Topic: Rush
started by: Wiley
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 29 2002,19:43
The name Rush Limbaugh was brought up in another thread and just seeing the name along side the phrase political news made me sick to my stomach. Now, I’ll be the fist to admit that I haven’t listened to the blowhard for years, having already had enough of his childlike smear tactics to turn the dial. So, shortly before writing the reasons that I don’t consider his show to be any form of political news I checked out his website to see if his fundamentals had changed. Nope, they hadn’t. He was still just slandering the Democratic party, not giving any brilliant Republican insight on any current political debates. Just a We’re right and they are stupid position. Now, certainly if I had my own radio show I would express my opinions as well, but I wouldn’t think of labeling it anything but entertainment …I certainly would not present it as news.So, am I wrong? Here is an invitation to prove me wrong. Can somebody please find me some Rush quotes that show some brilliant insight? I mean …he claims Broadcasting Excellence but these are a few quotes and images off the front page. It looks as credible as the Weekly World News.
“I'm not retiring until every American agrees with me, including members of the Ninth Circuit. It's a challenge, but I'm up to it"
Broadcast Excellence from June 28, 2002
Wow Rush …that really is some Broadcast Excellence there …who would have ever though to not give up until you’ve won?? What’s next “I will walk by putting one foot in front of my other foot …Broadcast Excellence?”
Stephen Reinhardt, leader of the 9th Circus Court...
Arafat is running for re-election as a moderate of all things - and kissing suicide bomber babies, no doubt...
Wow …This is where I want to turn for my Political News!!!!
So come on people …prove Wiley wrong. Is Rush capable of producing anything from his own mind that is news worthy? Please ..post some links for me.
Posted by wix on Jun. 29 2002,21:48
I agree with CK, rush is an excellent turning point for poltical battles. It's nice to get both sides of an issue (not that rush presents both but at least he gets one out).Personally, I find his political tastes dispicable, and I honestly think he probobly harms the republican platform more than he helps it. He's a very public spokesman for the conservatives and he makes the whole right wing seem far more rediculous than it really is.
All that being said, at least he puts forth arguments. These sorts of things can never hurt the market place of ideas. The jokes don't discount it's political merit. Ever hear of a little story published called A Modest Proposal to solve the Irish problem by eating the children? Satire, and humor in general, can have amazing effects on people.-- I think rush knows this.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,22:27
i'm wholeheartedly with you on this one, Wiley. Rush Limbaugh - and all the other crap CK listens to, for that matter - is not good journalism by any means. It's just a way for hardcore, small-minded, pseudo-conservative idiots to have a big radio circle-jerk.Do you think we could get Bob Dole to start his own talkshow? Or maybe bring him out of retirement so he can rescue the GOP from the trolls? I may be a good Democrat, but there used to be a lot of Republicans that I had a lot of respect for. They're pretty hard to find now
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,23:16
Agreed, Rush is mostly liberal bashing. However, calling it bad journalism is just conservative bashing on the other end. As opposed to NPR, talk radio generally gives a much better picture of real public opinion. Especially for mike and orielly, the only calls they do are differing view points.wiley, rush may be harsh, but that doesn't mean he is wrong. I'll post some good stuff on monday.
Posted by Wiley on Jun. 30 2002,01:40
| Quote (CatKnight @ 29 June 2002,15:16) |
| Rush may be harsh, but that doesn't mean he is wrong. |
I'm a Republican, so of course there are things I agree with him on ...I just don't think he ever makes a valid case for why his views are better for the American people. Instead he is too busy trying to make people who disagree with him look foolish. The fact that he always points out spelling errors on letters in which people have a differing opinion kinda sums it up for me. You can disagree with me and I have no problem with that ...but if you have to resort to pointing out spelling and grammar errors to weaken my opinion and make you look superior then perhaps your argument is not so strong to begin with. It's the same thing with this forum, about the lamest comeback you can make is grading spelling.
And again ...I can be wrong about Rush, I haven't listened to him in years. But from what I can find to read he hasn't changed much.
NPR is all good though ...And Bob Dole has kicked ass ever since he lost the battle for the oval office. I don't care that he can't get it up anymore.
Posted by Necromancer on Jul. 01 2002,02:00
| Quote (Wiley @ 30 June 2002,01:40) |
| I'm a Republican |
the sound of print presses grinding to a halt with borken cogs flying off in all directions can be heard.
this is the point in the film where you find out your freind who you were protecting is really been the badguy all along
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jul. 01 2002,02:23
| Quote (Necromancer @ 30 June 2002,18:00) | ||
the sound of print presses grinding to a halt with borken cogs flying off in all directions can be heard. this is the point in the film where you find out your freind who you were protecting is really been the badguy all along |
No kidding. Can you believe he would betray the motherland like that? And I thought all the smart folk were communists...
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 01 2002,21:02
If it helps any, I'm a really lousy Republican. I'm just in it for the tax cuts.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,00:03
I think I'd rather pay more taxes rather than live in the mess we're in now. Not that I especially like paying them, but giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory.We could've dramatically cut our payments on the national debt simply by using the surplus to pay it down. Had we paid it down, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much interest and principal on the debt, which means that the taxpayers get more value from their tax dollars.
Makes sense, right? A lot more than sending everyone a few hundred bucks while simultaneously cutting taxes and praying that it will stimulate the economy SO MUCH that you won't have to worry about getting enough tax money ever again.
