House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts

[Parkbandit]

Moving aggressively to make good on election promises to slash the federal budget, the House GOP today unveiled an eye-popping plan to eliminate $2.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Gone would be Amtrak subsidies, fat checks to the Legal Services Corporation and National Endowment for the Arts, and some $900 million to run President Obama's healthcare reform program. [See a gallery of political caricatures.]


What's more, the "Spending Reduction Act of 2011" proposed by members of the conservative Republican Study Committee, chaired by Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, would reduce current spending for non-defense, non-homeland security and non-veterans programs to 2008 levels, eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through attrition, and cut some $80 billion by blocking implementation of Obamacare. [See a slide show of the top Congressional travel destinations.]

Some of the proposed reductions will surely draw Democratic attack, such as cutting the Ready to Learn TV Program, repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, the elimination of the Energy Star Program, and cutting subsidies to the Woodrow Wilson Center. [See editorial cartoons about the GOP.]

Here is the overview provided by the Republican Study Committee:

FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.

Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.

Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).

"Stimulus" Repeal: Eliminate all remaining "stimulus" funding. $45 billion total savings.

Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.

Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the "State Bailout" (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.

More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).
Here is the full list of cuts:

Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms

Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.

Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.

Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.

U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.

Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.

Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.

Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

HUD Ph.D. Program.

Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/20/house-gop-lists-25-trillion-in-spending-cuts

Not a bad start.

[Androidpk]

They should add reducing top level government salaries and health benefits to that list.

[Warriorbird]

I'm pretty okay with a bunch of those apart from beach restoration. The healthcare stuff is "veto me" though. They don't mean it.

[Tgo01]

They should add reducing top level government salaries and health benefits to that list.

Yeah this. I'll admit I'm lazy and didn't read the entire list, is cutting Congress pay at all on the list?

[waywardgs]

They cut the congressional death gratuity..

also, "Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings."

Congress uses 100m in paper? Wow.

[Fallen]

Sign that shit into law.

[Warriorbird]

Sign that shit into law.

It's just trolling. It'll never happen.

[Parkbandit]

It's just trolling. It'll never happen.

It will never get past the Democratic Senate and would certainly be vetoed by the President.

[NocturnalRob]

Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
Holy ass-raping shit. Fuck you, Amtrak. Fuck you right in your air hole.

[Parkbandit]

Holy ass-raping shit. Fuck you, Amtrak. Fuck you right in your air hole.

This is the major argument against light rail between Tampa and Orlando and eventually Miami.... that it won't be able to turn a profit, especially once the government gets involved.

[Warriorbird]

Noteworthily, the new Virginia passenger service actually did turn a profit. Some of it is run much less efficiently than other portions.

[TheEschaton]

Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.



So, almost 2.3 trillion of the 2.5 trillion savings comes from one item? I don't know much about economics, but this sounds crazy retarded. Not increasing based on inflation? Freezing spending levels for social programs for 10 years at levels from 5 years ago? What? With just the population growth, this seems idiotic.

If someone who can actually discuss economics wants to discuss this, feel free.

[Gan]

If someone who can actually discuss economics wants to discuss this, feel free.

So this means you're sitting out?

[Tsa`ah]

Much of it looks like a middle finger to the poor and lower middle class. Many of the things listed should be no brainers ... but what is absent is more telling.

They're not touching corporate subsidies ... instead they're targeting social programs.

It's a load of crap and it won't go anywhere. They're just tossing it out there for campaign material ... to demonstrate that Dems aren't serious about spending cuts.

[BriarFox]

This list is one-sided bullshit. They're seriously proposing cuts to the national endowments to the arts and humanities? Educational programs? Environmental and energy savings programs?

Ridiculous posturing.

[Back]

EXCLUSIVE: Obama wins more spending cuts than Bush (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/obama-wins-more-cuts-in-spending-than-bush/)

This was 2008 BTW...


President Obama notched substantial successes in spending cuts last year, winning 60 percent of his proposed cuts and managing to get Congress to ax several programs that had bedeviled President George W. Bush for years.

The administration says Congress accepted at least $6.9 billion of the $11.3 billion in discretionary spending cuts Mr. Obama proposed for the current fiscal year. An analysis by The Washington Times found that Mr. Obama was victorious in getting Congress to slash 24 programs and achieved some level of success in reducing nine other programs.

Among the president's victories are canceling the multibillion-dollar F-22 Raptor program, ending the LORAN-C radio-based ship navigation system and culling a series of low-dollar education grants. In each of those cases, Mr. Obama succeeded in eliminating programs that Mr. Bush repeatedly failed to end.

[Latrinsorm]

The F22 was cool as hell to watch, though. OBAMA IS A FASCIST.

What I don't get about the list provided is that it adds up to less than half a trillion dollars. Why bother giving an itemized list if it's not going to reach a fifth of your claimed savings?

[Seran]

Where's the reduction in farm subsidies? Where's the drop in defense spending which we no longer need due to the fact we've effectively won both Iraq and Afganistan wars?

[Cephalopod]

Some good, some bad, some flat-out bullshit. The glaring omission defense. (F35 AEP, anyone?)

I do want to hear some economists weigh in on the 2.3t 'inflation savings', since that seems like bullshit, too, and makes up the bulk of the 'savings'.

Speculations on job losses tied to these cuts?

[Parkbandit]

This list is one-sided bullshit. They're seriously proposing cuts to the national endowments to the arts and humanities? Educational programs? Environmental and energy savings programs?

Ridiculous posturing.

Why wouldn't they? Are those programs off limits in your mind?

[Warriorbird]

Why wouldn't they? Are those programs off limits in your mind?

I know you don't get the value of things like art or culture. Unfortunately, we can't all remove everything we don't value from government. The biggest red flag to me is fucking over beaches in the face of hurricanes. Sometimes you need to attend to infrastructure, which is a portion of the 'stimulus' Republicans will never let onto after raping state transportation funding across the country either.

[Cephalopod]

Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.


Random 'huh'.

[Warriorbird]

Did they just violate their 'not close tax loophole' pledge? Oh yes they did.

Ought to report them to Americans for Prosperity for violating their pledge... as an entire party.

That's a tax hike right there.

[Androidpk]

Where's the reduction in farm subsidies? Where's the drop in defense spending which we no longer need due to the fact we've effectively won both Iraq and Afganistan wars?

There have already been announcements for slashes to defense spending.

[Back]

Where are the health care benefit cuts for Congress and their families?

[Parkbandit]

I know you don't get the value of things like art or culture. Unfortunately, we can't all remove everything we don't value from government. The biggest red flag to me is fucking over beaches in the face of hurricanes. Sometimes you need to attend to infrastructure, which is a portion of the 'stimulus' Republicans will never let onto after raping state transportation funding across the country either.

When you are 14+ trillion in debt, everything needs to have cuts... even precious art and cultural handouts.

Boo hoo.

And the beach replenishment are not just "in the face of hurricanes". We haven't had a hurricane hit Clearwater, FL in years, yet we still get money from the federal government to keep our beach sand from eroding away. Sorry, that should be a state responsibility.

[Parkbandit]

Did they just violate their 'not close tax loophole' pledge? Oh yes they did.

Ought to report them to Americans for Prosperity for violating their pledge... as an entire party.

That's a tax hike right there.

I don't even understand the logic in this post... want to explain it? Are you responding to Nacho's post?

[Warriorbird]

When you are 14+ trillion in debt, everything needs to have cuts... even precious art and cultural handouts.

Boo hoo.

And the beach replenishment are not just "in the face of hurricanes". We haven't had a hurricane hit Clearwater, FL in years, yet we still get money from the federal government to keep our beach sand from eroding away. Sorry, that should be a state responsibility.

Funny how everyone didn't have cuts then.

[Warriorbird]

I don't even understand the logic in this post... want to explain it? Are you responding to Nacho's post?

Americans for Prosperity had most of the Republican members of Congress sign a pledge where they stated they wouldn't close any tax loopholes because tax loopholes are tax increases. Nacho's post referred to what is, essentially, closing a tax loophole

[Parkbandit]

Funny how everyone didn't have cuts then.

With 14+ trillion in debt.. and this saving only 2.5 trillion over 10 years.. do you believe that these will be the only cuts?

[Parkbandit]

Americans for Prosperity had most of the Republican members of Congress sign a pledge where they stated they wouldn't close any tax loopholes because tax loopholes are tax increases. Nacho's post referred to what is, essentially, closing a tax loophole

Wrong. Do you even know what the term "loophole" means?

These federal government employees still owe this money... Republicans just want to collect that money.

[Warriorbird]

Wrong. Do you even know what the term "loophole" means?

These federal government employees still owe this money... Republicans just want to collect that money.

Do you? Most of these 'back taxes' are through settlements. If you examined the population as a whole, they actually owe higher rates of 'back taxes' than the Federal employees too.

But "Federal employees" aren't people, obviously, according to Republicans, they're "guvmint" and all the QQing Republicans don't want to address settlements for private citizens because they'd get lynched.

It's a loophole. You won't see Republicans addressing the real loophole though. They're not actually conservative when they only do this stuff in a troll bill that they know won't pass.

EDIT:

As an added note? The delinquencies never expire, they accrue interest and penalties, and they're not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

..also RE all that shit you don't care about, like the Smithsonian, entirely eliminating something isn't cutting.

[Latrinsorm]

When you are 14+ trillion in debt, everything needs to have cuts... even precious art and cultural handouts. ... With 14+ trillion in debt.. and this saving only 2.5 trillion over 10 years.. do you believe that these will be the only cuts?1. You don't believe anything a politician explicitly promises.
2. You apparently think that these cuts to highly specific parts of the budget imply cuts to other highly specific parts of the budget.
3. The people proposing these cuts have explicitly promised not to cut those other highly specific parts of the budget.

Can you possibly be serious? You don't even like these people, what would possess you to so awkwardly defend them?

[Kuyuk]

The OP and listening to PB defend this makes my head hurt.

[Parkbandit]

The OP and listening to PB defend this makes my head hurt.

It's probably the big words you can't understand.

Don't worry though, you can leave this and any other topic that hurts your poor little head that doesn't work properly.

[Parkbandit]

1. You don't believe anything a politician explicitly promises.
2. You apparently think that these cuts to highly specific parts of the budget imply cuts to other highly specific parts of the budget.
3. The people proposing these cuts have explicitly promised not to cut those other highly specific parts of the budget.

Can you possibly be serious? You don't even like these people, what would possess you to so awkwardly defend them?

What is your answer then? To do as we've been doing for the past 4 years... spend our way out of it?

I'm a fiscal Conservative. This is the first time in 4 years that we are even talking about cutting spending in a meaningful way. It's a drop in the bucket IMO, but at least it's a drop.

[Cephalopod]

There have already been announcements for slashes to defense spending.

Not from congress. That was Gates taking initiative because he had to.

[Warriorbird]

What is your answer then? To do as we've been doing for the past 4 years... spend our way out of it?

I'm a fiscal Conservative. This is the first time in 4 years that we are even talking about cutting spending in a meaningful way. It's a drop in the bucket IMO, but at least it's a drop.

This isn't a meaningful way. You know it.

[Parkbandit]

This isn't a meaningful way. You know it.

Actually, like I responded in my OP, it's a start.

And a start is far better than what we've been doing.

Even you agreed.. until you started doing your typical liberal frothing.

[Warriorbird]

Actually, like I responded in my OP, it's a start.

And a start is far better than what we've been doing.

Even you agreed.. until you started doing your typical liberal frothing.

Many of these ideas I like. Then it hit me that it wasn't really happening and in the process of it not happening they didn't make a token effort to suggest putting more on the table.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So, almost 2.3 trillion of the 2.5 trillion savings comes from one item? I don't know much about economics, but this sounds crazy retarded. Not increasing based on inflation? Freezing spending levels for social programs for 10 years at levels from 5 years ago? What? With just the population growth, this seems idiotic.

If someone who can actually discuss economics wants to discuss this, feel free.

Regards TheE's question above about 2.3 trillion being discretionary, it notes that just about everything there is in that bucket. They don't call it out, but I would imagine cutting federal labor by 15% and freezing salary for 5 years is a huge component. Labor is ALWAYS one of the most expensive items in any P&L.

Also, freezing a budget to prior year levels may seem like an extreme measure, but it really depends. The Government, much like the American people, needs to learn how to spend it's money wisely, knowing it has limited funds. The fortune 500 company I work for hasn't given merit increases in 3 years because of the economy. Think about that. The ENTIRE company hasn't gotten a raise in 3 years. We want to be competitive, not extinct.


This list is one-sided bullshit. They're seriously proposing cuts to the national endowments to the arts and humanities? Educational programs? Environmental and energy savings programs?

Ridiculous posturing.

Why would we not cut them? Do more with less everywhere should be the mandate. I'm not sure I'd say this is "one sided" like you are others are saying, but frankly I don't think it's enough. I think cuts should be made across the board (like a flat 10-15%) to all discretionary spending, and then sit down the bean counters to figure out how they'll allocate their budgets. No budget exercise is easy, but unless someone mandates it, and stops giving more and more money every year, it doesn't happen.


I know you don't get the value of things like art or culture. Unfortunately, we can't all remove everything we don't value from government. The biggest red flag to me is fucking over beaches in the face of hurricanes. Sometimes you need to attend to infrastructure, which is a portion of the 'stimulus' Republicans will never let onto after raping state transportation funding across the country either.

The 95M that is your "biggest red flag", accounts for 0.0038% of the proposed cuts. That aside, lets address your point of "Republicans" "raping state transportation funding". The US Army Corp of Engineers budget of 5.6 billion dollars hosts 5.125 billion in discretionary spending. I guess they'll have to reallocate dollars from there.

