I don't understand your deal with numbers, QM. If only 4% of folks are gay does that mean they get reduced rights and privileges? Only 15% of the country is black but it was eventually decided blacks could participate in society any way. 1% Jews, 1% Muslim, etc. doesn't mean 1% citizenship. It's bizarre. What shall we do with the 8% who are left handed? Tie their left arms down when they learn writing in the first grade like we used to? Sheesh...

>> ^quantumushroom:

How long has this skank been bigoted towards Christians?
Percentage of Christians in American population: 85%
Gays: 4% tops


Also, I think your data on xian population is a little out of date. According to the last census it's more like 76% not that it matters.

I often scoff at those statistics. There is no way they can posibly know those numbers.

We just sent in our Canadian census.
My wife believes in god and she put Christian for every one in our home because that's what she is.
She filled out the survey and sealed it before I ever got a chance to see it.

If I had filled it out, I'd have put something quite the opposite or maybe "Jedi". And I personally do not encourage religion on my kids. I tell them my beliefs and that I stand quite firm on them.
So my son would be 50/50 (he's too young to have a an opinion) and my daughter would side with me.

So, for the record that's 4 Christians.
In reality it's closer to 1/4 or even 3/8 of that.
And that, my friends, is how flawed those statistics are.

>> ^grinter:

There are about 7 billion people in the world. About 2 billion of them are Christians. The Christians had better learn to get along with the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jews, because chances are that their neighbors won't look a thing like Ned Flanders.

@messenger

1.
It was never possible for the Calfornia government to avoid becoming the least-skilled state in the country (#50 out of 50). Enron simply cost money, but our schools have always been well funded nonetheless --better funded than states that have better test scores than we do.

The reason for all this is that importing low-skill workers gives you a low-skill populace for the long-term. We might call it the "Call a Place Paradise and Kiss It Goodbye Effect," and someone thought California's decline was a good enough idea that it should be repeated on the national level, so you'll get a closer view of it yourself this century. However, you'll have to look for it yourself, because newspapers and academics aren't generally going to discuss it, probably for good reason (1, 2).

2. Yeah, your summary is a fair statement. I view the deposition in Spanish as the culture embracing anti-success habits.

Ah, the classic case of correlation versus causation.

In the U.S., between 1974 and 2004, 52.2% of all homicides were committed by those who listed their race as black, despite blacks accounting for 12.6% of the population (according to the 2010 census).

This of course will lead most racists to conclude that black people are inherently violent or cold-blooded, etc. Nevermind the socio-economic status of the majority of black Americans (almost a quarter of them live on wages below the poverty line, much higher rates of unemployment, etc.) which is a much more likely to be a reason for the crime statistics. Nevermind the justice system that has a much higher conviction rate for black offenders (probably also tied to the socio-economic status since if you can't afford a private lawyer you're going to get stuck with an over-worked and underpaid public defender).

It seems to me much more likely that these attacks are the result of immigrants who are coming from countries (Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan seem to be where most of the rapists have come from) where they were likely already successful predators due to a lack of law enforcement and crumbling social structures. Old habits die hard. They move to Oslo and continue their predatory ways.

But could Islam really be the cause of this? Let's look at another statistic:

In Oslo, there are approximately 163,000 Muslims. Let's be generous and assume that only a quarter of these are adult males (40705) and the rest are women and children. Let's also be generous and assume that for every rape reported in Oslo, 10 rapes go unreported due to fear or shame (86 reported rapes x 10 unreported = 860 rapes). Let's further be completely unrealistic and assume each rape is the result of an individual offender (no repeat offenders or serial rapists). So now we have...

860 rapists / 40705 adult male population = 2.1% of the population

I've been hugely generous with these numbers, but I think you can see that this particular statistic does not really implicate Islam as a cause of the rapes. Wouldn't we expect to see a much higher percentage of the male population rampaging through Oslo if Islam was truly the cause of this behavior?

I'm not implying Islamic attitudes towards women don't contribute to the behavior of those who commit these crimes. But it seems hard to believe Islam is somehow responsible for these crimes any more than Christianity is responsible for pedophile priests (though the Catholic Church is certainly responsible for covering the abuses up).

No, perhaps you should re-read, the bible has NO historical authority. Like a broken clock it can, rarely, be right, but I can't reasonably accept anything from it without outside corroboration

Oh really? So why is that archaelogically, it has proven to be 100 percent historically accurate?

“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969

There have been over 25,000 discoveries which prove its historical accuracy alone. Seems like far from being right accidently, it's always on time.

Sooo...You are claiming that these books have not been under the same copy/editorship for millennia ? My point does not require a by-line match, only that the folks copying (and editing) the canonical versions are in control of both, and have incentive to make them seem more impressive. Are you claiming this was not the case?