I will admit that there were a lot of tax & spend liberals from the 1930's to the 1970's, but there's very few of us left who believe in that system. We got the hint when the Reaganites marched in and shoved laissez-faire capitalism and Voodoo Economics on everyone.
So yeah, back then we raised taxes a bit too high, and we had so much money to spend we didn't pay as much attention to where it was going as we should've been. That's why we got our asses kicked. The Republicans have deregulated the hell out of everything, spending money without collecting it first, and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST*, and look at the mess we're in.
For twenty years now we've been trying to kick these fuckups out of power, and we've spent the past twenty years developing good, responsible economic plans. Things like "don't spend money you don't have" and "don't spend money on things you don't need."
i.e. deficit spending is bad. unbalanced budgets are bad. spending money on programs like Star Wars is bad.
We still think the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole, but we now recognize that to be beneficial to people, it has to be beneficial to businesses and the economy as well. Beyond that, we want those services to be efficient and customer-friendly.
Business is not a bad thing. I personally find profit to be a great motivator. I want a nice house and a good car and lots of l33t tech kit. But it does have one downside - the profit motive can degrade into raw greed. Take a look around you right now and see what's happened to the economy - the means of production are there, the money to buy things is there, but nobody wants to invest in *anything* because the future is so uncertain. When fraud and deception is rampant, people hang on to their money instead of spending it & keeping the economy moving... who wants to give their money to a thief?
So while Republicans feel that the government should be at the mercy of business, we feel that good government should be a role model for business. Government services should be as efficient, responsive, and friendly as possible, so that businesses strive to do the same.
As for the services it should provide, I'll leave that for another post, but rest assured that I mean truly *PUBLIC* services that benefit everybody... things like roads, education, national defense... and public healthcare, but that's a flamewar of its own.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,02:09
lolthere are so many things totally wrong with your post that I don't have the energy to correct them all right now while studying for my midterm tomorrow.
if you think the government should raise taxes, I volunteer YOU to donate 75% of your yearly income to the tax-me-more foundation (yes it really does exist).
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,02:17
that's unfortunate, because your posts generally end up helping me prove the point I'm trying to make.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,02:25
ok I'll do the first few, just for your sake. 
I think I'd rather pay more taxes rather than live in the mess we're in now.
better check up your economic history. the mess we're in now was created by high taxes and government interference.
Not that I especially like paying them, but giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory.
ok saying that the tax cut was a bad idea is one thing, we can discuss that. but calling it irresponsible just sounds rediculous. how is it irresponsible to give people back their own money which belongs to them? is it LESS irresponsible to just LOOSE ~20 BILLION dollars? (will find link later)
I will admit that there were a lot of tax & spend liberals from the 1930's to the 1970's, but there's very few of us left who believe in that system.
ok except "very few of us left" should be replaced with "nearly all mainstream liberals"
That's why we got our asses kicked. The Republicans have deregulated the hell out of everything, spending money without collecting it first, and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST*, and look at the mess we're in.
a) trickle down economics has NOTHING to do with MAKE MONEY FAST as you put it. quite the opposite.
b) the mess we are in is due to clinton's piss poor domestic policy. the only reason why it is not worse is because of reagan's brilliant economic policy.
c) the greatest period of economic growth in the history of the WORLD was the industrial revolution, when laizze-faire capitalism was at its height.
thats all for now, back to fluid dynamics bleh...
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 02 2002,03:00
3-->| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 01 July 2002,163) |
| giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory. |
True that ...they should have given the money out based on the % you paid in. I got fux0r3d!
| Quote |
| and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST* |
It was called Trickle-down for a reason ...not Gush-down
| Quote |
| the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole |
I need roads & bridges, some national defence to keep the Canadians out (yeah ..we see you), a national park or two so I can relax, and schools that learned our dumb inner city youth (and please don't make their poor grammer into it's own language to make them appear smarter). Other then that I think we can cut out a big chunk of wasteful programs that I'm paying for.
| Quote |
| the profit motive can degrade into raw greed. |
As long as it promotes spending and the circulation of money I don't see a problem. All the problems come in when people stop wildly spending and consuming.
| Quote |
| I mean truly *PUBLIC* services that benefit everybody... things like roads, education, national defense... and public healthcare |
Wow ...I really shoulda read this all before replying. Anyway, I agree ...but it's gotta stop there. My political agenda is very short ...If I have to pay taxes then I want to be taxed on a fixed percent with everybody else. Any surplus monies I have will be reinvested in the economy and thus help people without money far more then any of the government programs. Viva La Trickle!! I mean, every year I unwillingly employ at least two guys to hand out job applications to people that don't want to work ...I want that money back!! Sure my views are self promoting, but I am an admitted selfish bastard. I'm a registered Republican because
1. They try to help me keep my money
2. They have far better junkmail
But once I get to keep some of my money that currently goes to taxes I swear I will get some thearapy.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,05:09
| Quote (Wiley @ 01 July 2002,19:00) | ||
I need roads & bridges, some national defence to keep the Canadians out (yeah ..we see you), a national park or two so I can relax, and schools that learned our dumb inner city youth (and please don't make their poor grammer into it's own language to make them appear smarter). Other then that I think we can cut out a big chunk of wasteful programs that I'm paying for. |
I agree with you about the wasteful spending. There are soooo many fucked up little programs out there (there is actually one to study humming birds!