And finally, the 95M that is your "biggest red flag" has funding within the Corp of 1.628 billion allocated for flood and storm damage reduction for coastal and inland areas and another 55M for Flood Control and Coastal emergencies.

http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/PID/Documents/budget/budget2010.pdf



..also RE all that shit you don't care about, like the Smithsonian, entirely eliminating something isn't cutting.

I saw no mention at all of the Smithsonian budget being cut, and considering it's FY10 appropriation was 760M it'd stick out were it earmarked.

[Latrinsorm]

What is your answer then? To do as we've been doing for the past 4 years... spend our way out of it?

I'm a fiscal Conservative. This is the first time in 4 years that we are even talking about cutting spending in a meaningful way. It's a drop in the bucket IMO, but at least it's a drop.It's not a start, because it has zero chance of passing. Everyone involved in the proposal knows it has zero chance of passing. This makes it just another empty gesture, exactly like the "ban" on earmarks before it.

The answer is to actually do something about the budget. Suppose the people proposing this act had instead proposed a bill to specifically and only cut funding for the International Fund for Ireland (for instance). They wouldn't have made any headlines, but there's at least some chance the funding actually would have been cut. If someone offers 50% of $17 million or 0% of $2.5 trillion, you always take the 50%.

[Gan]

It's not a start, because it has zero chance of passing. Everyone involved in the proposal knows it has zero chance of passing. This makes it just another empty gesture, exactly like the "ban" on earmarks before it.
Exactly why does it have no chance of passing?

[Warriorbird]

Exactly why does it have no chance of passing?

You really don't get it? If reworked some of these things would have a good chance. There's egregious shit like "money to defend the healthcare plan in court." to prevent any possible compromise.

[Sean]

Regards TheE's question above about 2.3 trillion being discretionary, it notes that just about everything there is in that bucket. They don't call it out, but I would imagine cutting federal labor by 15% and freezing salary for 5 years is a huge component. Labor is ALWAYS one of the most expensive items in any P&L.

I suggest this be relabeled as the House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in JOB KILLING!?!? Spending Cuts.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I suggest this be relabeled as the House GOP Lists $2.5 Triollion in JOB KILLING!?!? Spending Cuts.

Federal job cutting needs to occur, IMO. But it made me laugh ;p

[pabstblueribbon]

Federal job cutting needs to occur, IMO. But it made me laugh ;p

It wouldn't just cut Federal jobs.

But that's okay, with our excellent job market right now. It's not like they would just go on unemployment and we would essentially pay them for doing nothing anyways.. right? Right??!

[Gan]

You really don't get it? If reworked some of these things would have a good chance. There's egregious shit like "money to defend the healthcare plan in court." to prevent any possible compromise.

Actually, I get it more than you are giving credit for. I would just like to hear Latrin's answer.

And who's to say that there won't or shouldn't be compromise? It's humorous that you seem to think all bills should be passed as submitted rather than tempering through debate and compromise...

Are you having a black and white morning again?

[~Rocktar~]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xezWd7VU2Ug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJV6XWfOlUc

My only disagreement with Jack is that it can be done without higher taxes, but politicians have to have the courage to do so and the American people have to have the courage to do it as well. The spoiled EMO brat society must grow up and learn that NO is a vaild response. In addition, the Socialist Liberal mush headed community must learn that people must have personal responsibility for themselves and no amount of throwing money at poor people will keep them from being poor.

[Warriorbird]

Are you having a black and white morning again?

Racist.

I think most people would like to see an actually serious budget cutting plan. I think most of Congress stands in the way of it though. I think this is 'repeal the healthcare bill!' 2.

[Deathravin]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/20/us/poll-graphic.html



If you had to choose one, which would you be willing to change in order to cut government spending?
|All |Republicans|Independents|Democrats
Medicare|21|31|24|10
Social Security|13|17|15|11
Military|55|42|55|66
No opinion|10|10|7|13

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It wouldn't just cut Federal jobs.

But that's okay, with our excellent job market right now. It's not like they would just go on unemployment and we would essentially pay them for doing nothing anyways.. right? Right??!

Unemployment should be one of the biggest things cut, IMO.

Would you rather we just keep paying people too much to do jobs of no value at all, bankrupting our government? We should stop doing that, right? Right??!

[Warriorbird]

Unemployment should be one of the biggest things cut, IMO.

Would you rather we just keep paying people too much to do jobs of no value at all, bankrupting our government? We should stop doing that, right? Right??!

And society collapses further under the weight of a larger number of unemployed. That ends up awesome.

[Latrinsorm]

Exactly why does it have no chance of passing?The Democrats in the Senate will never backtrack on Obamacare. N-e-v-e-r, that spells moon, and the moon is shaped like a zero in certain fonts. I would give President Obama maybe a 5% chance of not vetoing it, but that doesn't matter if it never gets past the Senate.

Debate and compromise are great until a compromise can't be reached and the bill dies in subcommittee, then all that time got us exactly 0 dollars closer to balancing the budget. This is why, again, people interested in balancing the budget should be spending their time on tiny, manageable (which is to say boring) pieces. We don't need Mark Reynolds. We need Ichiro.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And society collapses further under the weight of a larger number of unemployed. That ends up awesome.

Or government goes tits up? That ends up awesome.

[Warriorbird]

Or government goes tits up? That ends up awesome.

I'm just pointing out there might be some further considerations other than "Let's stop all unemployment!" There's definite societal effects.

[Gan]

The Democrats in the Senate will never backtrack on Obamacare. N-e-v-e-r, that spells moon, and the moon is shaped like a zero in certain fonts. I would give President Obama maybe a 5% chance of not vetoing it, but that doesn't matter if it never gets past the Senate.

Debate and compromise are great until a compromise can't be reached and the bill dies in subcommittee, then all that time got us exactly 0 dollars closer to balancing the budget. This is why, again, people interested in balancing the budget should be spending their time on tiny, manageable (which is to say boring) pieces. We don't need Mark Reynolds. We need Ichiro.

So basically we're seeing the new party of No. ;)

[Warriorbird]

So basically we're seeing the new party of No. ;)

Except they've actually proposed and passed some real legislation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm just pointing out there might be some further considerations other than "Let's stop all unemployment!" There's definite societal effects.

I thought you were just playing the chicken little game so I happily contributed.

You really must stop reading into things. I never stated we should stop unemployment benefits. I do believe that however many YEARS you can get unemployment for today is ridiculous though. It's 3 years now, is that right? If they reformed unemployment to be a lifetime cummulative max of 3 years, I'd probably still have issues with it. I've not been unemployed since I was 16, not had a full time job since I was 22. It really isn't that hard.

[Gan]

And society collapses further under the weight of a larger number of unemployed. That ends up awesome.

Or people get off their asses and go get jobs.

Maybe its just the region that I live in, but I see job postings, help wanted signs, how hiring signs, etc. all over.

Imagine that. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

[Gan]

Except they've actually proposed and passed some real legislation.

That's what the Republicans said too. The label still stuck.

Welcome to the club! We saved you a seat or two. ;)

[Tgo01]

Let's not forget how easy it is to get unemployment these days. My friend quit his job and collected unemployment for one and a half years. The only reason he found a job was because he heard the benefits were ending, if only he 'stuck it out' sitting on his ass all day he would still be collecting today because Congress ended up passing the extension on unemployment benefits.

[Warriorbird]

That's what the Republicans said too. The label still stuck.

Welcome to the club! We saved you a seat or two. ;)

They did? What of significance have they done since the Patriot Act and founding DHS?

[Parkbandit]

It's not a start, because it has zero chance of passing. Everyone involved in the proposal knows it has zero chance of passing. This makes it just another empty gesture, exactly like the "ban" on earmarks before it.

The answer is to actually do something about the budget. Suppose the people proposing this act had instead proposed a bill to specifically and only cut funding for the International Fund for Ireland (for instance). They wouldn't have made any headlines, but there's at least some chance the funding actually would have been cut. If someone offers 50% of $17 million or 0% of $2.5 trillion, you always take the 50%.

OK, let's just see, shall we? Let's see if the new Republican House can push through budget cuts and see how the Democrats in the Senate and a Democrat President, who will be running in 2012 for re-election, vote. I would love for the Senate Dems to say no to spending cuts... it means 2012 will be another bloodbath... er I mean historical defeat.

[pabstblueribbon]

I thought you were just playing the chicken little game so I happily contributed.

You really must stop reading into things. I never stated we should stop unemployment benefits. I do believe that however many YEARS you can get unemployment for today is ridiculous though. It's 3 years now, is that right? If they reformed unemployment to be a lifetime cummulative max of 3 years, I'd probably still have issues with it. I've not been unemployed since I was 16, not had a full time job since I was 22. It really isn't that hard.

Reading into things may be misconstrued as being thoughtful. Wouldn't want that, no sir.

With a good job market, yeah, I can see legislature that cuts Federal spending and thus cuts jobs.

But with a bad job market and high unemployment guess what that ends up doing? DOMINOES

Less people buying things means less profits means your job gets cut too.... to infinity.. and beyond!

Unemployment obviously isn't the answer either. It's a real pickle.

[Warriorbird]

Or people get off their asses and go get jobs.

Maybe its just the region that I live in, but I see job postings, help wanted signs, how hiring signs, etc. all over.

Imagine that. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

It's at times run 2% below national rates. That's significant. Underemployment and over-qualification are an issue that nobody wants to address, as well as the fact that companies can cherry pick ludicrously as well as being looking for things (like nursing) that are tough to fill.

If somebody's been unemployed for a significant amount of time they may have difficulty holding the job search process together as well.

How many times have you been unemployed in a recession or a serious economic downturn?

The world isn't immediately handing out jobs these days. It isn't conservative pipedream "The free market will save us! Let us bow down to it!" land.

[pabstblueribbon]

It's at times run 2% below national rates. That's significant. Underemployment and over-qualification are an issue that nobody wants to address, as well as the fact that companies can cherry pick ludicrously as well as being looking for things (like nursing) that are tough to fill.

If somebody's been unemployed for a significant amount of time they may have difficulty holding the job search process together as well.

How many times have you been unemployed in a recession or a serious economic downturn?

The world isn't immediately handing out jobs these days. It isn't conservative pipedream "The free market will save us! Let us bow down to it!" land.

Corporations have an unprecedented amount of liquid assets they're just holding onto right now.. they're being conservative but hows that helping with job creation?

Prevent or make it cost prohibitive for corporations to move operations and cash and therefore jobs over-seas.

Regulation is akin to a gun. It can be used for evil and for good. It just depends on how you use it.

EDIT: Did anyone else take offense to Goldman Sachs refusing to offer Facebook stocks to US based clients? Especially considering the bailouts? Not that I would ever invest in Facebook, but it's just the principle.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Reading into things may be misconstrued as being thoughtful. Wouldn't want that, no sir.

With a good job market, yeah, I can see legislature that cuts Federal spending and thus cuts jobs.

But with a bad job market and high unemployment guess what that ends up doing? DOMINOES

Less people buying things means less profits means your job gets cut too.... to infinity.. and beyond!

Unemployment obviously isn't the answer either. It's a real pickle.

Reading into things and then stating something that wasn't implied isn't thoughtful. You are correct, we don't need that.

So your argument for not reducing costs at the government is that the job market is bad? Really? Why not take it one step further and suggest that the Federal Government just hire everyone unemployed, then unemployment isn't bad! Oh wait, we do that. It's called unemployment benefits, and it isn't working because guess what, unemployment is going up and now the government deficit is so large it's a national crisis which affects not only the unemployed, but the other 90% who actually DO work.

[pabstblueribbon]

Reading into things and then stating something that wasn't implied isn't thoughtful. You are correct, we don't need that.

So your argument for not reducing costs at the government is that the job market is bad? Really? Why not take it one step further and suggest that the Federal Government just hire everyone unemployed, then unemployment isn't bad! Oh wait, we do that. It's called unemployment benefits, and it isn't working because guess what, unemployment is going up and now the government deficit is so large it's a national crisis which affects not only the unemployed, but the other 90% who actually DO work.

Actually I said it's a real pickle, and you proved my point. Thank you.

I also said unemployment wasn't the answer either quite clearly.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Corporations have an unprecedented amount of liquid assets they're just holding onto right now.. they're being conservative but hows that helping with job creation?

Prevent or make it cost prohibitive for corporations to move operations and cash and therefore jobs over-seas.

Regulation is akin to a gun. It can be used for evil and for good. It just depends on how you use it.

EDIT: Did anyone else take offense to Goldman Sachs refusing to offer Facebook stocks to US based clients? Especially considering the bailouts? Not that I would ever invest in Facebook, but it's just the principle.

Shockingly, I completely disagree with you. Don't make it prohibitive for a free market to move where it profits the most. The solution is to make it attractive to employ HERE. Right now, unions and laws are working against that.

Let any company do anything it wants, but ensure the market is most favorable for the United States through labor laws and import/export regulations. We don't need laws saying you pay more if you offshore, because that will just end up with companies literally moving offshore. That's how free markets work.

[Sean]

Shockingly, I completely disagree with you. Don't make it prohibitive for a free market to move where it profits the most. The solution is to make it attractive to employ HERE. Right now, unions and laws are working against that.

Let any company do anything it wants, but ensure the market is most favorable for the United States through labor laws and import/export regulations. We don't need laws saying you pay more if you offshore, because that will just end up with companies literally moving offshore. That's how free markets work.

I agree! I've got a 10 year niece that can stitch the hell out of a soccer ball and needs a job. I'm tired of her sponging off my aunt and the government!

Obviously I'm just busting your chops but I don't see the US ever being able to go apples for apples with some foreign nations in this respect.

[Warriorbird]

Shockingly, I completely disagree with you. Don't make it prohibitive for a free market to move where it profits the most. The solution is to make it attractive to employ HERE. Right now, unions and laws are working against that.

Let any company do anything it wants, but ensure the market is most favorable for the United States through labor laws and import/export regulations. We don't need laws saying you pay more if you offshore, because that will just end up with companies literally moving offshore. That's how free markets work.

