Is Obama our savior, our Messiah? Or is it just an Obama cult?

[quote name='looploop']Your signature is a broken link, so you know. Unless it simply hasn't finished uploading.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for letting me know. It keeps getting removed from google video. I fixed it though. Hope you have an hour to spare.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You can, on your own, go to Obama's website and read his platform for himself. Don't expect to see you first two standards being met, of course - I'm sure you're non-affiliated, but asking how a Democrat is going to reduce the size of federal government is a loaded question coming from a right-leaning person.

hell, even Neal Boortz think's he's nonpartisan, for what that's worth. ;)[/QUOTE]

I may be a right leaning person, I don't know though. I've taken multiple online political placement quizzes and no shit, I always end up very neutral. I answer some questions very right wing extreme, and others very left wing liberal extreme. I'm a lost puppy, politically.

I am pretty certain in saying that I think I'm pretty libertarian socially, though.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Is this whole board this left leaning or it just that this thread is about Obama?

Seriously, I am non-affiliated with any party. So someone please explain to me Obama's plans to lower my taxes, reduce the size of government, and turn around the economy - and I'll try to look past all the gushing platitudes from his speeches and consider him someone worth voting for.[/quote]

Yeah, it pretty much a liberal Obama love-fest around here. But hey, living in LA, I'm used to being outnumbered 50:1 on my political views.

Based on Obama's proposals, he will not reduce spending nor will he decrease the size of gov't. Consequently, he will need to raise taxes to pay for his spending. It's a simple equation.

He believes that government is an instrumental part of solving our problems. I believe that government is a large part of the program. The IRS and federal reserve are illegal and secretive constructs based on loose interpretations and modifications to the Constitution. Both need to be abolished... these should be the core issues... Our economy is based on artificial paper money and declining production on our shore. And no such production of goods on our soil will ever succeed as long as there is strong one-sided trade with the orient in which goods are produced at slave labor costs. This ostensibly lowers costs of goods in America while simultaneously selling out our future and sharing technology with potential enemies.

Unfortunately, more people seem to care when Obama blows his nose and focus on smoke screens set up by the media.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I may be a right leaning person, I don't know though. I've taken multiple online political placement quizzes and no shit, I always end up very neutral. I answer some questions very right wing extreme, and others very left wing liberal extreme. I'm a lost puppy, politically.

I am pretty certain in saying that I think I'm pretty libertarian socially, though.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough - a "Schwarzeneggerian" Republican, perhaps? ;)
 
Look, i was on the Ron Paul let's abolish the IRS train for a while too. Lets be realistic though, it isn't going to happen, at least anytime soon. To think otherwise is just being unrealistic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...You can, on your own, go to Obama's website and read his platform for himself...[/QUOTE]

I did, and it's a Socialist's paradise. Let Papa Obama take care of everything.
 
Lovely. Now any policy or philosophy that doesn't capitulate to the whims of the free market is "socialism."

Wanting to repeal NAFTA is socialism as well, apparently.

Christ.
 
[quote name='BigT']Yeah, it pretty much a liberal Obama love-fest around here. But hey, living in LA, I'm used to being outnumbered 50:1 on my political views.

Based on Obama's proposals, he will not reduce spending nor will he decrease the size of gov't. Consequently, he will need to raise taxes to pay for his spending. It's a simple equation.

He believes that government is an instrumental part of solving our problems. I believe that government is a large part of the program. The IRS and federal reserve are illegal and secretive constructs based on loose interpretations and modifications to the Constitution. Both need to be abolished... these should be the core issues... Our economy is based on artificial paper money and declining production on our shore. And no such production of goods on our soil will ever succeed as long as there is strong one-sided trade with the orient in which goods are produced at slave labor costs. This ostensibly lowers costs of goods in America while simultaneously selling out our future and sharing technology with potential enemies.

Unfortunately, more people seem to care when Obama blows his nose and focus on smoke screens set up by the media.[/QUOTE]

Finally someone in here I can agree with. I am really frustrated this election. I see three people: I see Communism light, I see a Socialist and I see a 90's liberal pretending he's not. What's a lil boy to do?

