6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 11/13/14 04:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All I am saying is that Communism has never existed.
all we're saying is that it can't be achieved, and that attempting to achieve it is too dangerous
At 11/13/14 10:00 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I totally read it. There are loose assertions in the article that doing such a thing would bankrupt the program; whereas I'm totally in favor of making money for the program from tax collection rather than charging the people who needed help even more. You know, wealth distributions, burning kitties, punching pandas. Sounds great to me.
Again, that's not the fucking point. The other proposals that the brookings institute didn't dismiss were also concerned with helping students.
You really didn't read, or at least, understand the link, because you didn't make even a remotely rudimentary attempt to explain why Brookings' justification for her exclusion is not valid. You just saw her proposing cheap student loan and defended the aims of such a policy without addressing the policy itself.
"Sen. Warren’s proposal should be quickly dismissed as a cheap political gimmick. It proposes only a one-year change to the rate on one kind of federal student loan, confuses market interest rates on long-term loans (such as the 10-year Treasury rate) with the Federal Reserve’s Discount Window (used to make short-term loans to banks), and does not reflect the administrative costs and default risk that increase the costs of the federal student loan program."
But I'm sure the Brookings Institute is just biased, right?
Again, it's no wonder why people such as yourself are so dazzled by her idiotic rhetoric.
Because there is evidence to the contrary:
First of all, you didn't actually mention why you brought up Friedman in the first place because, ONCE AGAIN, I didn't. I didn't even fucking disagree with making student loans cheaper per se! You just saw somebody disagreeing with a politician you jerk off to and your knee-jerk reaction is "hurrr u must be dumb libtarain u so dumb".
Remember folks, liberals are the ones known for their objectivity, reason and critical thinking skills.
Secondly, yes, an unsourced graph made in excel certainly disproves the entire career's work of the one of the top economists of the twentieth century. Unlike something like this, I suppose:
At 11/13/14 05:04 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Unfortunately I did not say that no. However in Communism there is no dictatorship/dictator so you have it mixed up. Perhaps you watched George Orwells 1984 to many times.
Moneyless economies make no sense.
At 11/13/14 08:10 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:At 11/12/14 09:31 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Warren is just a populist idiot who has an embarrassingly poor understanding of basic financial concepts.Lets see what you're link is talking about; I hope its not about Milton Friedman shitting gold bricks.
At 11/11/11 11:11: AM ElizabethWarren wrote:
Elizabeth Warren made headlines last week for saying that she believed students should pay the same rate for loans as big Wall Street banks, 0.75%.Oh, damn, that just sounds awful. Guaranteeing that our students aren't under mounds of $'s that they can't bankruptcy out of. I don't think a women who studied Bankruptcy for 10 years would know anything about how awful that was. She's clearly a moron.
So, you didn't actually read the link and why what she said was dumb, you just read what she said and agreed with it.
No wonder you like her.
And nobody said a damn thing about milton friedman you retard. The brookings institute, which is generally recognized as being center-left/centrist, dismissed her idea because it was stupid. Not a free market think tank. The brookings institute.
But hey, Friedman studied economics for more than '10 years' (and has a nobel prize to boot) so I'm confused as to why you don't think he isn't automatically right on all things economics.
At 11/12/14 07:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also lest somebody misunderstand what I mean by "cost of living" I speak to basic needs, rent/mortgage, food, and utilities.
So the liberal plan is:
- Open the border to unlimited mexican immigration
- Have living wage vary with living costs incl. rent
- Immigrants drive up rent/housing prices
- Immigrants competing for jobs with americans leading to lower employment
- Higher rent leading to higher 'living wages' paid by employer leading to lower employment
- Unemployment harder due to increased living costs or:
- Welfare increased with living costs
- Immigrants drive up cost of housing and in turn the value of welfare they receive
Gee, what a brilliant idea.
At 11/12/14 11:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: 2. We need to determine if the 30 hr vs 40 hr work week is a detrimental situation. Remember, 40 hr work weeks like we do and the minimal vacation time employees get in this country is an aberration from most other countries.
40 hour work weeks are not particularly unusual actually.
At 11/13/14 01:02 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Communism has never been practiced because of the monetary systems existence. Once again if money is involved then it;s no longer Communism.
You think communist countries become dictatorships because they had money? hahaha
Good luck maintaining an advanced economy of any type without the use of money. I'm sure a bureaucrat will be good at determining the value of commodities himself.
At 11/13/14 01:06 AM, Feoric wrote: Whether pre-existing conditions are covered is irrelevant to what health insurance actually is.