So how do you deal with companies that stifle competition in your super free environment? You don't.

[pabstblueribbon]

Let any company do anything it wants, but ensure the market is most favorable for the United States through labor laws and import/export regulations.

Yeah, because corporations wouldn't abuse the ever living fuck out of this by using cheap labor offshore, and selling it for big profits here in the US.

This will definitely create jobs. Overseas.

[pabstblueribbon]

http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif House GOP Lists $2.5... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1226140#post1226140) 01-21-2011 01:40 PM Dumb idiot

I guess this explains why things are the way that they are. Why couldn't you just prove me wrong here in public? Oh right.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So how do you deal with companies that stifle competition in your super free environment? You don't.

What the fuck are you talking about? In the context of my response, it's not let companies do anything they want like hire children or break other laws/humanitarian reasons, but if they want to offshore something they should be able to do so without United States penalties. To be successful we need to have an environment in the US that is attractive to employers. Taxes, unions, laws and an undeserved sense of entitlement work against that.

Corporate taxes in Canada are (I'm stating this off the cuff without reference but I have seen them before) I believe 1/4 the corporate taxes for a business in the US. If you have a company along any Canadian border state, and could cut your tax bottom line by 75% simply by moving across the border - would you? There are other pros and cons, sure, but things like this is why I'm a firm believer in outsourcing.

You think those Indian's working for 10 cents on the dollar are SAD that they have some shit job? No, because to them, it isn't a shit job. It's also likely more money than anything they would make otherwise. You give a soccer ball stitching job (as Sean so nicely offered up) to a US citizen? Union costs, insurance, unemployment insurance, benefits, lawsuits and whatever else you can throw on to the costs, and you get the same result, at 10x the cost. Yeah, I'd move that shit offshore in a heartbeat, and if you didn't because of some noble "Made in America" ideal, I'll enjoy your market share shortly.

[pabstblueribbon]

Yeah, I'd move that shit offshore in a heartbeat, and if you didn't because of some noble "Made in America" ideal, I'll enjoy your market share shortly.

And you come full circle and admit your own, and American consumers' short sightedness.

Guess what happens when all the jobs are outsourced? No one has A JOB AND THEREFORE MONEY to buy your stupid fucking goods and your market share means jack shit. Jackwagon.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, because corporations wouldn't abuse the ever living fuck out of this by using cheap labor offshore, and selling it for big profits here in the US.

This will definitely create jobs. Overseas.

Yes, and we are doing it very effectively right now. Why pay a union laborer $35 an hour to do x, when you can pay Jose $3.50 and get the same product? If you can tell me why, logically, any company would do this, I'm very willing to listen.


http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif House GOP Lists $2.5... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1226140#post1226140) 01-21-2011 01:40 PM Dumb idiot

I guess this explains why things are the way that they are. Why couldn't you just prove me wrong here in public? Oh right.

I can give you rep if you like, to show it wasn't me. I don't give a fuck about rep and virtually never give it out.

[pabstblueribbon]

Yes, and we are doing it very effectively right now. Why pay a union laborer $35 an hour to do x, when you can pay Jose $3.50 and get the same product? If you can tell me why, logically, any company would do this, I'm very willing to listen.



I can give you rep if you like, to show it wasn't me. I don't give a fuck about rep and virtually never give it out.

I didn't accuse you. So egotistical..

See previous post for answers to your question.

EDIT: This made me LOL. "Yes, and we are doing it very effectively right now. Why pay a union laborer $35 an hour to do x, when you can pay Jose $3.50 and get the same product?" We sure are effective at fucking up our own job market!

Also, you are right. It isn't logical for ANY company to do so, which proves exactly why we need regulation. Man you're good at this.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

And you come full circle and admit your own, and American consumers' short sightedness.

Guess what happens when all the jobs are outsourced? No one has A JOB AND THEREFORE MONEY to buy your stupid fucking goods and your market share means jack shit. Jackwagon.

LOL, show me an example where this has every happened? The entire country has no jobz! OH NOES!

So in your world, we keep it all here the good old US of A. You pay 10k for a 1k computer from Taiwan. Unfortunately, you dollar isn't worth jack shit, because inflation is at epidemic levels. Your profit is nil, because everyone who knows how to order online is importing their computer from Taiwan. In fact, you are bankrupt, and your company is out of business. Your shareholders investment is nil, and everyone who worked for you is, guess what, collecting unemployment from a government that can't print new money fast enough.

[Gan]

They did? What of significance have they done since the Patriot Act and founding DHS?

You're right, all the GOP is good for is laying blame to all the woes of our society and economy...

Thanks for filling the partisan hack shoes today. They were looking lonely.

[pabstblueribbon]

Hobbit, re-read my posts.

Seems to be happening right about now... just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.

But whatever motivates you. Greed.. stupidity.. you're beyond my abilities I guess.

I mean.. your logic is just so fucking backwards.. you state that your money isn't worth what it used to be yet you deny that the practices that you encourage aren't the direct cause? Wow.. just.. wow.

[Gan]

It's at times run 2% below national rates. That's significant. Underemployment and over-qualification are an issue that nobody wants to address, as well as the fact that companies can cherry pick ludicrously as well as being looking for things (like nursing) that are tough to fill.
God forbid someone get a job beneath their skills in order to get them through the hard times instead of sitting back on the taxpayers dole... Woe is me!


If somebody's been unemployed for a significant amount of time they may have difficulty holding the job search process together as well.
Make their efforts dependant upon survival and you might see their concentration levels last a little longer, or they might place more effort in finding work.


How many times have you been unemployed in a recession or a serious economic downturn?
Once, briefly. I was the sole income for being a newelywed couple. I found a job within 1 month. In the interim I did some contract work for daily/hourly pay in order to buy groceries and pay the rent when savings fell short. In short, I worked for it. I hustled. I did not take the viewpoint that I was entitled to receiving assistance from someone else. Hell I even gave my family a hard time when they wanted to help out.


The world isn't immediately handing out jobs these days. It isn't conservative pipedream "The free market will save us! Let us bow down to it!" land.
Again, in certain areas it is. All you have to do is look and be willing to relocate to move where the work is. That's like people crying about being out of water because they live in the desert. NO SHIT SHERLOCK! ITS THE DESERT! MOVE!

And if you say people can't move I'm going to laugh. Your viewpoint has suckled American society to the teet of entitlement and laziness to the point that they sit there with their mouths open waiting for someone to provide for them. I bet if someone yelled self reliance in your general direction you would shrivel up and faint in a corner somewhere.

[Warriorbird]

God forbid someone get a job beneath their skills in order to get them through the hard times instead of sitting back on the taxpayers dole... Woe is me!

Make their efforts dependant upon survival and you might see their concentration levels last a little longer, or they might place more effort in finding work.

Once, briefly. I was the sole income for being a newelywed couple. I found a job within 1 month. In the interim I did some contract work for daily/hourly pay in order to buy groceries and pay the rent when savings fell short. In short, I worked for it. I hustled. I did not take the viewpoint that I was entitled to receiving assistance from someone else. Hell I even gave my family a hard time when they wanted to help out.

Again, in certain areas it is. All you have to do is look and be willing to relocate to move where the work is. That's like people crying about being out of water because they live in the desert. NO SHIT SHERLOCK! ITS THE DESERT! MOVE!

And if you say people can't move I'm going to laugh. Your viewpoint has suckled American society to the teet of entitlement and laziness to the point that they sit there with their mouths open waiting for someone to provide for them. I bet if someone yelled self reliance in your general direction you would shrivel up and faint in a corner somewhere.

It's very easy to say that from a position of relative comfort. Not everybody has the ease or ability to relocate you did and would.

I'm not speaking from my own position either. I've always found work. I've seen some parts of America (Baltimore, New Orleans) where people wouldn't even have a fucking clue how to go about what you're talking about, however.

Unlike folks who blame everything on people in need, however, I like to think that we have to strike a balance.

But yes. Let's stop paying people anything. Those terrible people. Then we'll see how well it helps society and the economy.

People like to go about affluent liberals but it's pretty funny to see how many wealthy libertarians there are. Pretty easy to deny people things when you have no needs.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Unlike folks who blame everything on people in need, however, I like to think that we have to strike a balance.

But yes. Let's stop paying people anything. Those terrible people. Then we'll see how well it helps society and the economy.

Where, in any society, is 3 years of unemployment balanced.

And, unlike folks who blame everyone else for being in need, I do work so that I'm not in need of others financial contributions.

[Warriorbird]

Where, in any society, is 3 years of unemployment balanced.

And, unlike folks who blame everyone else for being in need, I do work so that I'm not in need of others financial contributions.

Indeed. Let's cut off all payments and see how well the free market does in saving our souls. Then I'm sure it will cover more Americans and prevent monopolies.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Indeed. Let's cut off all payments and see how well the free market does in saving our souls.

Yes, offer up more rhetoric and no answer to a very clear question.

Where should we draw the line on unemployment benefits?

[Parkbandit]

Indeed. Let's cut off all payments and see how well the free market does in saving our souls. Then I'm sure it will cover more Americans and prevent monopolies.

You do realize that no one has called for cutting off all payments, right?

Why do you usually fall back to absolutes, when absolutes were never brought up?

[Warriorbird]

Yes, offer up more rhetoric and no answer to a very clear question.

Where should we draw the line on unemployment benefits?

Actual significant Federal rather than state tax incentives for hiring the unemployed. Demand excessive documentation from the unemployed. It is currently terribly handled. Kick harder on the major employers with cash reserves. There's a vast number.


You do realize that no one has called for cutting off all payments, right?

Why do you usually fall back to absolutes, when absolutes were never brought up?

Your party did.

Honestly, what strikes me most is relatively little of the stuff included in this got brought up:

Balance the Budget!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

I'm sure you guys, both involved in business, could balance the budget through that pretty damn fast.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Hobbit, re-read my posts.

Seems to be happening right about now... just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't.

But whatever motivates you. Greed.. stupidity.. you're beyond my abilities I guess.

I mean.. your logic is just so fucking backwards.. you state that your money isn't worth what it used to be yet you deny that the practices that you encourage aren't the direct cause? Wow.. just.. wow.

If my logic was limited by blinders ignoring everything else in our economic situation, I guess I'd come on here and attempt to demonstrate my "abilities" to educate the unwashed masses.

Sadly, I'm more informed than that and while I don't agree with the US outsourcing, I support it in our current situation. Until our laws, unions and people change, I'll continue to support it.

It's retarded to the nth degree to think outsourcing has driven the government to trillions of dollars of debt and that reducing government spending is going to result in further outsourcing.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Actual significant Federal rather than state tax incentives for hiring the unemployed. Demand excessive documentation from the unemployed. It is currently terribly handled. Kick harder on the major employers with cash reserves. There's a vast number.

What the fuck? So... more Federal Government spending with more stringent rules requiring more federal labor to manage. More penalties for businesses who actually are showing profit.

Is your intent to drive profitible businesses out of the US and bankrupt the government?

In your utopia, how do people succeed if anyone who does has their success immediately taxed and distributed amongst the non-successful? Is there any incentive to do something well in your utopia?

You still haven't answered the question of how long should the unemployed be able to draw unemployment.

[Parkbandit]

Your party did.


No one here is discussing it.. which was more to my point. When you don't have a good comeback, you resort to absolutes to make your point. No one here is talking about doing away with all unemployment.

But, since you brought it up... do you have a source where The Republican Party has in it's platform, the end of all unemployment?

[Warriorbird]

No one here is discussing it.. which was more to my point. When you don't have a good comeback, you resort to absolutes to make your point. No one here is talking about doing away with all unemployment.

But, since you brought it up... do you have a source where The Republican Party has in it's platform, the end of all unemployment?

What do you call attempting to remove all funding to continue unemployment?

[Warriorbird]

What the fuck? So... more Federal Government spending with more stringent rules requiring more federal labor to manage. More penalties for businesses who actually are showing profit.

Is your intent to drive profitible businesses out of the US and bankrupt the government?

In your utopia, how do people succeed if anyone who does has their success immediately taxed and distributed amongst the non-successful? Is there any incentive to do something well in your utopia?

You still haven't answered the question of how long should the unemployed be able to draw unemployment.

If unemployment recipients are not making a documentable effort they should be kicked out within months. I'd say 3-5. I'm sure the savings would assist a great deal in paying for the costs of monitoring.

In your world I know business can never do wrong. Business can do a great deal of damage to the economy if it attempts to, however. I think business actually works against free markets and our capitalistic freedom in many cases. Politicians have been too chicken (just like you) to think that way since TR.


In your utopia, how do people succeed if anyone who does has their success immediately taxed and distributed amongst the non-successful? Is there any incentive to do something well in your utopia?

They sheer ludicrousness of this is intense. REALLY? Do you really think that 'the non successful' are the sole recipients of tax profits? Do you really think that the rich of America don't have one of the lowest rates of actually paid taxes in the entire world? Do you really think that the truly rich don't laugh at the 'petite riche' for how gullible you and the people they sucker into working against themselves are?

[Parkbandit]

What do you call attempting to remove all funding to continue unemployment?

I would call it you making shit up again.

Seriously though, just a source of the Republicans calling for the abolishment of unemployment services.

[Warriorbird]

I would call it you making shit up again.

Seriously though, just a source of the Republicans calling for the abolishment of unemployment services.

Did you notice the disconnect there from what I said? Of course you did.

For 1.25 million plus people it would've ended unemployment benefits. You run a business. You know that represents quite a few folks.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If unemployment recipients are not making a documentable effort they should be kicked out within months. I'd say 3-5. I'm sure the savings would assist a great deal in paying for the costs of monitoring.

Really. So, free lunch for anyone who doesn't even try for 3-5 months. But if you try... how long do you get? Define "trying" to get a job, because I bet every one of our unemployed enjoying 3 years of benefits is TRYING.