[quote name='mykvermin']So then, tell me - how is the free market going to fix the housing crisis? [/quote]

I don't understand the housing crisis quite enough to give you a solution. But I do know that a government bailout scenario is not the answer. The housing crisis (and failing economy in general) are side effects of massive overspending and essentially selling much of our economy to foreign entities.

I'm more and more hoping that come November there is a space on the ballot that says "Government reset" - Since I am not seeing any real good answers, candidates or solutions to most of the problems.
 
What does "government reset" mean, though? That's just another bumper sticker slogan which is impossible. Unless you have some genuine ideas as to what that means, I think it's just an empty slogan that means "man am I just fed up."

Can we just print enough money to get out of debt?

As for the globalization of the economy and how that's harmed the US, I don't know if you're referring to the growth of overseas labor or borrowing of money from foreign wealth in order to pay for out deficit spending, but the former is most certainly the result of the free market and government letting businesses do what they want (let's not fool ourselves: even though NAFTA happened on Clinton's watch, it is an *immensely* conservative, pro-business and pro-laissez fair economic policy. There's nothing liberal about NAFTA at all).

The latter is a big problem indeed - and we can look at the fact that the bulk of our nation's debt was culled on the watches of Reagan and both Bushes - and realize that this is not a problem that can realistically be attributed to "tax and spend liberals."
 
What the fuck? Look, there are some damn good conservatives on here, but what's with the "I still live in the Cold War!" thing going on with so many?
 
Blithering in dichotomies are easier than admitting complexity to issues.

As seen in the "if the government does it, it must be socialist" banter.
 
I don't have any easy answers for the "housing crisis", but I do have a few opinions:

1. If someone buys more house then they can afford, they should deal with the problem.

2. "Predatory lenders"? That's hilarious. I can imagine someone climbing in an open window
and coercing someone to sign up for an ARM.

3. Bailout of people that made foolish financial decisions will only perpetuate existing and
cause only more government teat-sucking. We don't need more of that. That problem
is bad enough as it is. "I can't pay my mortgage, but Uncle Sap will!!!!"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What does "government reset" mean, though? That's just another bumper sticker slogan which is impossible. Unless you have some genuine ideas as to what that means, I think it's just an empty slogan that means "man am I just fed up."

[/QUOTE]

To me a reset basically means to stop, disable, and rebuild the government.

Have a true democratic vote on how to reorganize the government. And if there is enough disparity in how people feel government should be formed, then I am not against splitting up the country. Extreme measures for extreme times.

Those that want the country to be more like Europe - coddling and socialist, can relocate to that section of the land and have their government. Others that might feel otherwise can do the same.

Yes I know that's unrealistic, but a boy can dream.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']I don't have any easy answers for the "housing crisis", but I do have a few opinions:

1. If someone buys more house then they can afford, they should deal with the problem.

2. "Predatory lenders"? That's hilarious. I can imagine someone climbing in an open window
and coercing someone to sign up for an ARM.

3. Bailout of people that made foolish financial decisions will only perpetuate existing and
cause only more government teat-sucking. We don't need more of that. That problem
is bad enough as it is. "I can't pay my mortgage, but Uncle Sap will!!!!"[/QUOTE]

You do realize how much worse the economy would be if suddenly 1-3% of the popualtion was rendered homeless, don't you? Not to mention the effect Bush's bankruptcy revisions had on accelerating the need for a government bailout?

[quote name='thrustbucket']To me a reset basically means to stop, disable, and rebuild the government.

Have a true democratic vote on how to reorganize the government. And if there is enough disparity in how people feel government should be formed, then I am not against splitting up the country. Extreme measures for extreme times.

Those that want the country to be more like Europe - coddling and socialist, can relocate to that section of the land and have their government. Others that might feel otherwise can do the same.

Yes I know that's unrealistic, but a boy can dream.[/QUOTE]

Unrealistic is one thing; the fact that it won't change any of the problems we currently have is another.