. If we were to cut those kind of programs, then we could keep the good programs (including programs to help people find jobs) and our taxes would be more efficient (if not lower). Only problem is, is that neither party is trying to do that. The Republicans go in and cut taxes, give refunds of money that could be spent in better places (think fireman and police), and start cutting funds to schools (thus the voucher system looks better; different rant). The Democrats come in a raise taxes and just spend, spend, spend (wait, both of them do THAT part). So, there is no culling of the wasteful programs, and there won't be as long as we keep electing the same kind of people, over and over and over and over again. But there must be one thing that everyone needs to learn: there are a lot more poor people in this country than rich people. If we could HELP raise those people out of poverty, they would become functional members of society. There would be more goods produced and consumed if the lowest class of people had more finacial strength. If we give more to the rich, their spending habits change so little, it's just a waste! If we take the money we would have given to one rich family, and spread it evenly around programs that help educate and train the poor, we could have tens if not hundreds of families spending more money on groceries, cars, and taxes because they were able to get better jobs and earn more income. Thus, the economy would become stronger, and the people would be happier. Now, how is that bad for our country? Instead of 'Trickle Down', why not 'Trickle Up'?
Posted by wix on Jul. 02 2002,08:16
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 01 July 2002,16) |
| I think I'd rather pay more taxes rather than live in the mess we're in now. Not that I especially like paying them, but giving back the surplus was one of the most irresponsible moves in recent memory. We could've dramatically cut our payments on the national debt simply by using the surplus to pay it down. Had we paid it down, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much interest and principal on the debt, which means that the taxpayers get more value from their tax dollars. Makes sense, right? A lot more than sending everyone a few hundred bucks while simultaneously cutting taxes and praying that it will stimulate the economy SO MUCH that you won't have to worry about getting enough tax money ever again. I will admit that there were a lot of tax & spend liberals from the 1930's to the 1970's, but there's very few of us left who believe in that system. We got the hint when the Reaganites marched in and shoved laissez-faire capitalism and Voodoo Economics on everyone. So yeah, back then we raised taxes a bit too high, and we had so much money to spend we didn't pay as much attention to where it was going as we should've been. That's why we got our asses kicked. The Republicans have deregulated the hell out of everything, spending money without collecting it first, and basically promising that everyone could *MAKE*MONEY*FAST*, and look at the mess we're in. For twenty years now we've been trying to kick these fuckups out of power, and we've spent the past twenty years developing good, responsible economic plans. Things like "don't spend money you don't have" and "don't spend money on things you don't need." i.e. deficit spending is bad. unbalanced budgets are bad. spending money on programs like Star Wars is bad. We still think the government should provide those public services which will benefit the people as a whole, but we now recognize that to be beneficial to people, it has to be beneficial to businesses and the economy as well. Beyond that, we want those services to be efficient and customer-friendly. Business is not a bad thing. I personally find profit to be a great motivator. I want a nice house and a good car and lots of l33t tech kit. But it does have one downside - the profit motive can degrade into raw greed. Take a look around you right now and see what's happened to the economy - the means of production are there, the money to buy things is there, but nobody wants to invest in *anything* because the future is so uncertain. When fraud and deception is rampant, people hang on to their money instead of spending it & keeping the economy moving... who wants to give their money to a thief? So while Republicans feel that the government should be at the mercy of business, we feel that good government should be a role model for business. Government services should be as efficient, responsive, and friendly as possible, so that businesses strive to do the same. As for the services it should provide, I'll leave that for another post, but rest assured that I mean truly *PUBLIC* services that benefit everybody... things like roads, education, national defense... and public healthcare, but that's a flamewar of its own. |
DL, uh, what economic history did you study? I realize that we all get a nice little dose of laizze-faire capitalism bashing in college, but you really have to read a bit deeper. Smith and Rand might need revision but the principals are sound.
The first thing I would argue is that the government only has the money to tax for what it must provide, and the 'surplus' is keyword for: "We overcharged everyone," and that to me means it's time to refund people's money.
Your point about the tax and spend liberals being gone these days is pretty funny, but I guess the same thing is true about conservatives. Both sides want to spend a lot of money. Only truely fiscally conservative members of congress actually allow for a ballanced budget (remember though, that the conservative members of congress pushed the Ballanced Budget Act through congress). Liberals and Social conservatives alike both subject themselves to what Bastiat calls "False Philanthropy," eg, a false love of people. They pretend to love the people so much that they feal they must 'help' them along because they are incapable of doing so themselves.
Unfortuantely you fall prey to the most common push by the demogouge: "The rich are greedy, evil and out to screw you." It was the GREED of the MASSES not the rich that called for the 16th amendment and income taxes. The GREED of the masses who demanded more rediculous and unneeded regulation (which has done enourmous amounts of harm to our economy).
You also seem to miss the point of the Government when you talk about services. I don't get good service at the DMV because the DMV is a monopoly, run by the government. If I complain, no one cares, because JOB SECURITY and ECONOMIC SECTOR CONTROL. If I don't like the DMV, or the IRS, too bad. If I don't like welfare, I can't just pull my money out of the system (like I could with private charities). Hence the republican's trying to make things open to competiton. I'm talking about positive competion-- not fraud and deception (clearly the government has the right to stop this ) Why can't the government just stick to stopping fraud, since you even say bussiness is good unless it degrades into these things. Personally, I'd rather have my shitty HMO than a government healthcare program run like the DMV.