In your world I know business can never do wrong. Business can do a great deal of damage to the economy if it attempts to, however. I think business actually works against free markets and our capitalistic freedom in many cases. Politicians have been too chicken (just like you) to think that way since TR.

Wow, thats a whole lot of words that say nothing.


They sheer ludicrousness of this is intense. REALLY? Do you really think that 'the non successful' are the sole recipients of tax profits? Do you really think that the rich of America don't have one of the lowest rates of actually paid taxes in the entire world? Do you really think that the truly rich don't laugh at the 'petite riche' for how gullible you and the people they sucker into working against themselves are?

I don't believe in a conspiracy of rich people manipulating the government and the people of this nation to do their "work", no. My question was founded on your retarded desire to penalize successful companies (companies with cash reserves) more than unsuccessful companies (those without cash reserves). Otherwise known as incenting the unsuccessful to remain unsuccessful, and incenting the successful to become unsuccessful, because the result is the same for both. You end up with a country full of losers (just like you) who are waiting for the next great thing to attach themselves too so “they get theirs”!

[Tgo01]

What do you call attempting to remove all funding to continue unemployment?

You're kind of stretching things there a bit. I think they were talking about funding for people who had already exhausted their normal unemployment benefits plus the first round of federal extensions, they weren't talking about doing away with unemployment altogether. Also I believe Republicans were all for continuing benefits for those particular people but they wanted to balance the cost by slashing the budget elsewhere or using left over money from the TARP fund. It was Democrats who wanted to just add the cost on to the deficit.

[Warriorbird]

Really. So, free lunch for anyone who doesn't even try for 3-5 months. But if you try... how long do you get? Define "trying" to get a job, because I bet every one of our unemployed enjoying 3 years of benefits is TRYING.

Documentable efforts at securing employment. I'm sure you could think of some if you weren't being a "Poster of No."



Wow, thats a whole lot of words that say nothing.

I don't believe that corporations are incapable of wrongdoing. I believe they should be doing their part to pull the country out of this.


I don't believe in a conspiracy of rich people manipulating the government and the people of this nation to do their "work", no. My question was founded on your retarded desire to penalize successful companies (companies with cash reserves) more than unsuccessful companies (those without cash reserves). Otherwise known as incenting the unsuccessful to remain unsuccessful, and incenting the successful to become unsuccessful, because the result is the same for both. You end up with a country full of losers (just like you) who are waiting for the next great thing to attach themselves too so “they get theirs”![/COLOR]

I'm curious how I'm a loser. I thought that, according to you, losers were the people collecting unemployment benefits. Let's just kick them off and companies will make everything right. Maybe the companies that we bailed out ought to have a few conditions about holding onto cash, however.

[Warriorbird]

You're kind of stretching things there a bit. I think they were talking about funding for people who had already exhausted their normal unemployment benefits plus the first round of federal extensions, they weren't talking about doing away with unemployment altogether. Also I believe Republicans were all for continuing benefits for those particular people but they wanted to balance the cost by slashing the budget elsewhere or using left over money from the TARP fund. It was Democrats who wanted to just add the cost on to the deficit.

You and PB are both ignoring the continue in that phrase. PB to dramatic effect, you due to misinterpretation.

Did you actually examine where they wanted to cut?


By adjusting Medicaid payments, trimming stimulus-funded food stamps in 2014, cutting $600 million in stimulus-supported programs to expand broadband Internet access and eliminating a provision letting qualified residents receive their earned-income tax credit throughout the year instead at the end of the tax filing season.

Broadband offers a direct economic boost to some of the hardest hit areas. Then we could cut some more health insurance and food to the poor. Completely retarded.

[Parkbandit]

Did you notice the disconnect there from what I said? Of course you did.

For 1.25 million plus people it would've ended unemployment benefits. You run a business. You know that represents quite a few folks.

I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say. You claimed that the Republican Party wants to do away with all unemployment. I'm simply asking for a source.

Just a source... or a retraction. Pretty simple.

[Parkbandit]

You and PB are both ignoring the continue in that phrase. PB to dramatic effect, you due to misinterpretation.


Really? Let's revisit your stupidity in order:



Let's cut off all payments and see how well the free market does in saving our souls.


You do realize that no one has called for cutting off all payments, right?

Why do you usually fall back to absolutes, when absolutes were never brought up?



Your party did.


Now, if "my" party has called for cutting off all unemployment payments, it should be simple to give a quote or a source.

[Tgo01]

You and PB are both ignoring the continue in that phrase. PB to dramatic effect, you due to misinterpretation.

Well to me 'continuing' to fund something would be...to continue to fund it. If Obama announced tomorrow he wanted to stop continuing to fund VA benefits that to me would mean he wanted to stop all funding, not that he simply wanted to stop benefits for those already collecting but still wanted to fund new people coming into the program.


Did you actually examine where they wanted to cut?

Honestly no, last I heard they wanted to use funds they claimed were left over from the TARP fund.

[Warriorbird]

I don't even know what the fuck you are trying to say. You claimed that the Republican Party wants to do away with all unemployment. I'm simply asking for a source.

Just a source... or a retraction. Pretty simple.

You missed the continue in the phrase. You used the all. But you've never argued semantics before. Ever.

I'm sorry. I'm not Clove. I know he's left you all alone.

Cutting off payments to 1.25 million is, y'know, cutting off all payments to them.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You missed the continue in the phrase. You used the all. But you've never argued semantics before. Ever.

I'm sorry. I'm not Clove. I know he's left you all alone.

Cutting off payments to 1.25 million is, y'know, cutting off all payments to them.

I'm not sure where your numbers come from, but assuming they are correct...

That would be 1.25 million people, who have exhausted their 98 weeks of unemployment. I am in favor of that.

[Latrinsorm]

OK, let's just see, shall we?How many times do they have to fool you before you wise up?
All you have to do is look and be willing to relocate to move where the work is.I've been applying across the (contiguous) country for months and have gotten 0 results. My brother looked in one city and got hired in a week. All you actually have to do is be lucky, just like everything else in life.

Hard work never equals success. Hard work always equals probability, and nothing more.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

How many times do they have to fool you before you wise up?I've been applying across the (contiguous) country for months and have gotten 0 results. My brother looked in one city and got hired in a week. All you actually have to do is be lucky, just like everything else in life.

Hard work never equals success. Hard work always equals probability, and nothing more.

So, what jobs have you been applying too across the country for months? What qualifies you for those jobs?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

PS I applied for Beast Inspector General in Hawaii, but I didn't get the job :(

[Latrinsorm]

Physics degree qualifies me for: physics jobs at Sandia, Fermilab, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, some lab in Idaho or Iowa (one of those I states), Lawrence Livermore, all kinds of places through usajobs.gov including a patent office in Virginia and a civilian job in (next to?) the Navy, private companies such as Mercer and Unilever. I've also been in contact with multiple staffing agencies who assure me they are looking for me and then ignore my calls. I feel like I'm leaving a lab out but they probably never got back to me so fuck 'em.

I also applied for a teaching job at an Indian reservation. I would have thought I needed a teaching degree for that, but according to the job posting no, plus I have teaching experience so I figured that would work in my favor (WRONG).

[TheEschaton]

SHM, you once again have proven your retarded ignorance:





Shockingly, I completely disagree with you. Don't make it prohibitive for a free market to move where it profits the most. The solution is to make it attractive to employ HERE. Right now, unions and laws are working against that.

Let any company do anything it wants, but ensure the market is most favorable for the United States through labor laws and import/export regulations. We don't need laws saying you pay more if you offshore, because that will just end up with companies literally moving offshore. That's how free markets work.


You realize that you've just contradicted yourself within two paragraphs, right? You say in the first, remove regulation, remove fetters, become a laissez-faire capitalist market! And in the second, you favor high tariffs and protectionalism, not only a socialist method, but an issue often litigated AGAINST by the United States when other countries do it. You can't offer no internal regulations, and massive external regulations and be philosophically consistent.

Furthermore, what you're literally advocating for is the equalizing of work conditions in the U.S. by bringing them down to conditions in the third world, or somehow providing a boost to American industry for staying here. The former is unworkable because A) those third world conditions are generally considered inhumane and a violation of rights, and B) the American worker would never stand for it. The latter is something I imagine you decry fully, when other countries do it, or it's in the form of farm subsidies, which were created to specifically address this problem.

Jesus, stop being retarded.

[pabstblueribbon]

It's retarded to the nth degree to think outsourcing has driven the government to trillions of dollars of debt and that reducing government spending is going to result in further outsourcing.

Yeah totally retarded. Because outsourcing doesn't take away jobs, and because the lack of jobs doesn't increase unemployment, which doesn't cost the government any money.

WOW..

You remember grade school science right? Food chains and all that? It's all tied together, fuck up any link in the chain and it's all affected. Well, maybe not in your world.

[Parkbandit]

How many times do they have to fool you before you wise up?I've been applying across the (contiguous) country for months and have gotten 0 results. My brother looked in one city and got hired in a week. All you actually have to do is be lucky, just like everything else in life.

Hard work never equals success. Hard work always equals probability, and nothing more.

Shocking that you are unemployed... really.

So, maybe you should set your employment goals a bit lower?

[Parkbandit]

You missed the continue in the phrase. You used the all. But you've never argued semantics before. Ever.
.


Indeed. Let's cut off all payments and see how well the free market does in saving our souls. Then I'm sure it will cover more Americans and prevent monopolies.

Show me exactly where "the continue" is in the post I questioned.

And I'm not arguing semantics.. I'm pointing out a reflex you have in many discussions... You create a point where one didn't exist.

[Warriorbird]

Show me exactly where "the continue" is in the post I questioned.

And I'm not arguing semantics.. I'm pointing out a reflex you have in many discussions... You create a point where one didn't exist.


Originally Posted by Warriorbird View Post
What do you call attempting to remove all funding to continue unemployment?

The others were me attempting to push people to the limits of what they were saying. Same thing you do.

[crb]

So, almost 2.3 trillion of the 2.5 trillion savings comes from one item? I don't know much about economics, but this sounds crazy retarded. Not increasing based on inflation? Freezing spending levels for social programs for 10 years at levels from 5 years ago? What? With just the population growth, this seems idiotic.

If someone who can actually discuss economics wants to discuss this, feel free.

Was the world so bad in 2006 that the government can't function at 2006 funding levels?

Noteworthy, 2006 is when Democrats got the wheel of the car, spending wise, to use Obama's favorite analogy.

Anyways... inflation? What causes inflation? I mean honestly, a liberal saying "What about inflation" I swear I just saw a pig fly, chickens and goats too.

The government can't cut spending because of inflation? Tail is wagging the dog.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

SHM, you once again have proven your retarded ignorance:



You realize that you've just contradicted yourself within two paragraphs, right? You say in the first, remove regulation, remove fetters, become a laissez-faire capitalist market! And in the second, you favor high tariffs and protectionalism, not only a socialist method, but an issue often litigated AGAINST by the United States when other countries do it. You can't offer no internal regulations, and massive external regulations and be philosophically consistent.

Furthermore, what you're literally advocating for is the equalizing of work conditions in the U.S. by bringing them down to conditions in the third world, or somehow providing a boost to American industry for staying here. The former is unworkable because A) those third world conditions are generally considered inhumane and a violation of rights, and B) the American worker would never stand for it. The latter is something I imagine you decry fully, when other countries do it, or it's in the form of farm subsidies, which were created to specifically address this problem.

Jesus, stop being retarded.

No, I didn't say remove regulation, fetters, or faggot french term used by book learned idiots without business experience. I also didn't say high tariffs and protectionalism, certainly not a socialist method. You assumed all these things. Nor did I say bring work conditions to third world levels in the US.

I said make things favorable for the US through import/export regulation and labor laws. My non-socialist mind thinks of corporate taxes in the US being lower than other countries rather than what it is today, prohibitively higher. I think import/export regulations that don't cripple us in trade with other economic powers. I think of fixing the problems with unions and their stranglehold on businesses (not to mention the education system). I think of laws where businesses and individuals are protected from frivolous lawsuits. Note I didn't say lets go hire the 12 year olds, lock them in a basement, work them 18 hour a day and pay them a bowl of gruel. Unions had a time/place, and frankly that time has passed. Perhaps the need may return again someday, but I sincerely doubt it for the exact reason you listed above, the American worker would never stand for it.

We can produce quality items without going overseas at significantly lower costs, but only if things change enough to reduce the cost of operating in the US. I'm not an advocate for poor work conditions, low pay or taking anything away from the US workforce. At some point though, you have to make hard decisions and fix glaring issues. To be competative in a world economy will take significant and difficult changes in the attitude of the american worker and the policies of the US.

That clearer you hippy tree hugging fuck?

[crb]

Shocking that you are unemployed... really.

So, maybe you should set your employment goals a bit lower?

That is a good point.

Our lives are the products of our decisions, if you chose a major in college that is not the highest demand field, the difficulty in which you find a job is your own fault. Society does not owe you easy access to a job in a field of your choosing.

You may need to take a job "beneath you" (try North Dakota, I hear the job market is good there), but you can get a job.

If you purposefully do not take a job you see as beneath you while continuing to collect overly generous long term unemployment benefits, you're just abusing the system like every other deadbeat. Your pride is not worth so much, not to the tax payers paying for it.

[crb]

I saw someone post that free markets would result in monopolies, don't know who, think it was WB but then he edited the post...

A free market capitalist does not want anarchy, they want an economy that has the maximum possible amount of competition with industries that have the lowest possible artificial barrier of entry (regulatory).

A free market capitalist does not like monopolies, and does not favor them.

Very large corporations, in general, are also not huge fans of free markets because they recognize government burdens are a barrier of entry for their industry which keeps competition down and allows them to coast. More or less rent seeking behavior. It is the small and growing business that likes a free market, as they want to challenge golliath.