Of course I'm claiming its not the case. It also doesn't make any sense. You don't think the jews at the time would notice that people were editing in prophecies later? They were fanatical about these kind of details..so unless you're claiming it was a gigantic conspiracy your view seems illogical. The jews were very careful about copying..the earliest manusciprs we have and the oldest ones have very few discrepencies.

Wow, nice straw split. The portion of the testimony that claims the divinity of jesus is cut from whole cloth, that is what you were talking about, that is a forgery. You wish to interpret it as a testimony of divinity, when the historical record strongly supports the contentions that these parts were not in the original text, and are not attributable to Josephus => forgery.

The vid you post takes the safety position that since the original appears to be about jesus that it is proof of his historicity. The original text, as far as we can reconstruct it, as well as all the other non-fake historical documents don't actually claim that jesus was real or divine, they only convey the story as stated by christians.

I can also state the christian story, as a matter of historical record, without validating it or accepting it myself, the fact that christians existed is not proof that jesus did.

lol..so, when a historian talks about someone in history, its not evidence..what kind of evidence do you want? Photographs?

"Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. Some of these, such as the city of Seron, are not referenced in the surviving texts of any other ancient authority. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus (for more see Josephus on Jesus). He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism and the context of early Christianity.

A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings."

Read that? His writings were so accurate that we were able to find a mans tomb 2000 years later. Turn off your schitzophrenia for a moment. You're claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, even though this historian, whom you say is accurate for Cyrus, verifies that He is. I'm not talking about whether He is divine, just that He existed. You can't have it both ways. He's a historian who obviously checked his sources..he's isn't telling stories, he is relating facts. You just want to throw the ones you don't happen to agree with.

I see what you did there, let me see if I can recreate your "logic":
1)I claim the testimony has been forged
2)Therefore I must accept Josephus as completely unreliable
3)Therefor the bible is the only source of the story
4)Therefor the claimed historicity of the events depends on the bible
5)Therefor for the Cyrus claim to hold the bible must be divinely inspired

Step 2 does not follow, most of Josephus is considered sound. The fact that your predecessors felt the need to lie in his name does not invalidate all his writings, only those which we have reason to believe have been altered. As it turns out, your boys tended to do a pretty unconvincing job in their historical revisionism.

Again, forget about the divinity claims which were interperlations. He records the existence of the historical person of Jesus. So, if its good enough for Cyrus, its good enough for Jesus. You can't have it both ways. Your pathogical unbelief is amusing, but unwarrented. So your only sources are one that claims Jesus is real, and another that claims God frees the slaves. Again, not helping your case in any respect.

I like the idea in theory... but the logistics of it are insane. Think of what we spend administering the Census every 10 years, try doing it every two years for every voter. Huge amounts of money, for huge amounts of manpower, and the Republicans will still yell just as loud because the blacks are passing it.

No I was not aware they were capable of breaking unemployment rates down by race. I looked up how they actually determine unemployment rates. It is by a finding a pool of people they feel represent demographics the census shows them and calling them to ask if they are working or not.....basically. Then they use that to state the overall unemployment rates. I read that they don't use the number of people drawing unemployment benefits, I mention this because I suspected the unemployment fluctuations were because lots of people were being dropped from the counting when they exhausted their benefits. However I now believe that the way they sample could account for a pretty big fluctuation considering they might get a sampling that isn't true to reality.... I couldn't determine any other kind of metric they employ that even sounds remotely like they verify anything they claim as fact.

My experiences with their department is that they just routinely gave me wrong information or sent me documents in error. Causing me to have to contact them to find out what was going on....and having to call them 2-3 times to actually get in contact with someone who would take the time to answer my questions. And then those answers were 50/50 on their accuracy as well. It's one thing to be overburdened, it's another to create more work and hassle for yourself and everyone else involved.....it may have been a stalling tactic but it ain't fun to be denied by letter, then told on the phone you were eligible....filling out your weekly form to find out you were actually denied. Spending the week getting that straightened out, waiting a week because they say it'll take a week. Then find out your denied again.....spending another week straightening it out and a month has gone by before you get forward progress.

Didn't go to a college that had frat houses that I was aware of, and I commuted so I didn't spend a lot of time on campus as it more of a commuter heavy college. They certainly didn't have anything greek "official" within sight of campus. Didn't care if I was in a frat, club, or group. I'm just saying it was announced on the college radio that these clubs were around for these folks....not based on interests such as chess or even a greek/frat system.

And I don't really care what races Im around as long as they are on an even footing with me and have the common courtesy to take showers, wear deodorant, and try to control their breath or at least not get up in my face with stank mouth. Oh and if they must speak a foreign language at least try to include others in the conversation if we're working on a group project or having a group conversation. I've been trying to pick up other languages, but man...native speakers when they get going I can't tell what the hell they are saying.

