would want that surplus paying down your debt. The US' huge national debt, huge trade defecit and huge budget defecit is reaching the point where it will be impossible to reverse course.

Hello, you are going bankrupt. Remember the USSR?

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 20, 2004, 3:45 pm

Forthe wrote:If you really understood economics Avestan you would want that surplus paying down your debt. The US' huge national debt, huge trade defecit and huge budget defecit is reaching the point where it will be impossible to reverse course.

Hello, you are going bankrupt. Remember the USSR?

. . .you would want the surplus to pay down the debt. . .that statement makes zero sense. You cannot have surplus and debt at the same time. You can have surplus and a deficit at the same time. . .is that what you meant?

We are nowhere close to the where the USSR was. Not even in the same ballpark.

What confuses me is that Democrats seem to want to subsidize domestic jobs and fix the deficit and the do not realize that item one is a GIGANTIC cost and works completely counter to item 2.

The economy is improving every month and the deficit and will improve with it. I do agree that we need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible (once it is safe to do so) because Iraq is a drain on the economy. I do suppurt us being in Iraq, but there is a cost not just in human lives but also in money to being there. I believe that cost is justified, but it is a cost nonetheless.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 20, 2004, 3:59 pm

I think that subsidizing domestic jobs (aka 'combatting outsourcing') is a point of rhetoric for the democratic party, not one of policy. Kind of like abortion for the republicans. Most democrats pay lip service to outsourcing concerns, while being fully aware that it's not something that they really could, or should, change. I didn't expect Kerry to do jack shit about it.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 20, 2004, 4:03 pm

Sueven wrote:I think that subsidizing domestic jobs (aka 'combatting outsourcing') is a point of rhetoric for the democratic party, not one of policy. Kind of like abortion for the republicans. Most democrats pay lip service to outsourcing concerns, while being fully aware that it's not something that they really could, or should, change. I didn't expect Kerry to do jack shit about it.

It was very much policy for the Kerry campaign. I don't how much more democratic you can get.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 20, 2004, 4:09 pm

Pro Civil Rights, Freedom of Speech, Thought, Religious Beliefs, Womens right to choose, Spending on R&D, Flat Tax, Strong Defense

Anti Deficit Spending, War on Drugs, Tax looholes, Welfare for Life

Makes me a liberal Republican, or an ultra conservative Democrat, The Republicans think i am an evil pro pot, babykiller, and the dems think I am an evil Stormtrooper wanting to take away things they think they are entitled to. I have never met a single human being who was actually by platform a true republican or a true democrat who was not a mindless asswipe.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 20, 2004, 4:11 pm

Avestan wrote:It was very much policy for the Kerry campaign. I don't how much more democratic you can get.

And environmental protections were policy for Bush's first campaign. Doesn't mean anyone's going to do shit about it when they actually get into office.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 20, 2004, 4:32 pm

Sueven wrote:
Avestan wrote:It was very much policy for the Kerry campaign. I don't how much more democratic you can get.
And environmental protections were policy for Bush's first campaign. Doesn't mean anyone's going to do shit about it when they actually get into office.

The difference is that Kerry used this as one of his cornerstone points, not just a sideline event.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » November 20, 2004, 4:50 pm

You might be right; it's hard to know exactly what actions he would have taken. It just strikes me that "outsourcing" is one of those political phrases (like 'terrorists' or 'flip-flopper') that provokes a negative reaction without any logic or context. Words like these hold special power in politics because it is very difficult for a politician to speak in such a way that in any way aligns themselves with such negative concepts. The word 'terrorist' was a great one for Bush, as it was difficult for Kerry to suggest alternatives to the Bush plan without appearing weaker or more sympathetic in regard to terrorism. Bush and his allies could then pose black-and-white questions like "which candidate is more firmly against terrorism? do you want your family to be safe?"

The Democrats try to take advantage of the term 'outsourcing' in the same way. Mosts economists agree that "outsourcing," in the sense that we mean it, is not a real problem. However, because it involves people losing their jobs (and especially people losing their jobs to foreigners) it's very emotionally charged. The democrats can easily blame the republicans for giving away American jobs, regardless of how nonsensical such a charge is.

If Kerry had won, the right-wing rhetoric about being sensitive and sympathetic toward terrorists would have been proven to be nothing but empty rhetoric. At the same time, the left-wing rhetoric that he would magically stop American jobs from moving to India while still maintaining the health of the economy would have been revealed as rhetoric as well. Whenever a candidate wins an election, the lies which surround him from all sides lose their usefulness and fall away.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 20, 2004, 5:06 pm

Avestan wrote:
Forthe wrote:If you really understood economics Avestan you would want that surplus paying down your debt. The US' huge national debt, huge trade defecit and huge budget defecit is reaching the point where it will be impossible to reverse course.