Don't confuse corporatists and statists with free market capitalists.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Physics degree qualifies me for: physics jobs at Sandia, Fermilab, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, some lab in Idaho or Iowa (one of those I states), Lawrence Livermore, all kinds of places through usajobs.gov including a patent office in Virginia and a civilian job in (next to?) the Navy, private companies such as Mercer and Unilever. I've also been in contact with multiple staffing agencies who assure me they are looking for me and then ignore my calls. I feel like I'm leaving a lab out but they probably never got back to me so fuck 'em.

I also applied for a teaching job at an Indian reservation. I would have thought I needed a teaching degree for that, but according to the job posting no, plus I have teaching experience so I figured that would work in my favor (WRONG).

Are these entry level positions you are applying too? I'm not exactly sure what a "physics job" is but is the only qualifier to get one having a physics degree? I do know government jobs are notoriously difficult to get into beyond entry level (I mean they should be, considering the job security and benefits, right?). Staffing agencies usually chomp at the bit to get qualified people jobs - that's how they make their money. Are you sure you are in a field that has demand?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh, and while I was responding, my boss walked up and gave me a $1000 spot award for some work I did over Christmas. I <3 my job.

[Warriorbird]

I saw someone post that free markets would result in monopolies, don't know who, think it was WB but then he edited the post...

A free market capitalist does not want anarchy, they want an economy that has the maximum possible amount of competition with industries that have the lowest possible artificial barrier of entry (regulatory).

A free market capitalist does not like monopolies, and does not favor them.

Very large corporations, in general, are also not huge fans of free markets because they recognize government burdens are a barrier of entry for their industry which keeps competition down and allows them to coast. More or less rent seeking behavior. It is the small and growing business that likes a free market, as they want to challenge golliath.

Don't confuse corporatists and statists with free market capitalists.

Here's the thing. All the people who fund the think tanks that make your ideas? They and their cronies have insured that THAT part of insuring a free market hasn't gotten anywhere since the time of TR and Wilson.

[Warriorbird]

No, I didn't say remove regulation, fetters, or faggot french term used by book learned idiots without business experience. I also didn't say high tariffs and protectionalism, certainly not a socialist method. You assumed all these things. Nor did I say bring work conditions to third world levels in the US.

I said make things favorable for the US through import/export regulation and labor laws. My non-socialist mind thinks of corporate taxes in the US being lower than other countries rather than what it is today, prohibitively higher. I think import/export regulations that don't cripple us in trade with other economic powers. I think of fixing the problems with unions and their stranglehold on businesses (not to mention the education system). I think of laws where businesses and individuals are protected from frivolous lawsuits. Note I didn't say lets go hire the 12 year olds, lock them in a basement, work them 18 hour a day and pay them a bowl of gruel. Unions had a time/place, and frankly that time has passed. Perhaps the need may return again someday, but I sincerely doubt it for the exact reason you listed above, the American worker would never stand for it.

We can produce quality items without going overseas at significantly lower costs, but only if things change enough to reduce the cost of operating in the US. I'm not an advocate for poor work conditions, low pay or taking anything away from the US workforce. At some point though, you have to make hard decisions and fix glaring issues. To be competative in a world economy will take significant and difficult changes in the attitude of the american worker and the policies of the US.

That clearer you hippy tree hugging fuck?

It sounds really nice apart from not mentioning companies changing once.

Nice job on your performance award.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Here's the thing. All the people who fund the think tanks that make your ideas? They are the cronies have insured that THAT part of insuring a free market hasn't gotten anywhere since time time of TR and Wilson.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_sQ56RHTN4kI/STQ1ic0BFxI/AAAAAAAAFXs/TgCxQFOYJ9k/s400/tinfoil%20hat.jpg

[pabstblueribbon]

Oh, and while I was responding, my boss walked up and gave me a $1000 spot award for some work I did over Christmas. I <3 my job.


Collections is pretty profitable in an economic downturn.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Collections is pretty profitable in an economic downturn.

I'm not sure what you think I do, but collections ain't it. It's the opposite in fact.

[Warriorbird]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_sQ56RHTN4kI/STQ1ic0BFxI/AAAAAAAAFXs/TgCxQFOYJ9k/s400/tinfoil%20hat.jpg

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

Then name me some significant antitrust prosecutions since the beginning of the century. But I forgot. History "doesn't matter." Well then. Since the 1970's.

[pabstblueribbon]

I'm not sure what you think I do, but collections ain't it. It's the opposite in fact.

Oooh. Are you a loan originator?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oooh. Are you a loan originator?

Nope. I create the strategy/administer the program that compensates people based on their performance, and the STI program for those that manage them.

[crb]

Here's the thing. All the people who fund the think tanks that make your ideas? They and their cronies have insured that THAT part of insuring a free market hasn't gotten anywhere since the time of TR and Wilson.

I have think tanks working to make my ideas? Can I also get them to make my coffee?

You know who I fund? Reason and Cato. I have never seen them put out anything even remotely resembling a pro corporatist or statist stance.

by the way, as soon as Reason's most recent magazine goes online I'm going to post a bitching article here about the pension bomb.

[Warriorbird]

I have think tanks working to make my ideas? Can I also get them to make my coffee?

You know who I fund? Reason and Cato. I have never seen them put out anything even remotely resembling a pro corporatist or statist stance.

by the way, as soon as Reason's most recent magazine goes online I'm going to post a bitching article here about the pension bomb.

The Koches fund Cato. The Koches get corporate welfare like woah. The Koches takes advantage of eminent domain in spite of working to create an organization theoretically against it.
http://www.observer.com/2010/slideshow/131739/eminent-domain
The list goes on. They HAET some healthcare reform...and then get money from it.

They've also got an almost full line of control over what they do, business wise. They've been acting to stifle competition for a while.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Don't drink the koolaid.

[pabstblueribbon]

Nope. I create the strategy/administer the program that compensates people based on their performance, and the STI program for those that manage them.

So you're one of the Bobs. Thank god you don't need a decent grasp of how economies work. It does explain your aversion to unions and hey, I can relate, being in the rail industry. You might be surprised to learn that the rail unions are losing considerable pull.. for what that's worth.

Unrelated to the hobbit, I will echo something that Gan said earlier. For a long time people were encouraged to go to college to be grand lizard biologists or insert ancient dead language scholars. But now you're having trouble finding a job. Big fucking surprise.

Society is to blame, but there are times when you need to put childish things a side, and stop acting like a goddamn dinosaur and get a real job that is relevant to the job market.

I myself have a very good job, paying more than it should, with no formal education to speak of. I have another company that is trying to hire me away also, so I am very lucky and very thankful to have options right now.

But I learned through experience, common sense things, like mechanical, electrical, fabrication.. things that the world simply cannot live without.

Electrical and mechanical engineering, fabrication, skilled trades, programmable logic controllers, and programming languages are the sweet spot right now for job security in my opinion.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No idea what a Bob is, but if it's what I do, I'm damn good at it. Wait, is that from Office Space?

And for Warriorbird - http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/04/lt-gen-tom-mcinerney-on-john-wheelers-death/

Obama had Wheeler killed! Put on your conspiracy hat!

[Warriorbird]

No idea what a Bob is, but if it's what I do, I'm damn good at it. Wait, is that from Office Space?

And for Warriorbird - http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/04/lt-gen-tom-mcinerney-on-john-wheelers-death/

Obama had Wheeler killed! Put on your conspiracy hat!

That's mild compared to SOCIALISM! Otherwise reasonably rational conservatives will talk about how they immediately have to get to their bunkers and shout out WOLVERINES! Red Dawn style. And the Birthers? At least what I'm pointing out has actual documentable sources.

[~Rocktar~]

Or people get off their asses and go get jobs.

Maybe its just the region that I live in, but I see job postings, help wanted signs, how hiring signs, etc. all over.

Imagine that. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

Where's that?

[BigWorm]

Very large corporations, in general, are also not huge fans of free markets because they recognize government burdens are a barrier of entry for their industry which keeps competition down and allows them to coast. More or less rent seeking behavior. It is the small and growing business that likes a free market, as they want to challenge golliath.

Do you mean free markets are best for firms or for individual consumers? By government burdens, I can only assume you mean regulation? Without government intervention, how does the free market prevent monopolies/oligarchies from abusing their position? How do you feel about dumping goods? Do you think price fixing is good for consumers?

There are government interventions that I am very strongly against; for example, I think government enforced monopolies/oligarchies like those of most the telecom industry are are bullshit and intellectual property laws are artificial monopolies that discourage competition and especially innovation and thus are very bad for the free market. However, I feel that there are useful government interventions like laws against price fixing that are absolutely good for the free market. Would you agree with that or do you truly believe all regulation is the devil?

[crb]

The Koches fund Cato. The Koches get corporate welfare like woah. The Koches takes advantage of eminent domain in spite of working to create an organization theoretically against it.
http://www.observer.com/2010/slideshow/131739/eminent-domain
The list goes on. They HAET some healthcare reform...and then get money from it.

They've also got an almost full line of control over what they do, business wise. They've been acting to stifle competition for a while.

So, let me get this straight.

If someone gives money to some group where the person who gives the money is not fully subscribed to the group's ideas, or is even is opposite of them, the work of said group is invalidated?

I'll ignore the fact that character assassination is a common tool used against people like them, in fact I've read articles specifically about them being character assassinated in the past (no, not an article from Cato). And I'll also ignore the fact that accepting money when the government gives it to you is not the same thing as wanting them to continue whatever program got you that money (likewise, I don't expect liberals who ask for higher taxes to voluntarily send more money to the IRS, either expectation is assinine in my opinion).

But ignoring all that... policy Cato puts out is tainted because one of their major donors would seem to be against some of it? Shouldn't it have the opposite effect? Wouldn't it prove your independence if the policy you put out is not always directly beneficial to your benefactor?

[crb]

Do you mean free markets are best for firms or for individual consumers? By government burdens, I can only assume you mean regulation? Without government intervention, how does the free market prevent monopolies/oligarchies from abusing their position? How do you feel about dumping goods? Do you think price fixing is good for consumers?

There are government interventions that I am very strongly against; for example, I think government enforced monopolies/oligarchies like those of most the telecom industry are are bullshit and intellectual property laws are artificial monopolies that discourage competition and especially innovation and thus are very bad for the free market. However, I feel that there are useful government interventions like laws against price fixing that are absolutely good for the free market. Would you agree with that or do you truly believe all regulation is the devil?

I would agree that not all regulation is the devil, as I said, free market capitalists do not want anarchy, they want competition in the marketplace. When a business gets so big to stifle competition, or you get cartels, government has a role. Likewise they have a role in enforcing contracts and other laws, and protecting the marketplace from foreign interference.

I would disagree specifically about your intellectual property point. Without intellectual property we'd have less innovation, less invention, and certainly less art. The patent system, for example, allows an inventor exclusivity to profit from his invention for a period of time, the trade off is that he must disclose to the public exactly how his invention worked. This disclosure allows others to start building off his discovery. You get innovation.

Without a patent to protect his invention he might never disclose how it works, try to keep it secret, maybe spend time purposefully obfusicating the inner workings of his device so it cannot be reverse engineered, this would not help innovation.

Trademarks as a form of IP also allow the marketplace to function by establishing identity. It would be very hard for a market to work if anyone could pretend to be anyone else.

Copyrights award artists, writers, etc for their work. We'd have far less books, and these include important and economically useful works of nonfiction, not just novels, as well as software, if copyright did not exist.

I would agree that intellectual property is currently being abused. Patents by patent troll companies, copyrights by corporations seeking unlimited extensions. Personally, I think the patent office need significant reform, and copyright should be limited to a reasonable period of time, such as an author's lifespan + 25 years maybe. But Disney buys too many congressmen. However, in theory, it is a good thing to have.

[Parkbandit]

The others were me attempting to push people to the limits of what they were saying. Same thing you do.

Wrong. You made a post using your typical hyperbole ZOMG TEH REPUBLICANS WANT TO STOP ALL UNEMPLOYMENT!!! and I called you out on it.

I would say nice try, but we both know it wasn't.

[Warriorbird]

Wrong. You made a post using your typical hyperbole ZOMG TEH REPUBLICANS WANT TO STOP ALL UNEMPLOYMENT!!! and I called you out on it.

I would say nice try, but we both know it wasn't.

Funny. Kinda like what you're doing now? Thanks for the illustration of my point.

[Parkbandit]

Funny. Kinda like what you're doing now? Thanks for the illustration of my point.

Are you drunk? Serious question.

[Warriorbird]

Are you drunk? Serious question.

Amused at you continuing to make my point for me.

[Cephalopod]

So, let me get this straight.

If someone gives money to some group where the person who gives the money is not fully subscribed to the group's ideas, or is even is opposite of them, the work of said group is invalidated?


Isn't this the same thing people do with George Soros?

[BigWorm]

I would agree that not all regulation is the devil, as I said, free market capitalists do not want anarchy, they want competition in the marketplace. When a business gets so big to stifle competition, or you get cartels, government has a role. Likewise they have a role in enforcing contracts and other laws, and protecting the marketplace from foreign interference.

I would disagree specifically about your intellectual property point. Without intellectual property we'd have less innovation, less invention, and certainly less art. The patent system, for example, allows an inventor exclusivity to profit from his invention for a period of time, the trade off is that he must disclose to the public exactly how his invention worked. This disclosure allows others to start building off his discovery. You get innovation.

Without a patent to protect his invention he might never disclose how it works, try to keep it secret, maybe spend time purposefully obfusicating the inner workings of his device so it cannot be reverse engineered, this would not help innovation.

Trademarks as a form of IP also allow the marketplace to function by establishing identity. It would be very hard for a market to work if anyone could pretend to be anyone else.

Copyrights award artists, writers, etc for their work. We'd have far less books, and these include important and economically useful works of nonfiction, not just novels, as well as software, if copyright did not exist.