If you want to separate the US into conservative country and liberalland, that's fine. We'll take Carter and Clinton's debts, and you can have the rest. You earned it, baby! ;)
 
Yes, I do understand the probable ill effects - but that doesn't change the opinions I stated. Rewarding rampant dumbassery isn't a good idea AFAIC.
 
Then widespread negative effects of said 'dumbassery' (you're letting lenders off scot-free, you know) should be what we accept? That we all suffer, because you don't want to "reward dumbassery"?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...(you're letting lenders off scot-free, you know)...[/QUOTE]

And when did I say that? You're rather good at putting words into someone else's mouth.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']And when did I say that? You're rather good at putting words into someone else's mouth.[/QUOTE]

Your emphasis on letting the free market reign supreme, and letting 'dumbass' homebuyers suffer as a result, indirectly suggests that predatory lenders shouldn't suffer.

Unless you desire to inflict pain and suffering on every involved party?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...predatory lenders...[/QUOTE]

See, there's that phrase again. I wonder who originally coined it? It sure sticks it to those
eeeeeee-vil lenders that put a shotgun to peoples' heads to get them to sign those loan
papers.

[quote name='mykevermin']Your emphasis on letting the free market reign supreme, and letting 'dumbass' homebuyers suffer as a result, indirectly suggests that predatory lenders shouldn't suffer.

Unless you desire to inflict pain and suffering on every involved party?[/QUOTE]

No, it really didn't suggest that. You chose to make that leap. You don't write for the NY Times in your spare time, do you?
 
I like the fact that you're defending lenders and the free market at the same time you're maligning *every* homebuyer who's been foreclosed upon, and at the same time acting as if you have a nuance to your viewpoint.
 
Who said I was defending lenders? I don't recall saying that.

Were there instances of lenders getting gullible people to sign something they didn't understand? Chances are good. Were some lenders motivated by making a profit? Likely. Do lenders deserve to take their lumps for bad decisions regarding their lending practices? I think so.

You are right, I probably shouldn't use the term "dumbass". How about "foolish borrower"? It is my opinion that a large part of the affected people are people who bought more house then they could afford, and the growing number of speculators and "flippers" who got into real estate without proper capital.
 
Why might someone be a foolish borrower, though? They're either uneducated or careless. If someone's careless, then I won't have quite as much sympathy for them, but if they're uneducated, then I will take their side 100%.

As an aside, I put "unwilling to learn" under careless. Uneducated means not allowed to learn, for one reason or another.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So then, tell me - how is the free market going to fix the housing crisis?[/quote]

An argument could be made that the housing crisis was precipitated in large part by the government and federal reserve, who play a large role a low level within the lending market.

They have created a ridiculous situation in which a bunch of yahoo lenders with little to no capital of their own, can secure paper money from the government and lend it to others at a profit. Because of the pervasive attitude that "everyone deserves a large a house, even though they can't afford it," no one really challenged this scheme even though it was obvious that the nascent bubble would eventually burst.

If the mortgage industry operated within a true "free market" and honest banking system backed by true capital, they would have never taken ridiculous risks to loan large sums of money to marginally qualified borrowers... nor would they have had the means to do so. But we have all these implicitly government sponsored "bailout schemes," including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that we'll pretty soon be bailing out with our tax money.

It goes back to the core issue: our government and its secretive/omnipotent banking and federal reserve system plays with paper money and can adjust its value on a whim... that's an incredible amount of power that may create fortunes for some while wiping out the fortunes of others.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
If you want to separate the US into conservative country and liberalland, that's fine. We'll take Carter and Clinton's debts, and you can have the rest. You earned it, baby! ;)[/QUOTE]


I'm not really sure if it's because you've been watching too much Keith Oberman or what, but the tendancy to polarize everyone into one group or the other (liberal, conservative) is getting kind of old and lame.

I didn't support most of what the republican government has done for the past 15 years (yes I count congress/senate too).

I'm for change. Radical change. And how the hell do you know that resetting the government wouldn't fix anything? It's such an ambiguous suggestion, the mere fact that you are certain it wouldn't fix anything further proves what I've always suspected..... that you just like being contrary for contrary sake.
 
