|
Post by shardelay on Aug 5, 2011 16:13:21 GMT
THE SKY IS CURRENTLY FALLING. RUN. RUN.
MIRACLE PLEASE!!!
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 5, 2011 17:14:52 GMT
That is what I am saying. He presents himself as one ideal and his political foes attack him for being that ideal; in doing so they present themselves as the opposite ideal. But neither side is either ideal- as you have pointed out. The only thing I am saying in addition to what you have said in this post, is that politicians are almost universally money-hungry liars who will present the image required to get elected and then turn around and simply act on behalf of the connections they have established to build their wealth and get elected in the first place. First of all, that just isn't what you said. Second of all, it also isn't true. I think you're confusing idealism with ideology. Idealists looks at how they want the world to be ideally, and then try to figure out how to get it there (often, ironically, in practical fashion). Ideologues believe that the world is a certain way and disregard information that clashes with that viewpoint. Loosely speaking, Obama is an idealist, and the Tea Party (and unfortunately much of the Republican party) are small government ideologues. The blindly advocate for smaller government and lower taxes, regardless of the current situation. Ideology is the closest I can come to a one-word summary of this country's woes. Republicanism is in many ways as bad as Communism. The whole 'all politicians are totally corrupt' bit is yet another caricature. Yes, some are corrupt. Yes, money and power corrupt. Yes, we need stronger campaign finance laws. But to paint Obama like that is nonsensical - he hasn't shown much sign of it, and has at times been clearly shown to put the country's interests ahead of his political future, as when he made the call to go after Osama - a political risk Bush was unwilling to take. Why? There was the risk it'd turn into another Eagle Claw. Even the payoff - helping to end the notion that Democrats are soft on defense - redounds more to his party than to him, as it's unlikely to help him much in the next election beyond cutting off a single line of attack. On the other hand, had they captured him and held him in secrecy until a week before the election... You seem intent on describing things in only vague, sweeping terms ('presents himself as one ideal'??) - this is indicative of someone who is unfamiliar with and can't be troubled to learn the more nuanced facts that lie beneath generalizations. Sure, it keeps things simple and saves time and energy, and makes it easier to avoid being pinned down as just plain wrong, but if you aren't interested enough in politics to learn about them, why bother posting on the subject in the first place? Funky
|
|
|
Post by bazukar on Aug 5, 2011 20:17:46 GMT
Yes and no. While our entitlements are a huge part of our debt, SS, and the amount of retirees and their longer lifespans would not be nearly the issue it's becoming if not for what the dems have done to it since it's inception. Making SS mandatory, removing its tax exemption, the amount drawn from paychecks, merging it into the general fund (though that was the big killer) have all combined to make it a slush fund for big, sloppy and inefficient government. If SS was a seperate trust fund as it originally was things would be very different today. Though that does still leave the problems with other entitlements on the table. I hate the unemployment figures the US gives out. No one is better at cooking those numbers than the US government. The way unemployment is calculated is horrible and its estimated that the actual unemployment is up to 10% higher than what the government reports While I dont neccessarily disagree, you have to admit that the current government is not helping that statement. We've seen precious little "good" legislation in recent years. How many consumer protection laws have been removed? Financial and other regulations? Is it really too far of a stretch to say I've never agreed with this sentiment. I believe power attracts pathological personalities. Power is magnetic to the corruptible. Millions of people the world over have power and are not corrupt, and never will be. If you think about it, everyday joes an janes have extreme power if they chose to use it. I also don't think money corrupts either. I think the freedom tons of money gives you brings out who you really are, and always were. You no longer have to be under anyone. You are your own boss and answer only to yourself. Who you are comes out, and many times we find that the person someone really is in the inside of their minds isnt who we saw, or thought they were. I like this breakdown and agree with your summation. I think this might be sigworthy. On another note about republican idealogue, they complain about big government and entitlements, yet....hmm. This seems a tad interesting. Most of the repub states take in more in federal money than they pay out!