I would agree that intellectual property is currently being abused. Patents by patent troll companies, copyrights by corporations seeking unlimited extensions. Personally, I think the patent office need significant reform, and copyright should be limited to a reasonable period of time, such as an author's lifespan + 25 years maybe. But Disney buys too many congressmen. However,
in theory, it is a good thing to have.

I'll give you trademarks, as my main beefs are with patents and copyrights. I think there are usually better ways to prove your brand in the modern world, but won't disagree that trademarks are a useful tool.

Can you provide evidence of patents encouraging innovation? And how does allowing companies to patent things like abstract ideas (e.g. Amazon one-click checkout), business methods (e.g. hedging to minimize losses), and math (any algorithm) for 20 years enable others to build off these "discoveries"? 20 years in the modern market might as well be an eternity. I understand the need to recover R&D, but relying on patents to solve this problem for you ignores the innate benefits of innovation like being first to market. I can get behind patents for "hard" inventions since the cost of development is typically so much more than the cost of reproduction, but only for much shorter periods than the current 20+ years.

And I just LOL at lifespan + 25 years being anything near reasonable for the length of a copyright. The original U.S. copyright term was 14 years max from publication and was meant to allow an author to make some money off his work, not to protect a revenue stream for the life of the author and plus a large chunk of that of the next generation. Sure sounds like rent-seeking behavior to me.

To say we need patents and copyright reform is quite an understatement. I'd like to see you write a computer program of any significance that doesn't infringe on someone else's patent. And my biggest problem with the current IP system is that patents and copyrights get conflated with property "rights" and are not seen a privileged advantage but rather something the government has a duty to enforce. Government mandated monopolies should be the exception, not the rule.

[Latrinsorm]

Shocking that you are unemployed... really.

So, maybe you should set your employment goals a bit lower?I'm not unemployed.
Are these entry level positions you are applying too?Yep.
I'm not exactly sure what a "physics job" is but is the only qualifier to get one having a physics degree?The ones I'm applying for, yep.
Are you sure you are in a field that has demand?I don't have any way of measuring that. I frequently apply for specific job openings, so there is enough demand for that at least. For the purposes of this discussion, the only measurement I'm interested in is what I have to do to get a job. My experience demonstrates that it is not "look and be willing to relocate". The way I got my current job was that my mom knew people at my old old job, who knew my boss at my old job, who knew the people at my current job. To believe hard work is the active ingredient in success is to be blinded by ego.

[TheEschaton]

No, I didn't say remove regulation, fetters, or faggot french term used by book learned idiots without business experience. I also didn't say high tariffs and protectionalism, certainly not a socialist method. You assumed all these things. Nor did I say bring work conditions to third world levels in the US.

I said make things favorable for the US through import/export regulation and labor laws. My non-socialist mind thinks of corporate taxes in the US being lower than other countries rather than what it is today, prohibitively higher. I think import/export regulations that don't cripple us in trade with other economic powers. I think of fixing the problems with unions and their stranglehold on businesses (not to mention the education system). I think of laws where businesses and individuals are protected from frivolous lawsuits. Note I didn't say lets go hire the 12 year olds, lock them in a basement, work them 18 hour a day and pay them a bowl of gruel. Unions had a time/place, and frankly that time has passed. Perhaps the need may return again someday, but I sincerely doubt it for the exact reason you listed above, the American worker would never stand for it.

We can produce quality items without going overseas at significantly lower costs, but only if things change enough to reduce the cost of operating in the US. I'm not an advocate for poor work conditions, low pay or taking anything away from the US workforce. At some point though, you have to make hard decisions and fix glaring issues. To be competative in a world economy will take significant and difficult changes in the attitude of the american worker and the policies of the US.

That clearer you hippy tree hugging fuck?

1) Fetters isn't a faggoty french word, it's actually quite common amongst anyone with a brain.

2) Our corporations currently pay the lowest taxes in the world. Not lowest by the actual rate, but after including all tax loopholes are exploited. The largest companies in the U.S. often pay NO federal taxes. So, where's the barrier that needs to be removed?

3) Tariffs and protectionism are decried as socialist by this country constantly, and ever free market capitalist decries them (when we're trying to flood some country with our shit). It's the World Bank and IMF policy to be against tariffs, and they're the epitome of capitalist organizations. Which is why I said you're retarded, for wanting "capitalist" reforms of removing regulation here, and the socialist desire for tariffs and protectionism. In a market economy analogy, that's analogous to stifling competition.

4) Can you name more than one out-of-control union? I can think of one, the teachers' union. The rest have not got a "stranglehold" on anything.

5) The right to sue in this country is tantamount to the American ideal of individual freedom. Being a socialist myself, I don't like frivolous lawsuits either, but the legal system which allows it is based on a capitalist idea: that if you can make them bill millions of dollars in legal fees, they might just settle as a cost-saving measure. To solve this, you need to get rid of a legal system that works on money, instead of actual justice.

6) Hypothetically, say we get rid of unions. What's to prevent companies in a race to the bottom in terms of wages, conditions, etc? It is *always* cheaper to cut labor costs than to actually foment innovation, and companies operating under a capitalist mindset will always cut those first. Even if the American worker wouldn't stand for it, how would they assert their feelings without a union? If they could be merely fired for disagreeing with management, they would HAVE TO stand for it. Saying the time of unions are done is perhaps the most retarded thing you've said in this post.

7)
We can produce quality items without going overseas at significantly lower costs, but only if things change enough to reduce the cost of operating in the US. I'm not an advocate for poor work conditions, low pay or taking anything away from the US workforce. At some point though, you have to make hard decisions and fix glaring issues.

How? How do you produce quality at "significantly lower costs" without forcing poorer work conditions, lower pay, etc? You realize, our cost of living is higher than those countries where these lower wages are, right? $1 an hour might be fine in timbuktu, but it's not going to cut it here in the U.S. Not to mention companies aren't going to lower their prices if it lowers their profit margins.

Again, you're a retard.

[BigWorm]

Getting the first job in your career is always the hardest one, especially in an economy like this one. Good luck to all the recent graduates with little to no work experience, you'll sure as hell need it. PB and SHM make it sound like the higher unemployment rate is just due to laziness.

[Parkbandit]

Getting the first job in your career is always the hardest one, especially in an economy like this one. Good luck to all the recent graduates with little to no work experience, you'll sure as hell need it. PB and SHM make it sound like the higher unemployment rate is just due to laziness.

"Just"? I've never made that claim. Way to use a page out of WB's book.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

1) Fetters isn't a faggoty french word, it's actually quite common amongst anyone with a brain.

Not the word I was refering too, retard.


2) Our corporations currently pay the lowest taxes in the world. Not lowest by the actual rate, but after including all tax loopholes are exploited. The largest companies in the U.S. often pay NO federal taxes. So, where's the barrier that needs to be removed?

I'll take one of the four largest auditing firms in the world word over yours, retard. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/07/28/taxstudy.html



3) Tariffs and protectionism are decried as socialist by this country constantly, and ever free market capitalist decries them (when we're trying to flood some country with our shit). It's the World Bank and IMF policy to be against tariffs, and they're the epitome of capitalist organizations. Which is why I said you're retarded, for wanting "capitalist" reforms of removing regulation here, and the socialist desire for tariffs and protectionism. In a market economy analogy, that's analogous to stifling competition.

Listen to what I said before, retard. Make us competitive with other countries (as show above our corporate taxes are not, despite your retarded belief companies pay nothing).


4) Can you name more than one out-of-control union? I can think of one, the teachers' union. The rest have not got a "stranglehold" on anything.

Ok, retard. UAW, I forget the name of the union who plows snow in NY/NJ, and here's a whole bunch I stole from some nobody who works for the heritage foundation.

Arizona. The Arizona Education Association (AEA) successfully lobbied against a repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax. The AEA helpfully identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases for the legislature to pass to forestall spending reductions.
California. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes instead of spending reductions.
Illinois.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 funded the "Fair Budget Illinois" campaign in 2009. The campaign ran television and radio ads pushing for tax increases instead of spending reductions to close the state's deficit.
Maine. Mainers rejected a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would have prevented government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. The Maine Municipal Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the initiative, and it ultimately lost by a wide margin.
Minnesota. AFSCME Council 5 unsuccessfully lobbied state legislators to override Governor Tim Pawlenty's veto of a $1 billion tax increase in the spring of 2009. Two Democrats joined all the Republicans in the state House to uphold the veto. In response AFSCME endorsed a primary challenger to one of the Democrats. AFSCME is now lobbying state legislators to raise taxes by $3.8 billion.
New Jersey. Democratic State Senator Stephen Sweeney, now the president of the New Jersey Senate, opposed a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax in 2006. In response, the Communication Workers of America sent giant inflatable rats and protestors in hot dog costumes reading "Sweeney the Weenie" outside the former labor leader's office. The tax increase ultimately passed.
Oregon. Public employee unions in Oregon provided 90 percent of the $4 million spent advocating two ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes by $733 million. The unions want the tax increases to prevent cuts in the gold-plated medical benefits for state workers.
Washington State. The Washington state legislature has resisted calls from unions to raise taxes. In response, labor unions are threatening to withhold donations and fund primary campaigns against the Democrats who will not vote for tax hikes.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-government-employee-labor-unions-out-of-control/blog-244433/


5) The right to sue in this country is tantamount to the American ideal of individual freedom. Being a socialist myself, I don't like frivolous lawsuits either, but the legal system which allows it is based on a capitalist idea: that if you can make them bill millions of dollars in legal fees, they might just settle as a cost-saving measure. To solve this, you need to get rid of a legal system that works on money, instead of actual justice.

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this, retard. My solution would be to fine and or jail eggregious offenders. You put stiff enough penalties in for fucking stupid lawsuits, people will suddenly stop filing them. I'm sure you'll counter with something how big business will abuse this, so we have to make the system work for us, rather than against us. Penalties for non-frivolous lawsuits should be stiffer as well, and corporations found in violation of fair labor laws should get to enjoy their own fines and possible jail time. I'm tired of CEOs cashing their checks at the expense of the company or it's clients.


6) Hypothetically, say we get rid of unions. What's to prevent companies in a race to the bottom in terms of wages, conditions, etc? It is *always* cheaper to cut labor costs than to actually foment innovation, and companies operating under a capitalist mindset will always cut those first. Even if the American worker wouldn't stand for it, how would they assert their feelings without a union? If they could be merely fired for disagreeing with management, they would HAVE TO stand for it. Saying the time of unions are done is perhaps the most retarded thing you've said in this post.

Ok, I've worked for two fortune 500 non-union companies in my 20+ years of work/life experience. I am not, in any sense of the word, quiet about expressing my opinion at work, which has frequently put me in opposition of executive management direction. I've never even been scolded, much less fired. Why you ask? Because believe it or not, companies WANT loyal, happy, engaged employees and an environment that stiffles it is not one conducive of retaining employees. I realize you and WB have this retarded notion that everyone is out to get you, where you is everyone in the world, but it truly isn't like that in the workplace. You can always find the examples of poor management, but you don't need a union AT ALL to have it addressed. Only about 12% of the private sector workforce is Union. By your logic above 88% of the workers in the US today are at risk. JESUS CHRIST SOMEONE DECLARE DEFCON 1!


7) How? How do you produce quality at "significantly lower costs" without forcing poorer work conditions, lower pay, etc? You realize, our cost of living is higher than those countries where these lower wages are, right? $1 an hour might be fine in timbuktu, but it's not going to cut it here in the U.S. Not to mention companies aren't going to lower their prices if it lowers their profit margins.

Again, you're a retard.

By getting rid of the pork heaped upon corporations in America by stopping all the crazy bullshit I've already mentioned. Unions, lawsuits, unfair import/export laws. That equates to significantly lower costs and doesn't change a fucking thing in the workplace. Companies that price themselves out of the market shrivel up and die. Look at GM and Chrysler if you want so recent examples.

Now shut the fuck up and go hug a mugger or something you dumb mother fucker.

[Gan]

Shocking that you are unemployed... really.

So, maybe you should set your employment goals a bit lower?

Or consult with a professional who might be able to discover where the flaw exists.

Finding a job involves timing, perserverance and strategy. I dont see a 'luck' factor anywhere in the equation.

Headhunters not returning calls usually is indicative of an issue with the candidate and their viability to sell to an interested employer. It's not like the headhunter does not get paid to place viable candidates. The impetus is highly placed on a headhunter to succeed if they want to be successful at their job. So nonviable candidates are usually no-called after their profile has been determined less than desireable for their particular market.

[Parkbandit]

Or consult with a professional who might be able to discover where the flaw exists.

Finding a job involves timing, perserverance and strategy. I dont see a 'luck' factor anywhere in the equation.

Headhunters not returning calls usually is indicative of an issue with the candidate and their viability to sell to an interested employer. It's not like the headhunter does not get paid to place viable candidates. The impetus is highly placed on a headhunter to succeed if they want to be successful at their job. So nonviable candidates are usually no-called after their profile has been determined less than desireable for their particular market.

Exactly. The last thing a headhunter wants to do is not get their client a job. If they can't place that client, they don't get paid... so they've wasted their own time.

A good candidate with good skills and realistic goals will be placed rather quickly... even in today's market. If you aren't being placed.. you might consider looking at what is making you less attractive to employers instead of blaming the market....

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Could it be rainbow toe socks, high heels, black nail polish is a detractor in finding a job in a white collar field? Nooooooooooo.....

[Parkbandit]

Could it be rainbow toe socks, high heels, black nail polish is a detractor in finding a job in a white collar field? Nooooooooooo.....

Freakist.

[Latrinsorm]

Or consult with a professional who might be able to discover where the flaw exists.