What I had said was that we can 'reset' the government, but that does not 'reset' anything with regards to our debt, the current economic crisis, or any other social problem. 'Resetting' the government would just change the means by which we deal with these problems.

Ultimately, I have a feeling that anyone who supports 'resetting' the government just means they wish they had people who supported their ideals in power, and that those ideals would be enacted through the current democratic process we have. IOW, I doubt anyone here really wants to trash the constitution and start anew - but they would prefer to have people in power who would do things the way they want them to be done. But once you realize that, you realize that pretty much everyone shares *that* ideal. :lol:
 
[quote name='Layziebones']Racist.[/QUOTE]

Hey kids, it's one of those buzzwords that people throw at someone when they don't like what that someone is saying! Collect them all!
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Hey kids, it's one of those buzzwords that people throw at someone when they don't like what that someone is saying! Collect them all![/quote]
Yeah - it couldn't have been a quick, cheap joke.

Those certainly don't exist on the internet.
 
[quote name='BigT']An argument could be made that the housing crisis was precipitated in large part by the government and federal reserve, who play a large role a low level within the lending market.

They have created a ridiculous situation in which a bunch of yahoo lenders with little to no capital of their own, can secure paper money from the government and lend it to others at a profit. Because of the pervasive attitude that "everyone deserves a large a house, even though they can't afford it," no one really challenged this scheme even though it was obvious that the nascent bubble would eventually burst.

If the mortgage industry operated within a true "free market" and honest banking system backed by true capital, they would have never taken ridiculous risks to loan large sums of money to marginally qualified borrowers... nor would they have had the means to do so. But we have all these implicitly government sponsored "bailout schemes," including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that we'll pretty soon be bailing out with our tax money.

It goes back to the core issue: our government and its secretive/omnipotent banking and federal reserve system plays with paper money and can adjust its value on a whim... that's an incredible amount of power that may create fortunes for some while wiping out the fortunes of others.[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting argument - and one that ultimately places no blame whatsoever on a moneylending industry for providing years and years of impossible loans.

Blaming the government because others exploited what it offered is akin to blaming me for having an HDTV when it gets stolen from me (assuming I left my front door unlocked, to possibly complete the analogy).

Such an argument not only puts no blame on those who provided untenable loans, but *expects* them to do so - it's the natural result of the succulent temptations government offered.

I'm sorry, but I fully disagree with that - as individuals are responsible for their actions with regard to getting into loans that they could not afford (though I'd actually argue that the complete lack of growth in wages over the years is more a culprit of the collapse than we want to admit - that is, people who would have expected to be promoted and/or receive significant wages in coming years did not expect to find themselves in the same position, or earning the same wage, 3 years later - don't we all expect to be doing better in 3 years' time? - it's not an excuse, or even proven - just an alternate hypothesis I'm offering up). But as individuals are responsible, so, too, are companies and the employees who knew (and we did, let's be honest) that these loans would mostly fall right on their face.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']You may be right, but I didn't see a :lol: or a /sarc tag - so I took it at face value.[/quote]
That would have killed it. Stephen Colbert doesn't add "just kidding" after every joke he does for a reason - putting "/sarc" after the aforementioned post would have been just as bad.

/irrelevant discussion
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's an interesting argument - and one that ultimately places no blame whatsoever on a moneylending industry for providing years and years of impossible loans.

Blaming the government because others exploited what it offered is akin to blaming me for having an HDTV when it gets stolen from me (assuming I left my front door unlocked, to possibly complete the analogy).

Such an argument not only puts no blame on those who provided untenable loans, but *expects* them to do so - it's the natural result of the succulent temptations government offered.