And lastly, I'd love to get into economic theory with you, but I'm sure that you can read around a bit to find out that personal economics differ somewhat from government econmics. Deficit spending ISN'T always bad, and in many cases can actually be far more beneficial to a country.
Enough ranting ... read Capitalism and Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand vs Declarations of Independance, cross examing the american ideology by Howard Zinn. Rand is a fiscal conservative (founder of the Objectivist philosophy), and Zinn is a socialist. Both will present the best arguements for both sides that you can find (in my opinion of course). If after reading them both you are still swayed the liberal persuasion (which I could understand, Zinn is a very persuasive writer)... then I'm willing to talk.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 02 2002,08:38
I'm tired of people on both parties making it sound like everyone who believes what the other party is arguing has been coerced.That is all.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,11:59
*blink*/me reads wix's post again...
*blink*
/me resists urge to smack this troll into next week. must... keep... thread... on... topic...
for those of you unfamiliar with Ayn Rand, you may find a very pro-Objectivism site < here >. I'm sure you'll want to convert, since Objectivism is the only logical and moral system in existence.
and remember... if you listen to Liberals, you're a filthy Communist!
so, uh, Wiley, demonk, you've both got some good points there... I'll reply to your posts later, after my blood pressure has returned to normal
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,12:10
*sigh* DSL falls back on his classic flame the other guy technique when he gets the pants beat off him in the debate. does this mean "I win"?| Quote |
| If we could HELP raise those people out of poverty, |
see, theres your problem. it is not the duty of american citizens to give up half of our income for a 200 billion farm bill or the however large welfare programs. it is up to the poor to work hard to become rich, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. by "helping" them you are actually just keeping them down and KEEPING them poor.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,12:21
CatKnight's Technique for Winning an Argument1. Quote original post, then completely ignore it. Post some nonsense theory and random quotes that push your beliefs instead. Imply that your opponent has been "brainwashed" by liberals in an attempt to discredit him.
2. Act surprised when opponent flames you for being a troll and refuses to answer your irrelevant post.
3. Declare "victory" because opponent obviously isn't smart enough to reply to your brilliant argument, and has resorted to flaming instead.
4. Pat yourself on the back for honestly believing that people are stupid enough to fall for this shit.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 02 2002,13:38
Trickle-up doesn't work.If you give people who paid no taxes a gigantic fat handout, they spend it on throw-away consumable goods that stimulate the economy for about five minutes, but never generate any wealth beyond that. Even if supply increased to meet demand, once the money runs out, the demand dries up, the supply goes to waste, and we spiral downward.
Rich people, like 'em or not, are masters at investing. They put their money into things that will make them more money in the future. So a rich guy who owns some big huge company gets a few million dollars in taxes back from the IRS, that rich guy might've gotten 4 million $, but he'd rather have 10, so he invests his money into advancing and increasing the production in his business. To do that, he has to hire more people, and the people he already had move up a notch or two on the pay scale. Now he's producing more stuff (of course he is, he wants the profit of selling it), he's employing more people at slightly higher wages who then go out and buy the stuff, who give him more profit, so he invests some of it back again into his own business to try to make more money, so he hires more people, he bumps up the ones he has, they have more money, they're buying more stuff.
This doesn't create a spending frenzy on consumable goods like handing out money to poor people does, it happens more gradually, but the effects last a hell of a lot longer and are better for the economy in the long run. The problem we're having is that short-run economists want to run the whole thing. Why worry about things 10 years from now if we can make it look good next month?
The 'next month' solution would be fine if the timeline we live in were short. But it's not.
I prefer trickle-down.
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 02 2002,15:25
| Quote (demonk @ 01 July 2002,21:09) |
| If we give more to the rich, their spending habits change so little, it's just a waste! If we take the money we would have given to one rich family, and spread it evenly around programs that help educate and train the poor, we could have tens if not hundreds of families spending more money on groceries, cars, and taxes because they were able to get better jobs and earn more income. |
Not true. Some of the taxes I have a problem with are capital gains taxes and taxes on bonus income. Capital gains taxes punish investors who are activly improving the economy by providing capital for companies to aquire materials and labor ...ie hire workers. The high tax on bonus income (45%) keeps most of the money from going into the consumer marketplace where it can do much more good for the economy. Instead it goes to fund more stupid programs to get money into the economy ...think about it ...you are taking liquid currency and funneling it into a program to get more liquid currency out into the marketplace. Why not just let the money go out on it's own? Save the government overhead costs.
| Quote |
| If we take the money we would have given to one rich family, and spread it evenly around programs that help educate and train the poor, we could have tens if not hundreds of families spending more money on groceries, cars, and taxes because they were able to get better jobs and earn more income. |
Here's where I see the problem. Those jobs that these newly trained people are going to get don't exist. Why don't they exist? Because there is not enough stimulas in the marketplace to warrent the hiring of additional labor. But we could stimulate the economy by letting people have access to more disposable income ...ie lower taxes!.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,16:33
You all make good points. When I said they can get better jobs, I mean the we don't have to go over seas to find workers. I see it all the time, companies having to go overseas to higher people to do more technical jobs, because there just isn't enough people HERE who have the knowledge to do them. If we could improve the education, maybe we could get the companies to higher more people at home. Of course, this is just one example. It's hard to think linearly before I've finished my first cup of coffee 
My main complaint with trickle down is that there is nothing making the rich reinvest. They will reinvest if they want to. That 4 million they got back on taxes (which mean they must be making $10 million+ a year to get a refund that big) doesn't have to be spent on the company. They may just view this as another house or an expensive trip to Eurpose. Point is, it is only invested again if the person is greedy. Once you get to that level of income and spending, an extra million or two will not drasticly change their lives. It would be like me giving you $50. You would say thank you, then go out and buy something fun for yourself, and that would be the end of that money. Now, what if I could spend that $50 to help you find a better job? Then you would be able to make $50 honestly more often, which you could spend or could save for a larger purchase, such as a house or a car. Multiply that effect by 1000. More goods are being consumed. And you were able to find that new job because the companies would rather higher locally than have to pay relocation and other expenses it would have cost to find the employees overseas.
