Above all, please remember it's nothing personal, just the future of our country on the line.

It's not Kenyan, it's "Kenyawaiian". Because Obama's papa was Kenyan, and he (the son) was born in Hawaii. Allegedly.

No one has the time or energy to read--much less list--all the failures of the corrupt regime presently in power, so settle for a single buzz word or two that summarizes the opposition.

I cannot care about the fine tuning between definitions of socialism, marxism and communism, they're all dung from different animals.

Suspend thinking of me (or Blanky) as your idealogical frenemies for a moment and try to see us instead as peeps concerned about fidelity to the Constitution and positive results. I don't give a sh1t about what the Obama regime or liberals in general say they want to do, or claim will happen, my concern is what are the REAL results of following liberal policies such as raising taxes on the wealthy (which then trickle down to us in the form of higher prices and less employment), non-stop government spending of money we don't have and onerous, business-killing regulations.

If this socialist claptrap worked, Europe would have less than permanent double-digit unemployment and less than 4 countries on the verge of economic collapse.

I really don't think you want to go to the tale of the tape (facts-n-sh1t) because from Roosevelt onward, federal tyranny has increased exponentially with the size of the welfare state.

If you want me to stop 'accusing' Obama of being a screw-up, tell him to stop jumping off the same cliff of tried-n-failed socialist baloney with styrofoam wings, then blaming Republicans instead of gravity when he plummets.

I don't say it enough: I wish the left could prove me wrong with examples of success instead of promises that never arrive.





>> ^volumptuous:

What's your point GSF?
Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?
OR
Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?
That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".
No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get at most 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.
So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

Dude, Denmark isn't the US. Your government provides many goods and services to your people that we must pay for out of our own pocket, most notably health care. Wealth in Denmark is also far more evenly distributed in the US because your economy is far more mixed/socialist than the US's is.

In the US, you have thousands of people who were upper-middle class, bought an upper class priced home, then lost their jobs, or had to take massive pay cuts just to stay employed. Many of these people already lost their houses.

Our economy would collapse if we put a min 37-40% flat tax on everyone. No prayer that it would work.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:
You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I'm in the lowest bracket of tax in Denmark and I pay 37 %. It would be fine. The loop holes for the super rich should of course be removed completely too, then all in all more tax would be collected. 40 % was, I'll admit, a little high when you look at the current tax rates, but say 25-30 % for all then.
>> ^heropsycho:

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.
>> ^gwiz665:
Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

You'd cause a new economic collapse as the middle class and poor, the majority of the market for goods and services, would have all dispensable income and more for the poorer vaporized overnight, causing a massive drop in demand, which would destroy the US economy.

>> ^gwiz665:

Flat tax. 40 % income tax for everyone. End just one of the wars you're all fighting, and you'll be out of the economic crisis in 5 years.

I don't know blankfist well enough to be sure, but I think I should be offended by that remark! I don't think I insulted you.
That's funny that you retract any endorsement, because it seems you repeated most of what I said. The only thing I would argue that you seem to omit is that at this point is that everyone is getting back more than they put in, here and abroad, and there's no way that's sustainable.
What I was looking for, and you completely missed with your assumptions, was for you to re-state your position from
"the problem that's destroyed the global economy is unregulated financial BS from the free market, not a preponderance of people taking maternity leave" to something closer to
" the problems that have destroyed the global economy are unregulated financial BS from the free market, and a preponderance of people taking maternity leave along with other social programs to a ridiculous extent." It seemed like you agreed with that, but then you made a mistaken assumption about me (Umption is still waiting for that apology), and now want to distance yourself from me based on what?
I would say that mandatory paid maternity leave certainly does effect government budgets, or do you think public servants don't have children? If you make it too much of a burden on the employer, and we are the employer, it's too hard on all of us. In some european countries, I was under the impression that the pay came from the state (perhaps that's wrong), making it all government budget related.
That said, I do support manditory maternity leave, I'm just not so sure about manditory paid maternity leave. I do not support 9+ months of paid maternity leave for both parents, and 3 months paid vacation guaranteed, or the other kinds of programs that bankrupted Greece and others. Their debt problem contributed greatly to the latest economic collapse, which exacerbated the debt problem, spreading economic collapse and creating new debt problems. True enough, it was not the sole or even main cause here, yet. It certainly isn't helping matters though.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^newtboy:
...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.
EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.
For some reason, you remind me a lot of blankfist.
Europe's debt didn't cause an economic collapse, an economic collapse caused a debt problem. That problem has arisen in countries that didn't have one before (Spain, Ireland), and been made more acute in ones that did (Italy, Greece). I'm not in favor of running deficits when times are good, so I like for government to take in more taxes than it spends, and collect them largely from those most able to pay. If poor people generally wind up getting more out than they pay in, and the rich pay more than they get out, that's a feature, not a bug.
In any case, mandatory maternity leave doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on government budgets, here or in Europe.
If you believe something else, that's fine. I retract even the most tacit endorsement of anything you've said.