I'm sorry, but I fully disagree with that - as individuals are responsible for their actions with regard to getting into loans that they could not afford (though I'd actually argue that the complete lack of growth in wages over the years is more a culprit of the collapse than we want to admit - that is, people who would have expected to be promoted and/or receive significant wages in coming years did not expect to find themselves in the same position, or earning the same wage, 3 years later - don't we all expect to be doing better in 3 years' time? - it's not an excuse, or even proven - just an alternate hypothesis I'm offering up). But as individuals are responsible, so, too, are companies and the employees who knew (and we did, let's be honest) that these loans would mostly fall right on their face.[/quote]

You are totally correct that the subprime mortgage companies and individual borrowers deserve a portion of the blame. I stressed the government in my previous post because I view it as the root cause. As with ecosystems in nature, whenever a particular niche is created in the business world, someone will inhabit it sooner or later.

Your stolen HDTV analogy does not fully apply because of the issue of intent. When you carelessly leave your door open, you do not intend for this action to lead to your TV being stolen. In contrast ,the government and the fed intended to promote more loans through their actions. While your relationship with the burglar would presumably be an adversarial one, the relationship between the gov't and the mortgage companies was more of a partnership. However, the gov't did have the power to snuff them out if they so wished; Bush and his cronies dropped the ball.

As a result, A-holes like Sadek (here in so cal) wrote a lot of bad loans and then cashed out... which gave him the $ to buy lots of cars and make a crappy movie.


The next issue is one of personal responsability. Although many people anticipate that their lives will be better in a few years, it is foolish of them to make business decisions on the basis of eggs that are not yet hatched. Here in California, the housing market got totally ridiculous: In LA and OC, budget houses 1300 sq ft houses in questionable neighborhoods cost $600,000 minimum. 2000 sq ft houses in decent neighborhoods cost b/w $850,000 and $1.2 million over the last few years. Many ppl decided to sell their perfectly fine old houses and move on up to bigger and better things...

Then what happens: they trade a $1300/mo mortgage for a $3000/mo mortgage, which then rises even higher as interest rates go up. Also, their grandfathered low proposition 13 property tax rates disappeared and now they were stuck paying $10,000/yr in property taxes, plus all the mello roos bonds and community association fees which are seemingly ubiquitious in our finer neighborhoods: there goes another $5K to $10K per year. Now they are spending $50K per year at least for the house... not good times... and this story mainly applies to the middle class. The poor are another issues (would make this post too long).

People have to look into the future and plan better... As Dostoevski's Raskolnikov learned: ultimately, no one is immune from the consequences of one's actions. If one screws up, one should work to fix the mistake and not hope for a bail out.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What I had said was that we can 'reset' the government, but that does not 'reset' anything with regards to our debt, the current economic crisis, or any other social problem. 'Resetting' the government would just change the means by which we deal with these problems.

Ultimately, I have a feeling that anyone who supports 'resetting' the government just means they wish they had people who supported their ideals in power, and that those ideals would be enacted through the current democratic process we have. IOW, I doubt anyone here really wants to trash the constitution and start anew - but they would prefer to have people in power who would do things the way they want them to be done. But once you realize that, you realize that pretty much everyone shares *that* ideal. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Actually no.

By reset, I really did mean start from scratch. No debt. No currency. No form of government. No constitution. Absolute zero. Tyler Durden's goals minus the lasting anarchy. Stop dicking around with fake equalizing policies and do the real deal. :)

Alexander Fraser Tytler made this interesting observation about democracy in 1776: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Source.

This is exactly where we are and where we are headed, as far as I can tell. There is no turning around, there is no reversing the treasury voting momentum. It can't be done. The natural life cycle of our form of government is about up. Watching what candidates we have to vote for this time around has only solidified it for me.

That's why I said it was extreme. Because I am starting to feel more and more that is where we are headed and that is the only true answer. Of course it won't be pretty, but I don't see "fixing" things any other way at this point. Unfortunately history has shown us that resets like this don't happen until a mass humbling occurs that is usually bloody. I am hoping we can prove history wrong.

So yeah... You go ahead and vote Obama. I'll have the audicity to wait for real hope. ;)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']By reset, I really did mean start from scratch. No debt. No currency. No form of government. No constitution. Absolute zero. Tyler Durden's goals minus the lasting anarchy. Stop dicking around with fake equalizing policies and do the real deal. :)[/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Don't forget to scratch 'racism' so we won't have to start with that either. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Tyler Durden? I don't really feel like typing any more "rofls," but just imagine about a million more.