This is not THE answer to economic bliss. Neither is trickle down. But why not combine the two? Attack from both directions so to speak. Now all we need to do is cut back on stupid spending (StarWars comes to mind) and we have the funds.
| Quote |
| The first thing I would argue is that the government only has the money to tax for what it must provide, and the 'surplus' is keyword for: "We overcharged everyone," and that to me means it's time to refund people's money. |
But it wasn't a surplus. We had places that money was needed, such as paying of the national debt or improving our schools to a level that everyone can agree on. Just because they had more money than they needed AT THE MOMENT doesn't mean that they collected more than was needed to provide what everyone needed. (does that make sense to anyone?). I'll give an example. If the transportation department has been functioning at a level of income of X for 10 years, and suddenly they get an income slightly higher, say Y, does that mean they must give the money back? Why couldn't they keep that money and fix some of the roads that are OK, but will need repair soon? And what if making the repairs now is cheaper? What if having the money to make the repair in the future isn't guarented? My point is, they have the money NOW, they can fix something NOW. Who knows what the future holds for us and our economy. Use what you have to do what needs to be done (and that means more than just maintaining the status quo).
/me puts on flame/CK retardent clothing, grabs coffee, and waits.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 02 2002,19:06
Part of the reason that corporations put their manufacturing and other plants overseas is that they're taxed to holy fuck and beyond here, and they're not being taxed hardly at all in the place they go.Reducing taxes here would go a long way to incentive to put operations here and pay American workers.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 02 2002,19:30
That is very true. But just reducing taxes won't bring them back. Most of the time, the labor over there is MUCH cheaper than labor here. While many companies like Nike have gone above and beyond the norm in providing extras such as medical coverage and the such, most companies aren't required to and don't give any real benifits and the base wage is significantly less (that's because they don't have the same level of inflation that we have here in the US). Just reducing property taxes and such here might make it cheaper to build the factory here in the US, it still won't make actually producing the product cheap enough to make them move home.My example I was using was more about moving the workers from other countries here, such as in technical jobs. You goto a company like Intel and you will see a very high percentage of the employees in the most technical of areas are from other countries. There are more people overseas with the training needed, so companies like Intel are forced to look outside the US for employees. When they get here, they get paid normally and get all the same benifits. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could hire more locally? There are plenty of people in this country right now that want a good, honest job, but just lack the training and knowledge to do them. This is the level of work I'm referring to, not the factory workers. It takes almost no training or intelligence to work in a factory making widgets. The poor/low income people in our country could get those jobs today if they didn't want to work for much, but that is illegal and not practical (inflation again). We don't really need to train a person to be a garbage man. We need to train them to be programers, engineers, managers, etc, etc. That's the level I'm talking about.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,19:54
I'm still laughing at DSL for getting all pissed that wix "turned against him", and then started flaming everyone. hehethanks professor kuru for your brilliant economic insight.
Posted by kuru on Jul. 02 2002,20:04
Do you have anything to say that is on topic and not a personal attack?
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 02 2002,20:10
nope im fine
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,22:09
thanks, kuru.CK, I am not mad at Wix for "turning" on me. I flamed him for insinuating that I've been brainwashed by demagogues and bad college professors, as well as for telling me that my love for people is "false."
note that my area of concentration was Victorian literature, so I am quite familiar with the Industrial Revolution and laissez-faire economics. It was NOT a grand ol' time by any means, not unless you like choking pollution, abject poverty, miserable working conditions, and your country constantly being on the brink of revolution.
on the economic issue, it seems to me that trickle-down mostly encourages a bunch of shell games and smoke and mirrors. that's the reason it's nicknamed "Vodoo Economics"... a term coined by none other than George "Poppy" Bush.
trickle-down policies encourage investors put their money into the stock and money markets, and the rapid acquisition, breakup, and sale of companies. the money doesn't trickle down, it just moves around between investors.
to create wealth, you actually have to PRODUCE something. this means you need to have policies that encourage investment in production rather than just moving money around.
can I ask why there's all this love for trickle-down? There's dozens of other viable economic theories out there, some conservative, some liberal, some apolitical.
on the tax issue - a lot of loopholes including the one that allows companies to move their headquarters to the Bahamas to evade taxes are about to close. they don't move because we tax the holy fuck out of them. they move because they can get away with it... they just have to get a P.O. box in the Bahamas, move their "headquarters" there, and then kick back & do business in the United States without paying a single dime in taxes.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 03 2002,00:22
| Quote |
| It was NOT a grand ol' time by any means, not unless you like choking pollution, abject poverty, miserable working conditions, and your country constantly being on the brink of revolution. |
lol are you comparing the industrial age to the information age and with perfect 20-20 hindsight saying "wow things really sucked back then!" ?