Finding a job involves timing, perserverance and strategy. I dont see a 'luck' factor anywhere in the equation.I would love to know what you consider timing if not luck.
Headhunters not returning calls usually is indicative of an issue with the candidate and their viability to sell to an interested employer. It's not like the headhunter does not get paid to place viable candidates. The impetus is highly placed on a headhunter to succeed if they want to be successful at their job. So nonviable candidates are usually no-called after their profile has been determined less than desireable for their particular market.I agree 100%! For the cases that aren't usual, it's pretty asinine to talk about what usually happens. I actually had a doctor once start telling me about how people like me (age, gender, health, etc.) usually don't develop a particular disease that I had. Thanks, doc! Can we move it along to the part where I start getting treatment, though?
Could it be rainbow toe socks, high heels, black nail polish is a detractor in finding a job in a white collar field? Nooooooooooo.....Do you notice how your reaction is that I'm doing something wrong, even when you have no evidence that is the case? Isn't that a little embarrassing, given that this thread has been in large part about the justification of your beliefs regarding worker vs. work environment?

[Parkbandit]

I would love to know what you consider timing if not luck.

The more resumes you have out and the more you follow up with them, the better your chances are. Timing is less about luck and more about face time.


I agree 100%! For the cases that aren't usual, it's pretty asinine to talk about what usually happens.

I think that's what SHM was referring to... that there is very little about you that is usual, and thus might be a big part of the reason your resumes go unanswered.


I actually had a doctor once start telling me about how people like me (age, gender, health, etc.) usually don't develop a particular disease that I had. Thanks, doc! Can we move it along to the part where I start getting treatment, though?

Ew.. I don't even want to know.



Do you notice how your reaction is that I'm doing something wrong, even when you have no evidence that is the case?

7 years of your Internet forum posting here is ample evidence that you are not normal.


Isn't that a little embarrassing, given that this thread has been in large part about the justification of your beliefs regarding worker vs. work environment?

I know.. can you believe companies would rather hire normal people for roles in their company... the fucking nerve! Maybe you should bring this up to the ADA authorities.

[Latrinsorm]

The more resumes you have out and the more you follow up with them, the better your chances are.This falls under perseverance and to a lesser extent strategy, and notice how you talk about chances. What determines if a 70% chance comes up in your favor?
I think that's what SHM was referring to... that there is very little about you that is usual, and thus might be a big part of the reason your resumes go unanswered. ... 7 years of your Internet forum posting here is ample evidence that you are not normal. ... I know.. can you believe companies would rather hire normal people for roles in their company... the fucking nerve! Maybe you should bring this up to the ADA authorities.Do you see the mental gymnastics you have to do? Somehow every lab and company I've applied to has taken the time and energy to find out that I wear unusual clothing, and even though the overwhelming majority of these jobs have 0 interaction with the public it's important enough to them that they freeze me out. How is that remotely as plausible as my theory, which is that I'm approximately as qualified as the hordes of other applicants and my number simply hasn't come up yet?

[Warriorbird]

"Corporations can never do wrong, only the individual." It's like a weird collectivism variant only applied to companies.

[Parkbandit]

Corporations can never do wrong, only the individual. It's like a weird collectivism variant only applied to companies.

Could you go ahead and quote me or anyone else saying that corporations can "never" do wrong? Oh, you can't.

You are right back to your little game again. Carry on.

[Warriorbird]

Could you go ahead and quote me or anyone else saying that corporations can "never" do wrong? Oh, you can't.

You are right back to your little game again. Carry on.

So... other than the auto unions "Those lousy Democrats!" or blaming the mortgage industry (which is apparently only the fault of Barney Frank) when have you suggested any corporate responsibility for the current economic situation?

It's like you don't even want to acknowledge that they might've fucked up, It's the same blindness and lack of balls that prevents antitrust prosecutions these days.

It's like Communism except you fellate corporations instead of the state... and you still blame blame blame the individual.

[Parkbandit]

This falls under perseverance and to a lesser extent strategy, and notice how you talk about chances. What determines if a 70% chance comes up in your favor?

You make your own luck in life. If you send 1 resume to 1 company and get no response, your chances aren't as good as if you send 1000 resumes to 1000 companies. It's all about the effort you put into it.

Or, you can just go about what you have been doing.. it's been really successful your entire life, hasn't it....



Do you see the mental gymnastics you have to do? Somehow every lab and company I've applied to has taken the time and energy to find out that I wear unusual clothing, and even though the overwhelming majority of these jobs have 0 interaction with the public it's important enough to them that they freeze me out. How is that remotely as plausible as my theory, which is that I'm approximately as qualified as the hordes of other applicants and my number simply hasn't come up yet?

Maybe you shouldn't put your resume on pink paper with Chanel #5 sprayed on it? Or use the pretty flower font? Maybe the confetti falling out of the envelope is a bit over the top? Or maybe you shouldn't email them from Ilove2dressingirlsclothes@gaypeoplerspecial.com?

It's obvious that you aren't as qualified as the hordes of other applicants, if you are always the one that doesn't get the job or even a call back. Like I initially posted.. perhaps your career aspirations are a bit too high? Aim lower.

[Parkbandit]

So... other than the auto unions "Those lousy Democrats!" or blaming the mortgage industry (which is apparently only the fault of Barney Frank) when have you suggested any corporate responsibility for the current economic situation?

It's like you don't even want to acknowledge that they might've fucked up, It's the same blindness and lack of balls that prevents antitrust prosecutions these days.

It's like Communism except you fellate corporations instead of the state... and you still blame blame blame the individual.

So, you couldn't find the quote? Shocking. And you chose to follow up with "which is apparently only the fault of Barney Frank"? Really? Care to produce a quote of me saying that? How about anyone saying that?

Hyperbolic bullshit isn't needed, if your argument is not full of stupid. I guess that's why you usually use it.

I've stated that the banks are a big reason why we are in the mess we are in now, because they were greedy and believed that selling shitty mortgages to our government ala Freddy and Fannye would leave them immune to anything that happens.. given that the government backs them.

I've also stated on many occasions that government is needed to regulate (yes, I said regulate) companies to ensure that they are abiding by the laws and safeguarding the country and it's citizens from harm, both physically and financially.

I've never posted that I am for unfettered capitalism, so don't bother using that in your next fall back argument.

[Warriorbird]

So, you couldn't find the quote? Shocking. And you chose to follow up with "which is apparently only the fault of Barney Frank"? Really? Care to produce a quote of me saying that? How about anyone saying that?

Hyperbolic bullshit isn't needed, if your argument is not full of stupid. I guess that's why you usually use it.

I've stated that the banks are a big reason why we are in the mess we are in now, because they were greedy and believed that selling shitty mortgages to our government ala Freddy and Fannye would leave them immune to anything that happens.. given that the government backs them.

I've also stated on many occasions that government is needed to regulate (yes, I said regulate) companies to ensure that they are abiding by the laws and safeguarding the country and it's citizens from harm, both physically and financially.

I've never posted that I am for unfettered capitalism, so don't bother using that in your next fall back argument.

Then gosh, might corporations have done questionable hiring behaviors?

[Latrinsorm]

You make your own luck in life. If you send 1 resume to 1 company and get no response, your chances aren't as good as if you send 1000 resumes to 1000 companies. It's all about the effort you put into it.You keep saying chances, don't you see? The first thing I said was that hard work equals probability of success - obviously we agree on that part. My point is only that probability and chances eventually have to be converted to what actually happens. Of course a 90% chance is better than a 10% chance, but it's still just a chance.
It's obvious that you aren't as qualified as the hordes of other applicants, if you are always the one that doesn't get the job or even a call back. Like I initially posted.. perhaps your career aspirations are a bit too high? Aim lower.I think what's obvious is that I'm not the only person in America struggling to get hired. You can believe that jobseekers these days tend to be lazy, dumb, shiftless, entitled, complacent, or some combination thereof, but I think if you look at it objectively you'll have a hard time finding actual evidence of that. A much simpler explanation is that there is just an unusually high disparity between number of seekers and number of jobs.

[crb]

I'll give you trademarks, as my main beefs are with patents and copyrights. I think there are usually better ways to prove your brand in the modern world, but won't disagree that trademarks are a useful tool.

Can you provide evidence of patents encouraging innovation? And how does allowing companies to patent things like abstract ideas (e.g. Amazon one-click checkout), business methods (e.g. hedging to minimize losses), and math (any algorithm) for 20 years enable others to build off these "discoveries"? 20 years in the modern market might as well be an eternity. I understand the need to recover R&D, but relying on patents to solve this problem for you ignores the innate benefits of innovation like being first to market. I can get behind patents for "hard" inventions since the cost of development is typically so much more than the cost of reproduction, but only for much shorter periods than the current 20+ years.

And I just LOL at lifespan + 25 years being anything near reasonable for the length of a copyright. The original U.S. copyright term was 14 years max from publication and was meant to allow an author to make some money off his work, not to protect a revenue stream for the life of the author and plus a large chunk of that of the next generation. Sure sounds like rent-seeking behavior to me.

To say we need patents and copyright reform is quite an understatement. I'd like to see you write a computer program of any significance that doesn't infringe on someone else's patent. And my biggest problem with the current IP system is that patents and copyrights get conflated with property "rights" and are not seen a privileged advantage but rather something the government has a duty to enforce. Government mandated monopolies should be the exception, not the rule.

I'm right with you on patent reform. I hate patent troll companies. I'm exposed to them because I own a business that uses a lot of Internet technologies.

But that doesn't make patents useless, legitimate inventions should have them. The patent office just needs a kick in the ass, and maybe some loser pays tort reform would help.

An easy example would be drug patents. Without a patent system drug companies would keep formulas a secret and NEVER go off patent and we'd never have generic drugs unless someone stole the recipe.

[EasternBrand]

The patent office just needs a kick in the ass, and maybe some loser pays tort reform would help.

I also think an IP rights overhaul is long overdue, but what does tort reform have to do with that?

[crb]

I can also give you a good example for copyrights, though it should be obvious, why 14 years is too short.

George RR Martin has this book series he has been working on for over 14 years. HBO is set to do an adaptation starting April 17th. The first book would now be out of copyright, meaning HBO would be able to do it for free, and at the same time Starz could, and Showtime could. SyFy could air their own version. Meanwhile other people could start using the characters in derivative works, sequels could be made, that aren't really sequels, it'd really suck for the author who is still working on the series. Likewise we'd have Harry Potter 8 being written right now. Many multiple people could be out there making James Bond films, LOTR films, StarWars films.

I actually follow copyright developments pretty closely because they relate to part of my business, again, and some of the best ideas I've seen from people like Lessig are to do a period of short terms, with cheap and easy renewals. Like $1 copyright renewals. That allows works that are truly abandoned to be used by the public for whatever reason, but it lets the creator keep the rights if they are still working on that creation through sequels or whatever else.

Anyways, I wouldn't want to say limit it to just "author's life" because then you basically put a hit out on some people. Plus, if the author is a corporation, what is the corporation's lifespan? You could pick a time, such as 50 years or 75 years, which I think are reasonable. You may find 75 years to be long, but it is almost half of what the limit currently is. a 40%ish reduction in the current limit would be a good thing, I think.

[crb]

I also think an IP rights overhaul is long overdue, but what does tort reform have to do with that?

Patent lawsuits are hands down the most expensive lawsuits to litigate, think years and millions. Patent troll companies know this and so they typically target firms too small or too poor to fight back, until they build a war chest to go after bigger targets. Smaller firms often settle because a fight would bankrupt them. The Patent troll offers the settlement for enough money to keep them trolling, but not so much that the firm can't afford it. They're basically rent seeking.

My web host for instance, back in the day, I remember settled with that troll company that claimed a linux patent so that all their customers would be free from threats of litigation. I disliked them for giving in out of principle, but with thousands of linux servers they'd be on the hook for they couldn't afford to fight.

Loser pays tort reform, which exists in most of the rest of the developed world, means if you bring a lawsuit, and you lose, you pay all of the other side's legal costs, no matter how high they are. It is one way to really stop frivolous lawsuits. It would really hurt patent troll companies.

And that my friend is what tort reform has to do with patent reform.

[TheEschaton]

Not the word I was refering too, retard.



I'll take one of the four largest auditing firms in the world word over yours, retard. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/07/28/taxstudy.html




Listen to what I said before, retard. Make us competitive with other countries (as show above our corporate taxes are not, despite your retarded belief companies pay nothing).



Ok, retard. UAW, I forget the name of the union who plows snow in NY/NJ, and here's a whole bunch I stole from some nobody who works for the heritage foundation.

Arizona. The Arizona Education Association (AEA) successfully lobbied against a repeal of a $250 million a year statewide property tax. The AEA helpfully identified another $2.1 billion in tax increases for the legislature to pass to forestall spending reductions.
California. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent $1 million on a television ad campaign pressing for higher oil, gas, and liquor taxes instead of spending reductions.
Illinois.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 funded the "Fair Budget Illinois" campaign in 2009. The campaign ran television and radio ads pushing for tax increases instead of spending reductions to close the state's deficit.
Maine. Mainers rejected a ballot initiative in November 2009 that would have prevented government spending from growing faster than the combined rate of inflation and population growth and require the government to return excess revenues as tax rebates. The Maine Municipal Association, the SEIU, the Teamsters, and the Maine Education Association collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to campaign against the initiative, and it ultimately lost by a wide margin.
Minnesota. AFSCME Council 5 unsuccessfully lobbied state legislators to override Governor Tim Pawlenty's veto of a $1 billion tax increase in the spring of 2009. Two Democrats joined all the Republicans in the state House to uphold the veto. In response AFSCME endorsed a primary challenger to one of the Democrats. AFSCME is now lobbying state legislators to raise taxes by $3.8 billion.
New Jersey. Democratic State Senator Stephen Sweeney, now the president of the New Jersey Senate, opposed a 1 percent increase in the state sales tax in 2006. In response, the Communication Workers of America sent giant inflatable rats and protestors in hot dog costumes reading "Sweeney the Weenie" outside the former labor leader's office. The tax increase ultimately passed.
Oregon. Public employee unions in Oregon provided 90 percent of the $4 million spent advocating two ballot initiatives to raise personal income and business taxes by $733 million. The unions want the tax increases to prevent cuts in the gold-plated medical benefits for state workers.
Washington State. The Washington state legislature has resisted calls from unions to raise taxes. In response, labor unions are threatening to withhold donations and fund primary campaigns against the Democrats who will not vote for tax hikes.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-government-employee-labor-unions-out-of-control/blog-244433/



I knew you wouldn't be able to resist this, retard. My solution would be to fine and or jail eggregious offenders. You put stiff enough penalties in for fucking stupid lawsuits, people will suddenly stop filing them. I'm sure you'll counter with something how big business will abuse this, so we have to make the system work for us, rather than against us. Penalties for non-frivolous lawsuits should be stiffer as well, and corporations found in violation of fair labor laws should get to enjoy their own fines and possible jail time. I'm tired of CEOs cashing their checks at the expense of the company or it's clients.