BigT, I can see what you're saying, but here's where to complexity of policy is encountered. I do research in criminal justice, and one major area where I continue to see problems is not in the policy itself (don't get me wrong, it is imperfect), but in trying to convince the public what the best idea would be.

Simply put, improving the education available to inmates, making sure they get viable drug treatment, and also (but not as important as the first two) current and reliable skills/job training are three things we can change about our current corrections policies to keep criminals from getting out of jail and going back to crime.

If we handle the realities that (1) every yeay, over 600,000 prisoners will be released (probably closer to 700,000 by now) and (2) within 3 years around 2/3 of them will be back in prison - well, that's a prety top-down costly endeavor, no? Not to mention one that reduces the general safety of our citizens. Let's also deal with the reality that, as a civilized and democratic nation, we can not lock people up for life for one or two offenses.

So, what to do? On one hand, education, drug treatment, and skills training all have massively strong effects on reducing the probability of a prison release reoffending - which means that offering these programs to prisoners increases *our* safety on the whole. But if we offer those programs, that's "rewarding" people for bad behavior, no?

So now we're dealing with the issue that the punitive need you feel comes packaged with negative effects for other people in society who had nothing to do with the crisis - if we "reward" prisoners, we benefit on the whole from greater safety.

So, comparatively, we have those people who would suffer the ripple effects from the economic decline we're headed towards if there was no way to help the very large (relatively, of course) portion of the population who are being foreclosed. IMO, I think we can weather some "bailouts" as opposed to letting people continue to fall - *particularly* if we can benefit ourselves from helping people out.

Simply put, helping people in need with no concern for how you might or might not benefit is a pretty good ideal, IMO; but refusing to help people in need even when that help with benefit you in direct and indirect ways is absolutely foolish.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Tyler Durden[/quote]

You DO realize that the whole point of the second half of the book was to show that Tyler was wrong, right?
 
Since the "housing crisis" has been brought up, I would like to know the stats for how many foreclosures are of primary homes as opposed to vacation/Summer homes and investment/flip properties. Does anyone have info on that?
 
I can't say I do - quite locally, however, I am most certainly scouring the auction listings on foreclosures, and maybe 15% or so of those houses are appraised at over $100,000 (to be fair, I live in a market where the cost of housing is only 7% over national average, so it's pretty close to the mean). Many of them are appraised at 80K, 70K...even (!!!) 40K (I'd hate to see that house!).

What *MAY* be happening there is that "desirable" foreclosures are being bought off the banks' hands before they go into auction, so what I'm seeing is merely a concentration of the "leftover stuff" nobody wants to buy - we'll have to wait a few weeks/months to see how home sales trends look - if they're still declining, then this "sifted through auctions" theory of mine won't hold much water.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Actually no.

By reset, I really did mean start from scratch. No debt. No currency. No form of government. No constitution. Absolute zero. Tyler Durden's goals minus the lasting anarchy. Stop dicking around with fake equalizing policies and do the real deal. :)

Alexander Fraser Tytler made this interesting observation about democracy in 1776: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

Source.

This is exactly where we are and where we are headed, as far as I can tell. There is no turning around, there is no reversing the treasury voting momentum. It can't be done. The natural life cycle of our form of government is about up. Watching what candidates we have to vote for this time around has only solidified it for me.

That's why I said it was extreme. Because I am starting to feel more and more that is where we are headed and that is the only true answer. Of course it won't be pretty, but I don't see "fixing" things any other way at this point. Unfortunately history has shown us that resets like this don't happen until a mass humbling occurs that is usually bloody. I am hoping we can prove history wrong.