Except Obamacare isn't just "health insurance" the way any other health insurance plan is. That's the whole point of it existing.
It's a transfer of wealth from the healthy to the sick. This is what is colloquially known as "health insurance."
It's a transfer of wealth from those who choose to take out a policy in the first place. Such a choice does not exist in Obamacare, not do many others available to private consumers.
The fact that someone actually said what it was in easy to understand language and then promptly and accurately said in other words "this is why it's hard to be transparent about this bill" isn't controversial to me, but I can see why it is controversial to others.
So you admit Obama was lying about transparency then?
The funny thing is that the majority of republican voters opposed obamacare and the majority of republican politicians voted against it, which means Gruber is ultimately calling Democrats stupid.
At 11/12/14 11:36 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Real Communism has never been practiced as it has always been corrupt communism in practice. Communism is a classless, Governmentless, MONEYLESS system.
Yeah but every time someone has tried to implement it, it's turned to shit. Why risk it for the sake of """real communism"""?
I mean even Lenin himself created a system that turned into a tyrannical dictatorship (which was in fact his own fault) and the ideology of most communists is marxism-leninism.
Maybe you need to consider the possibility that "real" communism hasn't been practised because it can't be practised.
At 11/13/14 12:35 AM, Feoric wrote: Is not wrong, at all. Fundamentally this is actually how insurance works
Insurance is not given to sick people, or rather they're not covered for what they're already suffering from, which is one of the large motivations behind the ACA in the first place.
At 11/12/14 11:34 PM, MrPercie wrote: since when have the republicans backed any policy that's been good for the people.
Hurr hurr what a great contribution.
Warren is just a populist idiot who has an embarrassingly poor understanding of basic financial concepts.
Which countries would National Socialism work in? Large countries with powerful militaries may risk having an expansionist foreign policies, but what about smaller ones whose defense forces are useful only for basic defense?
At 11/12/14 12:58 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Trash Obamacare all you want, but until you prove the prior system was better, or provide your own better alternative, it's just white noise.
I didn't actually trash obamacare though. The fact that you make such a comment suggests that you're fine with bills you support being passed through deception and lies towards the "stupid american public". Which is funny considering that Obama promised transparency during his campaigns and the fact that if the republicans did the same for a policy you didn't support you'd be blowing a fucking gasket.
And if this is the line you're taking, why on earth should anyone believe what the Democrats have to say again? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G790p0LcgbI
Meet Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT and an architect of Obamacare. During a panel event last year about how the legislation passed, turning over a sixth of the U.S. economy to the government, Gruber admitted that the Obama administration went through "tortuous" measures to keep the facts about the legislation from the American people, including covering up the redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the sick in the legislation that Obamacare is in fact a tax. The video of his comments just recently surfaced ahead of the second open enrollment period for Obamacare at Healthcare.gov. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-yeah-we-lied-to-the-stupid-american-people-n1916605)
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."
Thoughts?
At 11/11/14 03:03 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Minimum wage used to be worth more in the 1960s if we adjust for inflation (about 10-15) Source. There is no reason not to increase it to what it was if we do it slowly.
Sure there is if the economy is not the same as it was before.
TL;DR: Increase wages correctly.
The whole minimum wage debate is about determining what the hell this even means.
"Oh, we were going to increase wages incorrectly but then this bright young spark called coaliscool42 said we should raise them correctly. Really saved our asses that kid did."
At 11/3/14 05:52 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I actually strongly dispute this point.
Every business entity beyond sole proprietorship and de facto partnership is created solely by the government.
Not that businesses are given any choice but to go along with this.
This means the government does have a great degree of control over what a business can and cannot do while still retaining its ability to legally do business in the US.
Lol, you act as though running a business in America is some imposition upon the country
to ensure that the businesses are not playing tricks whether legal or not to get out of paying the taxes that fund the fondation upon which they were even able to create their business.
Have you forgotten that personal income taxes exist?
The only difference bwteen tax avoidance and tax evasion is the legality. In the end, they are both selfish acts that place the needs of the few well above the needs of the many.
Although tax avoidance is largely a selfish act, that doesn't mean it doesn't have real social benefits. By minimizing the tax that they are required to pay, some companies may allow themselves to remain running when they would otherwise close. Even when this isn't the case, most companies are larger than they would be if their revenue was lowered significantly due to paying more taxes, and larger firms mean, ceritus paribum, higher employment, higher wages and greater output (and hence cheaper/better standard of living generally). Which is IMO better than what would be done with it as marginal tax revenue.