Hello, you are going bankrupt. Remember the USSR?
. . .you would want the surplus to pay down the debt. . .that statement makes zero sense. You cannot have surplus and debt at the same time. You can have surplus and a deficit at the same time. . .is that what you meant?

We are nowhere close to the where the USSR was. Not even in the same ballpark.

Budget deficit ~$500 billion
Nation debt soon to break $8 trillion

You cannot have a deficit and a surplus at the same time, hi they are opposites. You had a surplus in the 90s, you still had a large debt. Running a deficit increases your debt, running a surplus allows you to pay down debt (if you so choose). This really isn't complicated stuff, I would expect someone as (self proclaimed) knowledgable about economics as yourself to understand these basic concepts.

Check out US GDP vs national debt over the last 20 years, debt is growing much faster than GDP not just percentage wise but in real dollars. The US is running a debt of almost %80 GDP with no signs of reversing the trend. But politicians very rarely mention the national debt and it seems most americans are not really aware of it, they only ever hear of budget deficits which are not that alarming when you don't notice the 800lb gorilla that deficit is feeding.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » November 20, 2004, 5:07 pm

He never claimed he could stop outsourcing. He clearly stated in one of the debates that outsourcing cannot be stopped, but that the government could reduce incentives for outsourcing and increase incentives for keeping jobs here.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » November 20, 2004, 7:01 pm

Welcome to the world Keverian, I think I am going to cry.

http://www.lp.org

Thanks for waking up!!!

I've been awake for a long time, thanks. Most of the policies im reading on their page seem motivated by the fact that they are just anal about their money. Maybe I got the wrong impression, but I was turned off pretty quickly by the site, so I don't think they are right for me. I Appreciate the link tho Kylere.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » November 20, 2004, 10:57 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:
Welcome to the world Keverian, I think I am going to cry.

http://www.lp.org

Thanks for waking up!!!
I've been awake for a long time, thanks. Most of the policies im reading on their page seem motivated by the fact that they are just anal about their money. Maybe I got the wrong impression, but I was turned off pretty quickly by the site, so I don't think they are right for me. I Appreciate the link tho Kylere.

You know what Kev, I felt the same way reading their site recently, but I think they took that angle as a political move, they really have a lot of deeper data, but like the Dems using X Y and Z as battle cries and Reps doing the same they had to have a front line attack.

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » November 20, 2004, 11:11 pm

You don't have a surplus, when you are paying $322 billion dollars a year just in INTEREST on your debt. The debt has been growing since the late 60's. So, unless you play by some interesting economic rules, we haven't really had a surplus since that time.

Or, to re-word it a bit. Your annual budget may show a surplus (ie. you took in more taxes than you spent). However, if you are running a debt of $7.4 trillion dollars, coming in $300 billion under budget is still $7.1 trillion in the hole.

I agree that tax cuts can promote growth. But, you can't cut taxes if you aren't also cutting spending by the same amount (or more in our case). That's a Congress bash, not a Bush bash.

As for that GINI index, look how low Denmark is. Drolgin must be rich!

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » November 21, 2004, 12:43 am

Denmark actually has one of the higher standards of living and largest middle classes among industrialized nations. Must be nice.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » November 21, 2004, 2:02 pm

Arundel Pajo wrote:Denmark actually has one of the higher standards of living and largest middle classes among industrialized nations. Must be nice.

Sure, if you don't mind paying a 50+% income tax. I mind.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » November 21, 2004, 2:59 pm

Avestan wrote:
Arundel Pajo wrote:Denmark actually has one of the higher standards of living and largest middle classes among industrialized nations. Must be nice.
Sure, if you don't mind paying a 50+% income tax. I mind.

taxes are always subjective to the quality of life (comming from someone more fiscally right then left)

And for the record copenhagen was one of the cleanist, most modern, well rounded citys I have ever been too, it almost looks like its out of a godamn fantasy book (Although the quality of danish women might add to that

)

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » November 21, 2004, 5:04 pm

Avestan wrote:
Arundel Pajo wrote:Denmark actually has one of the higher standards of living and largest middle classes among industrialized nations. Must be nice.
Sure, if you don't mind paying a 50+% income tax. I mind.

Avestan.

As a small business owner, I fall in the highest tax bracket there is, regardless of what my actual net income for a given year is. Under the current administration, I have sat by while people on W2's got tax cuts and those of us on 1099's got stiff increases. I currently pay about 40% of my income in federal tax. Don't *even* bring up the "but they pay so much more" straw man.