So yeah... You go ahead and vote Obama. I'll have the audicity to wait for real hope. ;)[/quote]
You do realize that by the end of the movie, Norton realized that Durden is wrong, right? Besides that, you want government to model policy on a fucking movie?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']You do realize that by the end of the movie, Norton realized that Durden is wrong, right? Besides that, you want government to model policy on a fucking movie?[/QUOTE]

The story pointed out he was wrong because of how he intended to go about his goals, for the most part. He was perfectly happy with killing whoever needed to be killed. At least that's how I took it. And that's not what I'm saying at all, that's why I said "Minus the Anarchy".

Forget I brought up Fight Club, there was just a few lines in there I liked about setting everything back to 0. But my point remains the same.

Mykevermin, if you can mature enough and grow enough tolerance to stop laughing at other people's beliefs and address my quote about democracy and how it applies to us today and whether or not that is the direction our candidates have been going, you might impress some people around here for a change.

Unfortunately it seems everyone only read the first paragraph of my post and fixated on fight club.
 
I'm not certain how you're logically overcoming that "no debt" hurdle. I have a feeling a LOT of foreign countries wouldn't be too pleased with us over that. What are going to do to them? Fight back? We no longer have a military due to the "reset."

Your hypothetical is absurd on so many levels that I don't feel it's appropriate wasting my time pointing out just how impossible, inconceivable, and wrong it is. Likewise when Marxists tell me how awesome the world will be after the proletariat develop their collective conscience, rise up, and overthrow the bourgeoisie - it's so intellectually shallow on its face that it's an insult to me to think it deserves to be broken down into parts and discussed.
 
Obama is a bright-eyed, bushy tailed Politican who thinks he can change everything with a stroke of a pen...

who will fail MISERABLY as President, and will only be a 1-term President, if elected.

He'll probably be elected since the Republican base hate the holy hell out of John McCain. He was elected because no one else came, plain as that. Also, Obama will bring back memories of Jimmy Carter as he's promised to raise the Capital Gains tax from 15 to 28%. Coupled with letting tax cuts expire, you're about to look at 4 solid years of economic hell.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']That would have killed it. Stephen Colbert doesn't add "just kidding" after every joke he does for a reason - putting "/sarc" after the aforementioned post would have been just as bad.

/irrelevant discussion[/quote]

Yeah, but all you need to do is look at his face to realize that everything he says is parody. Marge once explained to Homer that ppl can't see you winking over the phone - the same applies to the internets.

Plus I've noticed that when someone drops the r-bomb emotions start running hot.
 
Mykevermin,

On the foreclosure issue, I really don't see why I or any hard working American should be a part of the bailout for irresponsible people. My parents came to the USA with zero money and worked their way up to 6 figure incomes. I've worked my ass off for many years through education and training while earning peanuts in order to secure a decent career. And, as a young professional, I still can't responsibly afford a house in my neck of the woods and my parents can not responsibly afford to upgrade their house... then you get some entitled yahoos who have less than half of my earning potential taking out a $500,000 loan and buying a house that I would not even dream of... do I, living in my few hundred sq ft box, want to bail them out? fuck no! They made their bed, now they should sleep in it.

On the prisoner issue, I am no expert... but it seems to me that there should be some selection/profiling of prisoners who have a good chance of avoiding recidivism... then we should work with them to try to create an environment in which they could successfully reintegrate to society. However, I feel that there is a significant population that, either due to personality disorders, other mental illnesses, or poor disposition, will pretty much repeat their actions no matter what is done... $ is limited, so it should be spent selectively. Some people do need to be locked up indefinitely... I have little sympathy for violent offenders... however, we should also rethink penalties for minor drug offenses... alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than pot, but they are legal... we spend all this money going after the end users of many drugs... and it doesn't seem to be very effective. It also makes it a nuisance to prescribe vicodin or dilaudid to anyone since we're all so paranoid...
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, but all you need to do is look at his face to realize that everything he says is parody. Marge once explained to Homer that ppl can't see you winking over the phone - the same applies to the internets.

Plus I've noticed that when someone drops the r-bomb emotions start running hot.[/QUOTE]

That's what I meant. If it was a joke (which no one but the OP knows), it's in poor taste.