edited bad grammer. bled stupid summer classes
Posted by BlackFlag on Jul. 03 2002,00:47
I used to listen to Rush religiously. He would say invariably at least once a broadcast (usually at great length, and with supporting examples) something to the effect of "My views are skewed, but unlike mainstream 'news', I admitt it."He doesn't claim to be unbiased. He just claims to be informative.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 03 2002,01:10
::sigh::you're right. the Industrial Revolution was a roaring great time for everyone.
idiot.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 03 2002,01:16
| Quote (CatKnight @ 02 July 2002,16:22) |
| lol are you comparing the industrial age to the information age and with perfect 20-20 hindsight saying "wow things really sucked back then!" ? |
<sarcasim>Ya CK, that's exactly what he is doing. He is comparing two drasticly different time periods and saying that since one isn't like the other, one of them must have sucked.</sarcasim>
He is saying exactly what every historian has been saying for 50 years. Things were very hard back then, but they weren't hard because of lack of reasources or because of other factors outside of human control. Things were bad BECAUSE of humans and the decisions they made. Come on CK, how can you seriously expect us to think that your uneducated views are better than the collective brain power of a generation or two of educated historians?
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 03 2002,01:29
"what say you, my Lords, to a continuity of toil, in a standing posture, in a poisonous atmosphere, during 13 hours, with 15 minutes of rest?"Historians have said it sucked for a lot longer than 50 years. They've been saying it ever since it happened.
Here are just a few primary sources:
< The Peterloo Massacre >
< Women Miners in the Coal Pits >
< The Life of the Industrial Worker in Ninteenth-Century England >
< Lowell Mill Girls >
< Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844 >
< Charles Dickens, Hard Times >
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 03 2002,04:06
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 02 July 2002,16:47) |
| I used to listen to Rush religiously. ...He doesn't claim to be unbiased. He just claims to be informative. |
Yes, I can sleep so much better knowing that he thinks Euro-Feminists do things with phallic shaped fruit.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jul. 04 2002,23:06
| Quote |
| /me resists urge to smack this troll into next week. must... keep... thread... on... topic... |
okay. DSL I think you need to calm down before you read wix's post. Just because you don't like that he's disagreeing with you doesn't a) make him a troll or b) mean that he's insulting you. Did it ever occur to you that just maybe this sort of knee-jerk defensive reaction is the kind of thing that starts flame wars?
You kinda missed at least two key points he was making there, one with regards to inherent government inefficiency and one with regards to the cause of the 16th amendment.
First, on gov. inefficiency. The private secter, in an open economic environment (think about this before you reply, b/c I know you're gonna ignore it...), typically performs far better than the government program would. The DMV would be run a lot better if it's administration were simply outsourced (the same way the gov. builds stuff..., you just define a set of requirements and hand out to the lowest bidder). The free market environment works, it really does. Government beurocracies fail because of a series of problems, largely due to a lack of competition, but also because of a serious lack of accountability. There are very few areas of the government were you would really want that much redundant control that beurocracy creates, but some exist (such as the military).
| Quote |
| You also seem to miss the point of the Government when you talk about services. I don't get good service at the DMV because the DMV is a monopoly, run by the government. If I complain, no one cares, because JOB SECURITY and ECONOMIC SECTOR CONTROL. If I don't like the DMV, or the IRS, too bad. If I don't like welfare, I can't just pull my money out of the system (like I could with private charities). Hence the republican's trying to make things open to competiton. I'm talking about positive competion-- not fraud and deception (clearly the government has the right to stop this ) Why can't the government just stick to stopping fraud, since you even say bussiness is good unless it degrades into these things. Personally, I'd rather have my shitty HMO than a government healthcare program run like the DMV. |
This is an excellent argument that you never respond to. Dude, simply dismissing someone's post as "trolling" when they present real arguments to your position really kills your credibility (adios ethos).
Look, what's wrong with a loose, central regulatory government that does some checks on things like fraud, and then letting the free market, with it's profit-driven competition and accountability, drive the economy. The free market is evolutionary, and if you let people get hurt the process works. Let people (and businesses) make bad decisions. Over time, people will learn not to make the same mistakes..., competition drives out the weaker producer and in the end the group (nation) benefits. Babysitting small interests for the sake of politics is exactly how you screw things up (and btw, conservatives do this too...., thank Bush for steel tarrifs that give the American steel industry an incentive not to improve).
You don't need to worry about jobs leaving the country. You really don't. The jobs that leave the country are low-skill blue collar jobs, and over time you force the citizens of your nation to simply adapt. America provides an environment where you are able to do this, and so you move people into higher skill jobs (other nations, fortunately, are less able to do this and so you protect your high-skill jobs). In fact, the environment is so favorable, that we draw in a great many high-skilled foreign workers that drains other nations pool of workers. It's more significant tho', because we drain high-skill workers and lose jobs for low-skill..., this is pretty much the environment you would want. (I realize I'm asserting here, but I think if we're mostly techies of a sort we can probably attest to the large number of Indian & Asian immigrants who come to America for tech jobs...or maybe that's just every company I've ever worked at.)