Given your hatred of private enterprise and near-absolute faith in the government, I genuinely wonder why you don't advocate for the complete nationalization of the economy.
And while they are legally allowed to do so, they are still morally and ethicaly shitty for doing so. (You can blame the Dodge brothers for this.)
Even if we assume this is the 100% true, it presents a kind of prisoner's dilemma wherein firms are punished for acting 'morally'. Even if a CEO recognizes the 'immorality' of tax avoidance, he has little choice but to do it if he values his job.
Western opposition to Iranian nuclear power is largely driven by racism towards muslims to be perfectly honest.
At 11/10/14 09:57 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If a Republican President wins in 2016, with a Republican House and Senate, the GOP would be able to accomplish almost anything politically.
yeah its gonna be nazi germany all over again
This is none of America's concern. Or rather, shouldn't be.
After a delay, the administration’s final “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” regulation is now expected to be announced in December. Originally scheduled for finalization in October, the new Housing and Urban Development Department rules will force all cities and suburbs to accept subsidized housing in the name of racial diversity, superceding all local zoning ordinances.
The Orwellian-sounding regulation would force some 1,200 municipalities to redraw zoning maps to racially diversify suburban neighborhoods.
While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.
Under the scheme, HUD plans to map every US neighborhood by race and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing racial imbalances. Areas deemed overly segregated will be forced to change their zoning laws to allow construction of subsidized and other affordable housing to bring more low-income minorities into “white suburbs.” HUD’s maps will be used to select affordable housing sites.
It’s part of the administration’s ambitious agenda to eliminate “racial segregation,” ZIP code by ZIP code, block by block, through the systematic dismantling of allegedly “exclusionary” building ordinances. In effect, federal bureaucrats will have the power to rezone your neighborhood.
Of course, Obama and Democrats are loath to inject this decidedly radical issue into the elections, so they’ll keep it out of the headlines until after voters go to the polls.
While temporarily punting away politically fraught issues may be smart politics, it’s cowardly leadership.
If the president’s policies are so popular, why does he have to try to hide them from voters? And who can trust Democrats now distancing themselves from him and his ideas when they voted with him 99% of the time previously?
http://nypost.com/2014/10/26/obamas-plans-for-a-secret-radical-agenda-after-the-elections/
Do you support forcing white neighborhoods to become more "diverse"?
At 11/7/14 01:08 AM, Feoric wrote: Maybe, but that's really irrelevant to my point, which is that it's happening at all.
No, but it's not irrelevant because hey're not distancing themselves with him ideologically/because he was bad about being factual.
If the president is lying about something and the rest of the democratic party arent even bringing up the very thing in question (the ACA) it can't be said that they're lying about that thing in question, nor can it be said that the Democratic President of the United States is a representation of the Democratic Party since everyone is doing and saying different things.
You keep shifting the goal posts. You said: "Regardless of whether or not this is true, your average Republican is not going to believe this. Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts. It's simply not going to work, and hasn't."
Do you think the average Democrat knows that the presidents claims about the ACA were bullshit? Of course not.
At 11/6/14 09:46 PM, Feoric wrote: Correct. Nearly every single Democrat on the ballot distanced themselves from the President.
Gee, i wonder if that has anything do with his record low approval ratings?
So, yes, let me repeat myself: the Democratic Party does not start nor end with Barack Hussein Obama II.
If the 'top' democrat lies then chances are the rest of the party lies too.
At 11/6/14 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Regardless of whether or not this is true, your average Republican is not going to believe this. Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts. It's simply not going to work, and hasn't.
At 11/6/14 08:58 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm talking about respective party platforms, not individuals.
No, you're not.
At 11/6/14 08:38 PM, Feoric wrote: Huh, I forgot that the entirety of the Democratic Party starts and ends with Barack Hussein Obama II saying words. Nevermind folks, my mistake!
The Democratic Party President of the United States isn't a representation of the Democratic Party? hahahahaha
If the most powerful politician in america, Democrat, is routinely wrong about FACTS then why on earth should we expect anyone else in the party to be these shining beacons of infallibility and truthfulness which you claim them to be?
At 11/6/14 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote: Regardless of whether or not this is true, your average Republican is not going to believe this. Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts. It's simply not going to work, and hasn't.
I can't believe there's people who actually still think like this. It's absolutely bizarre.
Hurr my side is based on FACTS and the other sides is just idots hahaha hillary 2016
if only he had been elected
so much comedy gone to waste