You can balk all you want at paying 50%. If just under 10% more of my income going to the federal government will get me better roads, cleaner cities, safer streets, health care options, and good public higher education for my fuuture children....then I'm all for it. What does my 40% get me here? Healthcare? Nope. Higher education? Nope. Clean cities? Nope.

I look at what my 40% gets me here, and I look at what just under 50% gets me there, and yeah - I think they have the better model. It's less about how much you pay quantitatively than it is about what your money buys you.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 22, 2004, 12:49 am

Neroon wrote:You don't have a surplus, when you are paying $322 billion dollars a year just in INTEREST on your debt. The debt has been growing since the late 60's. So, unless you play by some interesting economic rules, we haven't really had a surplus since that time.

The debt isn't important really, paying the interest on the debt is a tiny portion of the US tax revenue. The debt is an investment of foreign dollars into an ever increasing US economy. Their investments have paid off nicely (except when Dems are in power for more than a few years). The deficit shows the current level of dependence on those investment dollars. We like to be as self-reliant as possible of course, so we want it to be better than it is. The key indicator is really GDP.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 22, 2004, 1:01 am

Rekaar. wrote:
Neroon wrote:You don't have a surplus, when you are paying $322 billion dollars a year just in INTEREST on your debt. The debt has been growing since the late 60's. So, unless you play by some interesting economic rules, we haven't really had a surplus since that time.
The debt isn't important really, paying the interest on the debt is a tiny portion of the US tax revenue. The debt is an investment of foreign dollars into an ever increasing US economy. Their investments have paid off nicely (except when Dems are in power for more than a few years). The deficit shows the current level of dependence on those investment dollars. We like to be as self-reliant as possible of course, so we want it to be better than it is. The key indicator is really GDP.

Really... where DO you get this shit? Every other economist (on the planet) says that the US foreign debt is approaching critical mass, and you claim it's ... irrelevant?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 22, 2004, 1:13 am

Well since you quoted exactly what I said, maybe you could point out where I called it "irrelevant."

I'll use some other more apt adjectives for you though. It's not as important. Minor in the big picture. Not what we should focus on. Not the critical indicator.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 22, 2004, 1:52 am

Rekaar. wrote:Well since you quoted exactly what I said, maybe you could point out where I called it "irrelevant."

Okey dokey:

Entry: insignificant
Function: adjective
Definition: not important
Synonyms: bush, bush-league, casual, dinky, flimsy, fly speck, immaterial, inappreciable, inconsequential, inconsiderable, infinitesimal, irrelevant, lesser, light, lightweight, little, meager, meaningless, minim, minimal, minor, minor-league, minuscule, minute, negligible, nondescript, nonessential, nugatory, paltry, petty, pointless, purportless, scanty, secondary, senseless, shoestring, small, small beer, small-fry, small-time, trifling, trivial, unimportant, unsubstantial
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Rekkar. wrote:The debt isn't important really

Jules wrote:ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » November 22, 2004, 5:01 am

Rekaar. wrote:The debt isn't important really, paying the interest on the debt is a tiny portion of the US tax revenue.

Please back this up. What percentage of US tax revenue goes toward paying interest on the national debt?

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 22, 2004, 6:11 am

Avestan wrote:
Forthe wrote:If you really understood economics Avestan you would want that surplus paying down your debt. The US' huge national debt, huge trade defecit and huge budget defecit is reaching the point where it will be impossible to reverse course.

Hello, you are going bankrupt. Remember the USSR?
. . .you would want the surplus to pay down the debt. . .that statement makes zero sense. You cannot have surplus and debt at the same time. You can have surplus and a deficit at the same time. . .is that what you meant?

We are nowhere close to the where the USSR was. Not even in the same ballpark.

What confuses me is that Democrats seem to want to subsidize domestic jobs and fix the deficit and the do not realize that item one is a GIGANTIC cost and works completely counter to item 2.

The economy is improving every month and the deficit and will improve with it. I do agree that we need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible (once it is safe to do so) because Iraq is a drain on the economy. I do suppurt us being in Iraq, but there is a cost not just in human lives but also in money to being there. I believe that cost is justified, but it is a cost nonetheless.

Actually we have FAR FAR FAR more foreign debt that the USSR ever had. In fact, one of the reasons the USSR collapsed, when it did, is that they couldn't get foreign credit. If we keep moving in the direction we are now, we will become a bad credit risk and no longer able to get foreign credit either and collapse as well. While we are no doubt a more wealthy nation than the USSR was, that doesn't mean we're not outspending our means or on the road to bankruptcy. It doesn't matter how much you make if you spend more than that. You can't borrow money forever and, eventually, overspending catches up with you.