>> ^newtboy:

...I ask you, why is your mistaken assumption so apparent? I mean ALL those taking more than they give. That certainly includes the rich and corporations, often to a greater extent than the poor (who often NEED the help). In Greece, it does seem to be the populace that's MOST guilty, but I'm certain they are not alone at the government tit.
Gottcha right back. Your assumption was 100% wrong. Apologize to umption now, please.
EDIT: Before you make your next mistaken assumption, I do think deregulation has been a mistake almost every time I've seen it in practice, and I do see it as a major cause of the American 'recession'.

For some reason, you remind me a lot of blankfist.

Europe's debt didn't cause an economic collapse, an economic collapse caused a debt problem. That problem has arisen in countries that didn't have one before (Spain, Ireland), and been made more acute in ones that did (Italy, Greece). I'm not in favor of running deficits when times are good, so I like for government to take in more taxes than it spends, and collect them largely from those most able to pay. If poor people generally wind up getting more out than they pay in, and the rich pay more than they get out, that's a feature, not a bug.

In any case, mandatory maternity leave doesn't cost the government anything. Therefore, it doesn't have an impact on government budgets, here or in Europe.

If you believe something else, that's fine. I retract even the most tacit endorsement of anything you've said.

In the end, I generally agree with you, but I don't think it's accurate that the debt crisis is resolved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Tax increase would obviously help, but it won't solve it alone.

The debt crisis was born of a few factors:

-Stimulus package (temp, self-correcting since it's ending)
-Massive increase in federal spending in the 2000's bread by two wars, homeland security, senior drug benefit, medicare, medicaid
-Tax revenue declines due to Bush tax cuts
-Sudden sharp declines in income and capital gains tax revenues due to economic collapse

We can't solve the whole thing by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. In fact, I would argue the first step in resolving it is get the economy back on track to increase income tax revenues naturally as the unemployment rate would fall, and pay would increase. I would also argue that we're gonna have to massively cut defense spending at some point. This could be done many different ways, such as pulling out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, etc. But it's gonna have to be done at some point, although it maybe difficult to do in the short run. That leaves us with what is currently being debated by Congress and the President. I'm actually pretty perplexed that they're prioritizing the debt issue without first remedying the economy. I think the debt is a very important issue, but I also don't believe it will be resolved until unemployment returns to more normal rates, unless we're refusing to acknowledge what leaders may already know - it ain't gonna get better for a long long time regardless of what the gov't does, so we might as well stop adding to the debt.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
What we really need is a law that says no member of congress shall be allowed to receive any money from any lobbying firm, business or individual who is a high-level employee (board member type guys) of any large company worth over "x" amount of dollars. Loopholes need to be closed, but social programs also need to be cut or seriously re-vamped. What REALLY needs to happen is to close behemoth and redundant federal offices that are better left to states or that sates already have.

Well, I'd definitely love to see some sort of reform aimed at the outright bribery we see going on in government. I'm not sure how we get that to happen, though.
As far as the debt goes, my opinion is that all the Congress can do in 2011 is set the budget for 2011 and 2012. Come 2013, it'll be a new Congress, and possibly a new President. There will be another new Congress in 2015, and another in 2017, plus a definite non-Obama President in the White House.
A little mentioned fact about this debt "crisis" is that all we need to do to balance the budget is for Congress to do nothing. No more Doc fixes, no more AMT patches, no more extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. If we just let current law play out as it was written, the budget problem will no longer be an issue.
Even if congress doesn't do that, fixing our health care system has always been the real problem with the long-term budget. If we could get our medical costs down to just the level of the second-most expensive country in the world (Germany), then we'd be seeing big budget surpluses year after year. Maybe the HCR bill passed will do that once it's all in effect (in 2017!), but it's way too early to be putting those into the budget estimates. Maybe by 2020 we'll find out that we've actually put ourselves on track to be cheaper than Germany, and our budget picture will look really awesome.
I say we just focus on getting people back to work right now, and worry about the long-term debt in the long-term, especially since it might not actually be a problem in the long-term.