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 5, 2011 20:48:59 GMT
I hate the unemployment figures the US gives out. No one is better at cooking those numbers than the US government. The way unemployment is calculated is horrible and its estimated that the actual unemployment is up to 10% higher than what the government reports You're making it sound like it's a government cover-up. It isn't - this is the way economists calculate it as well. That is to say, you are 'unemployed' if you are actively seeking employment and not finding it, but are not if you are not, for whatever reason. This excludes retirees, people who are disabled, etc. It is a measure of ability to find work if you are looking, not a percentage of the country that are jobholders. The largest issue with it is 'disillusioned' job seekers - those who have given up looking, but would otherwise be working. So no, unemployment isn't 10% higher than what the government reports - the percentage of people who do not have jobs is higher than the reported unemployment. These are not 'cooked numbers', and there's no flaw in the calculation - it's done that way because of economic theory. It's an international standard, as well. See, e.g., wikipedia discussing means of caculating: As defined by the International Labour Organization, "unemployed workers" are those who are currently not working but are willing and able to work for pay, currently available to work, and have actively searched for work.[68] Individuals who are actively seeking job placement must make the effort to: be in contact with an employer, have job interviews, contact job placement agencies, send out resumes, submit applications, respond to advertisements, or some other means of active job searching within the prior four weeks. Simply looking at advertisements and not responding will not count as actively seeking job placement. Since not all unemployment may be "open" and counted by government agencies, official statistics on unemployment may not be accurate.[69] Of course, it ALSO looks better on paper than the larger number, a fact which I'm sure politicians appreciate... Funky
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 5, 2011 20:53:59 GMT
I hate the unemployment figures the US gives out. No one is better at cooking those numbers than the US government. The way unemployment is calculated is horrible and its estimated that the actual unemployment is up to 10% higher than what the government reports That's conspiracy mongering and misleading. 1) It's a standard formula. It's nto a secret. It's how any economist does it and you can compare it to the same number in other countries. 2) It's not wrong by 10%, it's just describing ppl who are actively seeking employment, it's not showing all people who are not employed. 3) It's not the value that matters today, it's the value today vs expectation and vs priors. i.e. 9.1% vs 9.2%
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 5, 2011 20:55:02 GMT
You beat me to it, AND your answer was longer. This whole having to work for a living thing is really slowing me down.
|
|
|
Post by Bad on Aug 5, 2011 22:01:50 GMT
For those who are curious: The SGS Newsletter "John Williams’ Shadow Government Statistics" is an electronic newsletter service that exposes and analyzes flaws in current U.S. government economic data and reporting, as well as in certain private-sector numbers, and provides an assessment of underlying economic and financial conditions, net of financial-market and political hype www.shadowstats.com
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 6, 2011 1:22:02 GMT
S&P just downgraded the US to AA+.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by Werehound Silverfang on Aug 6, 2011 1:25:41 GMT
Default just around the bend!
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Aug 6, 2011 1:30:13 GMT
Well, no, there are two other rating agencies, fortunately. Otherwise funds that require a triple A would have to divest. In case it's not clear, they did this over republican brinksmanship with the debt ceiling (and, it appears, a 2 trillion dollar miscalculation?). Funky
|
|
|
Post by TZ- on Aug 6, 2011 1:54:48 GMT
FunkySwerve for president! He would know how to fix our debt!
TZ-
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 6, 2011 15:00:42 GMT
Well, no, there are two other rating agencies, fortunately. Otherwise funds that require a triple A would have to divest. In case it's not clear, they did this over republican brinksmanship with the debt ceiling (and, it appears, a 2 trillion dollar miscalculation?). Funky The important point here is that the debt ceiling is not the cause of the ratings change. It was caused by the political threats to NOT raise the debt ceiling. The politicians involved should damn near be impeached. It is ALMOST treason.
|
|
|
Post by shardelay on Aug 8, 2011 14:57:10 GMT
In case anyone is wondering, the sky is falling again today.
|
|
|
Post by buddhamind on Aug 8, 2011 15:20:18 GMT
My household net worth is dropping like a brick. The thought of job hunting in the next 2 years is depressing.
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Aug 8, 2011 16:41:29 GMT
In case anyone is wondering, the sky is falling again today. True, but, on the bright side, I'll get a lot more shares for my Employee Stock Purchase Plan dispersement next week. It's only a loss if I sell! What can I say...I'm a "glass half-full" kinda guy
|
|