As an aside, my real issue with Bush's "outsourcing" of jobs is that he is subsidizing corporations to do it. While I understand that it makes a great deal of success to find the cheapest labor available I don't agree that we should allow corporations to use foreign subsidiaries as a tax loophole. Under the Bush tax code, corporations don't have to pay taxes on the profits of their foreign subsidiaries unless they repatriate the funds. I do think the reverse would be equally as bad.

Oh, by the way, hate to break it to some of you, but cutting taxes and increasing government spending is the textbook reaction to a recession for a supply-side (trickle-down) economist. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it's actually a well accepted strategy. The basic theory is that the more currency there is in circulation, the more economic activity there will be. If done correctly it really shouldn't increase deficit spending much if at all. I think part of the problem we're experiencing with Bush's growing deficit is that whoever is making economic decisions in the administration doesn't understand the Laffer Curve.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 22, 2004, 7:29 am

Karae wrote: Oh, by the way, hate to break it to some of you, but cutting taxes and increasing government spending is the textbook reaction to a recession for a supply-side (trickle-down) economist. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it's actually a well accepted strategy. The basic theory is that the more currency there is in circulation, the more economic activity there will be. If done correctly it really shouldn't increase deficit spending much if at all. I think part of the problem we're experiencing with Bush's growing deficit is that whoever is making economic decisions in the administration doesn't understand the Laffer Curve.

Accepted by who? I thought Reaganomics were roundly dismissed by the great weight of economists as just an excuse to cash up the rich. And here's a picture http://www.rationalrevolution.net/trickle_down.htm (and a lot of words)

Rasspotari · Post by **Rasspotari** » November 22, 2004, 11:03 am

Avestan wrote:
Arundel Pajo wrote:Denmark actually has one of the higher standards of living and largest middle classes among industrialized nations. Must be nice.
Sure, if you don't mind paying a 50+% income tax. I mind.

heh

you make me giggle at stupid people.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » November 22, 2004, 5:42 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Karae wrote: Oh, by the way, hate to break it to some of you, but cutting taxes and increasing government spending is the textbook reaction to a recession for a supply-side (trickle-down) economist. I know it sounds counter-intuitive but it's actually a well accepted strategy. The basic theory is that the more currency there is in circulation, the more economic activity there will be. If done correctly it really shouldn't increase deficit spending much if at all. I think part of the problem we're experiencing with Bush's growing deficit is that whoever is making economic decisions in the administration doesn't understand the Laffer Curve.
Accepted by who? I thought Reaganomics were roundly dismissed by the great weight of economists as just an excuse to cash up the rich. And here's a picture http://www.rationalrevolution.net/trickle_down.htm (and a lot of words)

Hey I never said that I agreed with it, just that it's the textbook move by supply-siders.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » November 23, 2004, 1:25 am

Zaelath wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:Well since you quoted exactly what I said, maybe you could point out where I called it "irrelevant."
Okey dokey:

Entry: insignificant
Function: adjective
Definition: not important
Synonyms: bush, bush-league, casual, dinky, flimsy, fly speck, immaterial, inappreciable, inconsequential, inconsiderable, infinitesimal, irrelevant, lesser, light, lightweight, little, meager, meaningless, minim, minimal, minor, minor-league, minuscule, minute, negligible, nondescript, nonessential, nugatory, paltry, petty, pointless, purportless, scanty, secondary, senseless, shoestring, small, small beer, small-fry, small-time, trifling, trivial, unimportant, unsubstantial
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.5)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Rekkar. wrote:The debt isn't important really

Jules wrote:ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?

so according to you, small beer = senseless and bush = casual

YOU FUCKING IDIOT A SYNONYM IS NOT A DEFINITION.

Do you just not have the dignity to admit it when you're being a dumbass?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » November 23, 2004, 1:40 am

Rekaar. wrote: so according to you, small beer = senseless and bush = casual

YOU FUCKING IDIOT A SYNONYM IS NOT A DEFINITION.

Do you just not have the dignity to admit it when you're being a dumbass?

In the context you used "isn't important", you could easily substitute "irrelevant". Your attempt to discredit the fact because you're a pig headed douche bag by using longbow synonyms doesn't hold water.

Though I do admit it's quite funny when a fucktard calls a pedant a dumbass because they simply clarified how their paraphrasing of a post was legitimate, as requested.

I look forward to your next incoherent rambling.