Bah, this post was pretty disorganized. Oh well. Bottom line, free market works. Have the government a) subsidize education (note the diff. between subsidizing and running it), b) give out science grants, c) build infrastructure (roads & such), d) regulate, e) provide defense & law enforcement, and f) contract out anything else (maybe with a couple exceptions that i missed, obviously the legistlative and judicial aspects of the gov. remain intact, although much of the admin can probably be outsourced) to private firms who can do it better.
Hmm...This is in the wrong place but bear with me...append to arg. regarding beaurocracy. Beaurocracy's are also slow to change and fail to utilize latest technologies and techniques. If the gov. were handing out 5-year DMV management contracts (obviously, where the centralized data was mainted by the gov. for use with the next contracting firm), then the firms that received it would either a) have to change with the times to be able to provide the same or superior service at best cost or b) be newer firms (new businesses help stimulate the economy, yay!
who start up based on the new technologies and techniques and drive the competition that brings about positive productive change.As for taxes. Christ. You only need taxes b/c the gov. wants to do too much. Cut the gov to just what I suggested above, eliminate personal income tax (if you care that much about the little guy), reduce biz. taxes and simplify the tax code. Don't give people tax breaks for kids and stuff (these exceptions are a big part of why the tax code is 10,000 pages long), just let them adapt to their economic environment.
Last (man, I'm really sorry about the total dis-org here. This is quite unlike me....), back on America provides an environment where everyone can better themselves. There is always the availability of some low level job, that, were a person sufficiently motivated, would support them through maintaining a residence, food & school and thus providing them with enough to improve. People who say they can't afford to go to school are lying or lazy. Junior colleges are practically free (in many cases, if you research scholarships properly they are free. And not just bad ones..., Santa Rosa Junior College has a doyl grant that pays for all your tuitin and some of your books. It's also something like the 2nd best JC in the state of California). If you say you can't work & go to school you're lying or lazy. You can get a mall job. You just don't want to. If you have to support six kids and that's why you can't go then it's your fault for having kids. I'll be damned if my tax dollars are gonna pay for you to have a tax break just b/c you're too fiscally irresponsible to have kids when you can afford to.
Uh oh...approaching rant...will stop.
As always..., my humble 2c. Maybe 3c at this point.
Posted by wix on Jul. 05 2002,02:57
[quote=Darth Liberus,02 July 2002,149][/quote]QUOTE DL.
| Quote |
| CK, I am not mad at Wix for "turning" on me. I flamed him for insinuating that I've been brainwashed by demagogues and bad college professors, as well as for telling me that my love for people is "false." |
Of course your love for people is false. Your system has a fundamental problem with it: You don't trust people. You trust neither those with money to help the poorer members of society, and you don't trust those in need of being able to get themselves out of the trouble without long term government aid (notice, I'm not talking about basic needs aid such as shelter). You decide that the government MUST force those with money to HELP the less privilidged. Unfortuantley when you do it in this process no body is really helped. I was saying demogogue because you blame the rich for having GREED, but the real issue of who is greedy are the masses (I dare you to respond to this).
| Quote |
| note that my area of concentration was Victorian literature, so I am quite familiar with the Industrial Revolution and laissez-faire economics. It was NOT a grand ol' time by any means, not unless you like choking pollution, abject poverty, miserable working conditions, and your country constantly being on the brink of revolution. |
Someone as familiar with victorian literatoure (which means dick to me), and the industrial revolution, and hands off economics should KNOW that the industrial revolution certianly wasn't laissez-faire now was it? If you READ those two source cites I gave you, both of them present perfectly legitimate arguments proving this.
| Quote |
| on the economic issue, it seems to me that trickle-down mostly encourages a bunch of shell games and smoke and mirrors. ... trickle-down policies encourage investors put their money into the stock and money markets, and the rapid acquisition, breakup, and sale of companies. the money doesn't trickle down, it just moves around between investors. to create wealth, you actually have to PRODUCE something. this means you need to have policies that encourage investment in production rather than just moving money around. |
I'm unclear as to what specific policies you are refering to. Trickle-Down economics tried in the 1980's did exactly this. Cutting taxes at top brackets not only MOVES money between the top members of social classes but also creates new companies and hires new workers. You give us no reason why trickle down economics doesn't work!
1. Give money to investors, they invest (you agree with this don't you?)
2. When money is invested in a sector, the sector expirences growth.
3. Growth == Producing something (which you say is good), and hires more workers
4. Everyone is happy, economy is working
There are some points to trickle down economics that people don't seem to care much because they don't put forethought into it.
1. People have this notion that the rich should pay for everything and shouldn't be able to make money off it. They say that stimulating the economy while making the rich richer is bad.
2. People subject themselves to greed. They don't want to the rich to make money, they see the rich as causing their failure.
3. Trickle down economics takes time. It takes times for the money to head down. You don't see tax break today, and 1000 new jobs tomorrow. It takes time.
4. Other factors can mitigate desired results. If you want to point to hoover in the 1920's for his faults in dealing with the great depression, the main problem here is actually that the Fed Reserve wasn't controlling things correctly. They actually reduced the supply of money and hiked the interest rates at the nadir peek of the depression (only furthering the problems).
The Real problem with economics isn't the trickle up or down factors. It's GOVERNMENT AS A LEECH. DL thinks the government can produce, when it really can't.
The first important thing about the government is the lack of Money Multiplication Factors. Money inside of the government is virtually worthless, it doesn't replicate, it doesn't produce, and it doesn't stimulate.