I think things will get worse before they get better. Some of the poorer countries in South America and now the middle east are starting to reject the influence of the US and its puppets. I think this will spread to Europe and when it hits critical mass, we will be forced to change our ways. If some huge crisis (economic collapse, nuclear explosion, resource shortage, global warming related crisis) comes along before that, I think it will go one of two ways. 1) The people will take back their government 2) The powers that be will use the crisis to transform our country into a fascist nightmare, like 911 on steroids.

You and I taking a stand for what we believe in is important, despite the fact that it will probably have little or no effect on the big picture. There are very few in our society willing to speak up about the things we speak up about, and a comment or video on this site might get a few hundred views, which isn't too shabby. If a couple of those hundred people find wisdom in something we say and pass it along, then I think we've done something worthwhile. Also, I don't know about you, but my conscience forces me to speak out. My rants on this site serve as a pressure release valve, keeping me from going insane.

It's also important that we balance positive and happy experiences with our political frustrations. Living in mental misery all of the time is no way to live, but a little sturm and drang is healthy and human, if only because they make the happy days happier by contrast.

As far as our back and forth, we'd probably be better off just stating our position once and then moving on. You are never going to convince me that unfettered markets will self regulate, and I'm never going to convince you that democracy is a force for good. Then again, arguing with you is fun and challenging. It's probably good for the brain. We could also probably stand to be more intellectual and less insulting. We've both grown up in a country where we've been taught by the media that proper political discourse involves shouting and name calling. I'm trying to take a more zen approach to argument. More substance, less ego.

Chris Hedges says there is great virtue in fighting a fight you know you can't win. I agree.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Sometimes I think we're arguing different sides to an argument that cannot pan out in either of our favors. If energy is a finite resource, which it has to be, and oil is passing or has passed its peak, then we could be facing the most amazing transformation in human civilization, and all this talk of who builds the roads will be pointless.

Why did the Bush Administration take us into Iraq? Could it be because the neocons know that the world's oil reserve is entering a decline, which means the supply will not meet demand of the industrialized world.
What'll happen when the decline is truly known and felt and understood and accepted? For sure oil prices will skyrocket. $5 a gal. $10 a gal. $150 a gal. More? Maybe way more? Then what happens? Less energy will need to be used, so planes will stop flying, and maintenance will stop, and infrastructure will fail, and soon nations will go bankrupt, including the US.

Then what? Riots. People frustrated with the collapse of the system, and they'll riot. The world will turn dangerous. Peaceful neighborhoods will be places of despair and destruction. A great many people will die around the world. We'll no longer be 7 billion. Then what? Will it matter that I'm arguing against statism? Will socialism still work? Will captialism work? Of course not. Maybe all of this energy we spend arguing and debating will be lost as well.

I felt that way a few years back, but recently I've become very cynical. It's true that we have access to more information, but I don't see it being used to make things better.

Big business has never had more control over our government than it does right now. Income inequity has never been worse than it is right now. The population is booming, while corporations are automating and laying off workers, sending jobs to third world nations. It's a race to the bottom.

We are too comfortable and apathetic to make the changes needed. I'm very passionate in my beliefs, but I really don't do shit to change this world, other than argue with people on a very cool, but relatively small website. I can't really even think of anything I could do that would have any kind of impact at all. I feel powerless.

We are going to have to wait for some catastrophic event to force us into making changes. Global Famine? Economic collapse? Complete breakdown of society? Meteor? Nuclear holocaust? Global Climate change? I don't know. And if some catastrophic event does occur, there is no guarantee things will change for the better. The powerful have always been good at turning tragedy into capital.

If I didn't have hope, I wouldn't be typing this, but the older I get, the more I feel like the old donkey in Animal Farm.

If there's one thing that exploding underwater oil valves and massive economic collapses have taught me, it's that the US is definitely over regulated.

Gee, a guy from IMF saying the system is fine? Figure that one out.

Inevitable total worldwide economic collapse is SUCH OLD NEWS. Just ask Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, the list goes on... Get an acre and plant a big garden or riot and die.

Always enjoy popping a left wing groupthink bubble... Reagan was correct, and Stewart is dead wrong. It has been repeatedly established that increased taxation results in decreased economic activity, and subsequent strangulation of tax revenue. What Stewart (et al) ignore is that America has the #2 highest business tax rate in the world (39.25%) behind only Japan (39.54%). And then the left wonders why 'evil' companies choose to operate in places like Hong Kong (15%), China (25%) and India (30%).