[quote name='The Crotch'].../irrelevant discussion that I caused[/QUOTE]

FIFY.
 
I'll make this quick - I'm out of coffee and I have a lecture to get to in a bit.

[quote name='BigT']Mykevermin,

On the foreclosure issue, I really don't see why I or any hard working American should be a part of the bailout for irresponsible people. My parents came to the USA with zero money and worked their way up to 6 figure incomes. I've worked my ass off for many years through education and training while earning peanuts in order to secure a decent career. And, as a young professional, I still can't responsibly afford a house in my neck of the woods and my parents can not responsibly afford to upgrade their house... then you get some entitled yahoos who have less than half of my earning potential taking out a $500,000 loan and buying a house that I would not even dream of... do I, living in my few hundred sq ft box, want to bail them out? fuck no! They made their bed, now they should sleep in it.[/quote]

You've said this all already in various forms - my point is that, in the absence of a "bailout," the economy will suffer even more than it is predicted to - and as a direct consequence, YOU are likely to suffer greater economic hardships as well. I'm trying to say that helping people get on their feet in the housing market will slow down the economic downturn in *general* - which is good for you, me, and everyone else not being foreclosed on. There is a direct, identifiable financial benefit to YOU for this "bailout" - and you *still* don't think it's a good idea?

On the prisoner issue, I am no expert... but it seems to me that there should be some selection/profiling of prisoners who have a good chance of avoiding recidivism
Click to expand...

There are many; the LSI-R is the most valid and reliable.

... then we should work with them to try to create an environment in which they could successfully reintegrate to society.
Click to expand...

Agreed - the irony is that parole boards helped this transition process - but the "punish them hard!" policies of the last three decades reduced the discretion of parole boards such that people maxed out instead - they were literally in prison for years and years, and then one day just let go - no training, no supervision, no anything. the "lock 'em up!" philosophy has had many severely negative effects on crime rates, and this is one of them; literally just "letting people go" with no evaluation or training - just reaching the maximum permitted sentence, and a legal obligation to release them.

However, I feel that there is a significant population that, either due to personality disorders, other mental illnesses, or poor disposition, will pretty much repeat their actions no matter what is done...
Recidivism is over 50% higher than it was in 1982, early on during the era of punitive policy (it was around 40% then, and is now 66%+)

$ is limited, so it should be spent selectively.
Click to expand...

$42K to incarcerate someone annually - I don't have knowledge off the top of my head for rehab program costs, but it's undoubtedly less than that - if we increase these programs, the up front cost will be high, but the savings due to not paying that $42K to reincarcerate a recidivist will more than make up for it - increased social programs means money in *your* pocket (or, more realistically, reallocated to a pork project somewhere ;)).


Some people do need to be locked up indefinitely... I have little sympathy for violent offenders...
Click to expand...

Least likely group to recidivate? Sex offenders, followed closely by violent offenders. Most likely? Drug and property (in that order).

however, we should also rethink penalties for minor drug offenses... alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than pot, but they are legal... we spend all this money going after the end users of many drugs... and it doesn't seem to be very effective. It also makes it a nuisance to prescribe vicodin or dilaudid to anyone since we're all so paranoid...
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with dilaudid - around here (well, Kentucky anyway), it's methamphetamine in the rural areas, oxycontin in the hills, and heroin in the northern part/Cincinnati area. Anyway - We're in agreement here that some drug use should be treated but not punished (and some just decriminalized or just regulated like alcohol). That said, you are talking about the highest recidivating group out there - who's more likely to break into your house: a jilted lover, a racist hothead macho guy, or someone looking for easily pawnable items to score a quick hit?

Have a good 'un, I'm off and really stoked about this lecture (religion, politics, and public opinion in Ohio).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='KingBroly']. Also, Obama will bring back memories of Jimmy Carter as he's promised to raise the Capital Gains tax from 15 to 28%. Coupled with letting tax cuts expire, you're about to look at 4 solid years of economic hell.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]


That's not so bad because the economy is so great with the Bush Taxes cuts, we probably need a breather from the awesomeness we've had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top