No incentive to save. A program which doesn't use all of it's alloted funds is then cut by congress. Eg. if the DMV is alloted 22 million dollars and only uses 12, it is punished by removing 10 million dollars from it's budget. Hence, it causes WASTE.
Government programs serve as a leech. These programs all have enormous overhead and management. If you read Pravus's post he makes excellent points about the benefits of the private sector over the governments. An LA Youth work program that took $80,000 to administrate per student, actually only paid into the economy $15,000 to the student who did all the work.
| Quote |
| on the tax issue - a lot of loopholes including the one that allows companies to move their headquarters to the Bahamas to evade taxes are about to close. they don't move because we tax the holy fuck out of them. they move because they can get away with it... they just have to get a P.O. box in the Bahamas, move their "headquarters" there, and then kick back & do business in the United States without paying a single dime in taxes. |
You take the wrong perspective with taxes as well. You want to close loopholes so that you can get the big corporations even more. Did you ever think to REDUCE taxes, make your programs effiecient and make government COST LESS. Then there is no insentive to drive even more money outside of the country.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 05 2002,03:40
PA, wix : you both seem to be bright people who are capable of making intelligent posts, but you need to take the time to lurk a little more and learn the culture here.If you pay attention, you'll notice that CK loves to call people close-minded and act as if they are out to oppress his rights. That doesn't mean it's true.
He also thinks he knows people's viewpoints so well that he doesn't bother to pay attention to what they write. Instead he attacks his own grossly distorted ideas of what their beliefs are, and he attacks their character as well.
That's why he constantly gets his ass flamed off. It has nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with the fact that he's obnoxious.
If I was close-minded or totally mislead, the other detvets would happily flame my ass off as well.
(looks around)
Don't see it happening.
What I do see happening is two people joining CK in attacking a very unrealistic and prejudiced view of what people who call themselves liberals think, feel, and believe.
If you don't even read what I write because you think you already know what I believe in, you are damn straight that I'm going to call you trolls and tell you to stfu kthx
Posted by Wiley on Jul. 05 2002,04:07
I just want to point out that nobody posted any specific intelligent political insights made by Rush durring his Broadcast Exellence.I might actually win this one
/me wipes a tear away from his eyes
And since I'm not well read about the Industrial Revolution I would like to give a statement of pure opinion. There is no way workers of that time period had it as good as the dot comer of the late 90's ...the company I was at actually had a Las Vegas beer & hooker slush fund ...Industrial Revolution workers had dirty coal mines to look forward to. The 90's kicked ass!!! (I'm sorry to any of you who invested in my company that died a horrible death ...after taking all of your money)
Posted by wix on Jul. 05 2002,08:03
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 04 July 2002,19:40) |
| PA, wix : you both seem to be bright people who are capable of making intelligent posts, but you need to take the time to lurk a little more and learn the culture here. If you pay attention, you'll notice that CK loves to call people close-minded and act as if they are out to oppress his rights. That doesn't mean it's true. He also thinks he knows people's viewpoints so well that he doesn't bother to pay attention to what they write. Instead he attacks his own grossly distorted ideas of what their beliefs are, and he attacks their character as well. That's why he constantly gets his ass flamed off. It has nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with the fact that he's obnoxious. If I was close-minded or totally mislead, the other detvets would happily flame my ass off as well. (looks around) Don't see it happening. What I do see happening is two people joining CK in attacking a very unrealistic and prejudiced view of what people who call themselves liberals think, feel, and believe. If you don't even read what I write because you think you already know what I believe in, you are damn straight that I'm going to call you trolls and tell you to stfu kthx |
DL, I wasn't saying anything about the culture, nor was I trying to flame you. I was just posting my opinions on government run programs.
As for siding with CK and calling people close-minded, I have no intention of doing either one. I consider myself to be rational in all aspects. Given a compelling reason, I'm willing to change my political views on just about anything. You'll find that I disagree with CK on far more issues than I agree with. If you need proof read my strict consitutionalist post and count the number of times I disagree with CK, um, just about everything. It so happens I agree with fiscal conservative policies. You'll notice that at no time did I advocate being close minded.
You accuse CK of ignoring the issue, but ignore the arguements that I make in favor of saying that I'm flaming you. I was in no way attacking you. I like to touch upon the arguments that you made one by one. I think that your fiscal policies don't make sense, that doesn't mean anything about what I feel about your personality. But the fact that you haven't once responded to an issue that I have posted but instead just telling me that I'm flaming you might mention something.
I'm happy to be confronted about my ideas, stupid as they may be, but to ignore my arguments and call me a flamer becuase I disagree is to be guilty of the same thing you accuse CK of.
I've never claimed to know what you stand for. If you READ my posts you'll see that the only issues I comment on are direct quotes posted by YOU. In essance, I don't assume you believe anything. Since I happen to be all over the political spectrum (depending on the issue), I would never assume you could classify someones ideology based on one post.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 05 2002,09:56
It's possible that I misread your intent.Unfortunately, when you've been arguing with CK as long as I have, you start to take insults as being yet another lame attempt at WINNING an argument instead of discussing an issue.
I'm also very, very sick of the implication that I'm brainwashed, especially when I see the leaders of my country jacking off every time God, Guns, the American flag, or the Free Market gets mentioned.
Think I'm just gonna avoid the Politics Forum for awhile.
Posted by CatKnight on Jul. 06 2002,18:01
I hope the irony wasn't lost on you, DSL.