And the 'evil' rich? Our top tax rate is 39%. That's lower than Germany (49%), Japan (50%), Italy, and the UK (50%) - but it is higher than S. Korea (35%), India (30%), Finland, Argentina, Brazil, et al. The US is very middle of the road (leaning to high) in regards to top tax rates. This is statistical fact as opposed to Stewart rabble-rousing. The top 5% of U.S. wage earners pay over 60% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay a whopping 97.1%. The poor aren't paying squat.

To listen to Stewart you'd think businesses & the rich pay nothing, and the poor are the ones paying all the taxes. That is a left-wing delusion peddled which only the stupid and inattentive could possibly accept. The rich are the ones paying the taxes. So when a tax CUT happens, it is attacked as a 'cut for the wealthy'. Yeah, the wealthy get it because they are the only ones PAYING it. The only place you can 'cut' taxes for the poor & middle class is gasoline, state, social security, medicare, and medicaid. And yet oddly, no one on the left ever proposes alleviating THAT tax burden.

When you make a nation a friendly environment for business and wealth it results in wages, jobs, industry, growth, and (yes) TAX REVENUE. The "tax the rich to prosperity" concept the left ascribes NEVER works. A heavily taxed wealthy class combined with a low/un-taxed middle & poor class results in a disincentivized lower & middle class, inflation, depression, stagnation, low productivity, shrinking population, business flight, and eventual economic collapse.

Everything Stewart says here is baloney. No one is saying "no taxes on the rich and kill the poor!". Fiscal Conservativism advocates reasonable, sensible economic policy friendly to business, investment, and wealth. Such a method benefits everyone. America became great because it welcomed and rewarded business, wealth, ingenuity, creativity, and hard work. Countries like Germany (52% taxes) the UK (50%), France (50%), Italy (46%) and so on are the ones that have screwed up royally by stifling these attributes in their populations via socialization.

lol bonus cringe for incestual overtones

This is unfortunately real and post modern irony free

Rural ireland has a thriving country and western, line dancing, faux nashville accent, stetson wearing thing going on that cant even be believed once seen. (not that I object to any of those things in their native habit)

They seem to be replacing Jedward, economic collapse and church scandals as the latest inducement to national suicide.

White Suit Dancing action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x60BovWjrk&feature=related

Forgive me if I'm not as optimistic as I used to be (not that I ever leaned strongly that way). My financial life has been pretty much destroyed in this Wall-Street-caused economic collapse, yet the only people I see getting any help are those very same bastards who are already back to collecting multi-million dollar bonuses again. If there -were- any justice in this country, those folks would be heading into prison about now...but no, we haven't even managed to put some basic common-sense regulation back in place.

It makes it more than a little difficult to look on the bright side. I'm actually starting to consider what would be involved in going survivalist. Things could, of course, change virtually overnight...but then again, I've been telling myself that for seven months now, and things still keep going downhill.

If anything the shit is set to really hit the fan the moment that China stops buying US treasury bonds which currently has the effect of artificially depreciating the Yuan and appreciates the US dollar, in addition to providing the US an almost guaranteed lendor.

There's no reason this would happen dramatically though, I'm sure that Chinese leadership is fully apprehensive of the effects that the economic crisis had in diminishing demand by US consumers, and would not want a repeat of it. Rather, I'm sure they'd gradually ease of it, although there is always the possibility that China will be forced into dramatic expansionary policy with the resultant decrease in their budget surplus effectively forcing their hand.

Either way though, yes the profligate spending under the Bush years was disastrous, but not exercising expansionary fiscal and monetary policy during the economic crisis of 2008 would have had the effect of enacting a self-fulfilling prophecy of economic collapse through a cycle of joblessness and business failure on a scale much worse than what eventuated.

Whether the initial stimulus was effective in preventing collapse and whether Obama's long term projects for infrastructure and health care among others will recoup the initial outlay in a reasonable time frame and provide significant improvements to the efficiency and productivity of the economy or whether they will have wasteful results is unclear. What I would say is clear, is that doing nothing will confirm the inevitable projections right now that the budget will rise to unsustainable levels, foreign debt will continue to mount, business activity will continue to shift abroad and as a result relative wage levels, livings standards, and yes, purchasing power will continue to fall.