And....what is "white culture" if everyone is included? Like.....country clubs? I figured they were more "rich culture".

>> ^longde:

@<Porksandwich I can sympathize; but did you know that the black unemployment rate is twice that of whites? I think the demographics of this shitty government agency reflect the fact that, before the downturn, whites who have better options in the workforce chose not to take those jobs. And during the downturn, the public agency you saw just happened to be one which didn't have much turnover. I bet they laid people off though, and the inefficiency you witnessed is due to individual employees doing jobs meant for 2 or 3 people. As far as college groups, there are indeed white groups that exclude others. Just take a walk down frat row for instance, where you may see the occasional token in some of the houses. The asian/black/latino groups you saw cannot exclude white people, and in my college experience, some white people did join those groups to get exposure to other cultures. But most whites didn't; they either ignored or complained about the groups.
Also, it seemed like every year, there were whites who started a Whites Club----but these organizations never lasted, because what's the point? The damn campus is majority white, and everything is tailored towards white people and white culture. And, as I said above, if you really want to be around whites only, there are plenty of options on campus to do so, not limited to frats. This truth, incidently, extends to greater society.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.
In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.
And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.
Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.
And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.
But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?
It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.
If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.
I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.
Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.


I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.

One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.

In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.

And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.

Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.

And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.

But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?

It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.

If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.

I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.

Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.

I have not heard so many condensed clichés in a while...

What a bunch of baloney.. no borders eh? Free movement of population sounds great on paper, but there seems to be a disparity in how well different populations manage their respective landscapes. Seems to me the migration would be pretty one sided.

This unidirectional movement of people causes considerable global societal problems. Namely, how can a handful of nations possible accommodate the gargantuan number of failed populations worldwide? And what is to be done once those ineptly populated lands have been vacated?

How, for instance, would the municipal government of Madrid react were it to discover that one fine Tuesday 2,000,000 Algerians had decided to set up camp. I wonder how well primary schools would be equipped to handle such an influx.

For argument's sake, say these Algerians are magically net benefit taxpayers and there were enough money to go around after the next population census to determine in which parts of the city they need to build more schools. How about if in the months subsequent to the census 3,000,000 Nigerians decide to make Madrid their home? Back to square one with a social machine completely unprepared to deal with artificial and anachronistic population surges.

As a side note, you understand why population surveys are taken right?

But the root of this problem is far more important: Do the landmasses we call Europe and North America endow its inhabitants with magical properties? Is the air we breathe and the soil we toil any different from elsewhere?

Obviously not. There's something we're doing right and they're doing wrong. The best we can do is share our knowledge with the world, not poach their populations.

Liberty and prosperity? Yes, for everyone. And every nation.

There's just so much blatant mind-numbing naïveté and grandiose sounding vacuum-filled ideas in this video I don't even know where to begin. I can't help but feel compassion (not pity) for the childish part of our minds this drivel appeals to.

The sad thing is most people feel like the man who made this clip. We deserve out fate.

It's time for Europeans and North-Americans to start thinking with logic once again. Using our bleeding hearts is a death wish.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You have nothing to worry about, unless you're part of the one-third of the populace paying for the other two-thirds who take more than they give.


Oh, come off it QM.

In 2009 the top 5% of households received 20.7% of National Income.

20.7% of 14.5 TRILLION dollars.

That's more money that the bottom 40% of households earned COMBINED.

3.9% + 9.4% = 13.3% of 14.5 Trillion dollars.

[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/f02AR.xls]

~~~
So go ahead, pretend like the Upper Class is being victimized by other lazy selfish citizens too dumb to have been born into wealthy families.

Plus, i mean.. do you even make $250,000+ a year? No? Then WHY THE FUCK are you such a willfully ignorant brown-noser for anything labeled "conservatism"?!

I swear to god you're just some pervy troll who get boners from sadomasochistic politics.

"Yes, Master Plutocracy. May I have another?"
~~~

p.s. - cognitive dissonance. it powers your fuel cells.

---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

The American "poor?"

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.


By all means, don't let the facts get in the way of a good crusade on behalf of the richest poor in the world.

@shuac all good propaganda has a kernel of truth in it. The problem is that on the right they seem to pretend like that's the only purpose the census serves, and that nothing stands in the way of Obama interring conservatives whenever he feels like it.

That bit about the census being used against Japanese Americans is true. The way this story is positioned, it sort of made it sound like 100% of the things the right says is completely made up. Many times, it obviously is. But that particular event...the census being used against Americans...is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment (citations at the bottom of the page, if you distrust Wikipedia)

Lest anyone think I'm defending Ms. Bachman or Fox News, I'm most certainly not. I'm merely stating that that particular sound byte she uttered is true. I cannot help that.

This ugly truth serves us all best if we remember it...and that might be difficult hearing it embedded among the lies revealed by Rachel Maddow's story.