Ok, I've worked for two fortune 500 non-union companies in my 20+ years of work/life experience. I am not, in any sense of the word, quiet about expressing my opinion at work, which has frequently put me in opposition of executive management direction. I've never even been scolded, much less fired. Why you ask? Because believe it or not, companies WANT loyal, happy, engaged employees and an environment that stiffles it is not one conducive of retaining employees. I realize you and WB have this retarded notion that everyone is out to get you, where you is everyone in the world, but it truly isn't like that in the workplace. You can always find the examples of poor management, but you don't need a union AT ALL to have it addressed. Only about 12% of the private sector workforce is Union. By your logic above 88% of the workers in the US today are at risk. JESUS CHRIST SOMEONE DECLARE DEFCON 1!



By getting rid of the pork heaped upon corporations in America by stopping all the crazy bullshit I've already mentioned. Unions, lawsuits, unfair import/export laws. That equates to significantly lower costs and doesn't change a fucking thing in the workplace. Companies that price themselves out of the market shrivel up and die. Look at GM and Chrysler if you want so recent examples.

Now shut the fuck up and go hug a mugger or something you dumb mother fucker.

1) Your article references actual tax rates, as opposed to the taxes corporations actually pay. I will state again, the largest businesses in this country pay no tax whatsoever. To your second point that "lowering these tax rates would make us more competitive," the point is moot cause we already have damn low corporate taxes. What drives companies overseas is not the lower corporate tax rate, but the lower labor cost. You yourself stated earlier in this thread that 90% of overhead is labor, or something similarly ludicrous.

2) Do you have examples of the abuses UAW and this snow plow union have of having a "stranglehold" over their companies? Last I heard, UAW made significant concessions during the recession to keep their companies afloat. The rest of your list includes 1) unions spending their own money to campaign, 2) most of them losing their campaigns, and 3) none of them exhibiting a "stranglehold" on anything.

3) The problem with your idea of tort reform is that there is no hard-and-fast rule for what is frivolous. Some guy sued Satan for his soul once in court, and that was found frivolous, but other than that, if you think you have a legitimate claim, then it's not frivolous. Furthermore, the definition is more based on the good faith of the plaintiff, so that even if there is no merit in the case, it's not frivolous until you can show they acted in bad faith.

4) I hear voicing opinion on strategy or whatever is equivalent to a worker striking for better work conditions. I'm sure management, without a union, would hesitate on firing striking employees because they love their loyal employees. That's a completely fair analogy. Retard.

[EasternBrand]

Loser pays tort reform, which exists in most of the rest of the developed world, means if you bring a lawsuit, and you lose, you pay all of the other side's legal costs, no matter how high they are. It is one way to really stop frivolous lawsuits. It would really hurt patent troll companies.

And that my friend is what tort reform has to do with patent reform.

I think I must have just misread your earlier post, I see what you meant. FYI, the loser-pays system is not limited to tort claims. Patent infringements aren't precisely torts. In fact, one of the hurdles to tort reform is the question of how to impose universal (or federal) rules on individualized (or state-by-state) systems. That problem doesn't exist with patents, since the federal government has exclusive authority over patent law. It would be easy for the Congress to enact a loser-pays system in the patent field that wouldn't implicate any of the problems associated with "tort reform" generally.

[TheEschaton]

Loser pays is a detriment to the small company whose idea is jacked by a big company, though, right? They hide behind their lawyers, they have a good shot of winning just because they have lots of money and lawyers - deterrent to suing from small company?

[nub]

I don't get why they want to cut funding to education, I thought the republicans were all about "our children"

[Parkbandit]

You keep saying chances, don't you see? The first thing I said was that hard work equals probability of success - obviously we agree on that part. My point is only that probability and chances eventually have to be converted to what actually happens. Of course a 90% chance is better than a 10% chance, but it's still just a chance.

I've been unemployed before.. I was even unemployed in the early 90's when the unemployment rate was comparable to today. I found a job immediately because I pounded the pavement and took a position that was a bit lower than my goal, but it was one with opportunity for advancement. I've never been unemployed longer than a month or two and have never accepted government assistance. Maybe I'm just leading some charmed life.. and you just have really, really, really bad luck.

You should continue to blame those evil companies for not hiring you instead of perhaps looking at who you are or what you are doing. That's worked for you this long, why change and take responsibility.



I think what's obvious is that I'm not the only person in America struggling to get hired. You can believe that jobseekers these days tend to be lazy, dumb, shiftless, entitled, complacent, or some combination thereof, but I think if you look at it objectively you'll have a hard time finding actual evidence of that. A much simpler explanation is that there is just an unusually high disparity between number of seekers and number of jobs.

If you are unemployed for longer than 5-6 months.. then yes, I believe you are "lazy, dumb, shiftless, entitled, complacent, or a combination thereof." What separates the 9.6% of the unemployed from the employed is not being those things.

[Parkbandit]

I don't get why they want to cut funding to education, I thought the republicans were all about "our children"

Might be something to do with the US paying a shitload of money per student compared to most countries... and the US not getting what they are paying for.

[Warriorbird]

Might be something to do with the US paying a shitload of money per student compared to most countries... and the US not getting what they are paying for.

So cutting money will naturally improve things.

[EasternBrand]

Loser pays is a detriment to the small company whose idea is jacked by a big company, though, right? They hide behind their lawyers, they have a good shot of winning just because they have lots of money and lawyers - deterrent to suing from small company?

In close cases it may be problematic in the way you described. In cases of obvious or readily apparent infringement, though, I would imagine the better lawyers would advise the larger company not to take the case to trial.

It's a policy decision based on how strongly you want to protect IP rights. The trend has been to strengthen them; the common joke is that Congress strengthens copyright protection every time Mickey Mouse is about to become public domain. The British system might deter lawsuits in close cases, which could allow a greater intrusion into an entity's IP rights and weaken the protection overall. But it's a corrective to a perceived overabundance of protection under the current system.

[crb]

1) Your article references actual tax rates, as opposed to the taxes corporations actually pay. I will state again, the largest businesses in this country pay no tax whatsoever. To your second point that "lowering these tax rates would make us more competitive," the point is moot cause we already have damn low corporate taxes. What drives companies overseas is not the lower corporate tax rate, but the lower labor cost. You yourself stated earlier in this thread that 90% of overhead is labor, or something similarly ludicrous..

A business doesn't always have a profit every year. Unlike someone earning a wage, a corporate entity is not guaranteed a profit just from showing up. Also yes, businesses do things to shelter income, or to avoid paying taxes, such as putting profit money towards expansions or R&D, which are expenses, and so lower net profit.

So yes, some years, some businesses, pay nothing. I suppose you think it'd be righteous for a business to pay a tax on gross and not net. That is one loser of an idea.

Businesses definite generate taxes for the government though, through the jobs they provide. Which is a rather obvious contribution they are making, isn't it? Not to mention the employer's half of payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, etc.

As for unions, you want to see corruption and bullshittery? Look at the GM bankruptcy, the law was not followed, the actual senior debt holders got fucked while the union got bailed out. Friends in high places.

[nub]

Might be something to do with the US paying a shitload of money per student compared to most countries... and the US not getting what they are paying for.

How does taking funding away help fix that problem?

[Tsa`ah]

Might be something to do with the US paying a shitload of money per student compared to most countries... and the US not getting what they are paying for.

This is a false statement when you compare it to global standards.

As a government expenditure, the US ranks 70th, accounting for only 15.25% of government spending.

As portion of GDP, and this is skewed by private spending on private institutions, the US ranks 45th.

On a per student basis of spending we rank 36th at the primary level, 51st and the secondary level, and 93rd at the tertiary level.

For the most developed nation, and the economic leader ... we only outspend other countries in the total sum paid for in education. When it is broken down, we are behind.

Some of it cultural, some of it is curriculum, some of it is capital.

Cutting educational spending isn't going to help. We need to look at countries like Japan, Canada, S Korea ... essentially any country that kicks our ass, and figure out what we need to change. If it takes a little social engineering ... do it. If it takes a different approach and a curriculum change ... do it.

Until then, cutting educational spending is essentially cutting our own throats ... and is the definition of irresponsible.

[Kuyuk]

This is a false statement when you compare it to global standards.

As a government expenditure, the US ranks 70th, accounting for only 15.25% of government spending.

As portion of GDP, and this is skewed by private spending on private institutions, the US ranks 45th.

On a per student basis of spending we rank 36th at the primary level, 51st and the secondary level, and 93rd at the tertiary level.

For the most developed nation, and the economic leader ... we only outspend other countries in the total sum paid for in education. When it is broken down, we are behind.

Some of it cultural, some of it is curriculum, some of it is capital.

Cutting educational spending isn't going to help. We need to look at countries like Japan, Canada, S Korea ... essentially any country that kicks our ass, and figure out what we need to change. If it takes a little social engineering ... do it. If it takes a different approach and a curriculum change ... do it.

Until then, cutting educational spending is essentially cutting our own throats ... and is the definition of irresponsible.

Come on now, if our students are getting low grades, just make it easier, and then they'll all get A's!


And that, is how we will not leave any child behind!

[Gan]

I would love to know what you consider timing if not luck.

Would you call a successful pass caught by a receiver running downfield and thrown by a quarterback sweeping in a perpendicular direction (left) luck? Or would you call that timing? Strategy? Practice?

I have friends who were jobless and they relied upon dumb luck to get a job. Randomly applying to a few jobs here and there when they heard of openings. It took a long time for them to find work.

Most if not all self-help books and employment experts say that if you do not approach a job search with a strategy that involves timing the submission of applications and onsite visits to HR departments with resumes then you will not achieve outcomes greater than if you did employ a strategy.

Try working in an environment that's 100% commission where you have to strategically go after clients rather than relying upon luck to bring clients to you.

[Parkbandit]

This is a false statement when you compare it to global standards.

As a government expenditure, the US ranks 70th, accounting for only 15.25% of government spending.

As portion of GDP, and this is skewed by private spending on private institutions, the US ranks 45th.

On a per student basis of spending we rank 36th at the primary level, 51st and the secondary level, and 93rd at the tertiary level.

For the most developed nation, and the economic leader ... we only outspend other countries in the total sum paid for in education. When it is broken down, we are behind.

Some of it cultural, some of it is curriculum, some of it is capital.

Cutting educational spending isn't going to help. We need to look at countries like Japan, Canada, S Korea ... essentially any country that kicks our ass, and figure out what we need to change. If it takes a little social engineering ... do it. If it takes a different approach and a curriculum change ... do it.

Until then, cutting educational spending is essentially cutting our own throats ... and is the definition of irresponsible.

When you looked up % of GDP as your better stat, didn't it seem weird that the top 4 countries were Cuba, Vanuato, Lesotho and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? That should have clued you in that perhaps that's not the best statistical reference. I mean, even if you didn't understand that.. perhaps the next 3 being Yemen, Brunel and Mongolia might have tipped you off.

Look at your own school system for red flags. In my district, our schools have a half day every 2 weeks for "Teacher preparedness". WTF is that even for? Their expenses are pretty much the same for that day, since the teachers still get paid for a full day, they still have to keep the electricity/heat/AC going, they still run the buses, etc... Here's an idea: If teachers really need a half day every 2 weeks.. maybe combine them into 1 day off per month and save a shitload of money by not running the buses and opening up the entire county school system?

There is plenty of opportunity to cut expenses on education. Start by looking at the pyramid scheme that is the pension plan for teachers.... Just because you cut money doesn't mean poor little Johnny is learning less. You want to improve our scholastic scores? Get rid of the shitty union that forces districts to keep shitty teachers.

[crb]

This is a false statement when you compare it to global standards.

As a government expenditure, the US ranks 70th, accounting for only 15.25% of government spending.

As portion of GDP, and this is skewed by private spending on private institutions, the US ranks 45th.

On a per student basis of spending we rank 36th at the primary level, 51st and the secondary level, and 93rd at the tertiary level.

For the most developed nation, and the economic leader ... we only outspend other countries in the total sum paid for in education. When it is broken down, we are behind.

Some of it cultural, some of it is curriculum, some of it is capital.

Cutting educational spending isn't going to help. We need to look at countries like Japan, Canada, S Korea ... essentially any country that kicks our ass, and figure out what we need to change. If it takes a little social engineering ... do it. If it takes a different approach and a curriculum change ... do it.

Until then, cutting educational spending is essentially cutting our own throats ... and is the definition of irresponsible.

What was it Mark Twain said?

Why does this place say something differently:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

US is 4th.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

US is 3rd.

Then if you're going to knock our university level system, you can bugger off, I'll believe we're inferior there when our campuses stop being populated half by foreigners. People don't leave their families and go across the world to study at an inferior institution.

Here is an editorial:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_5982482

Here is a llama:

http://www.billybear4kids.com/animal/whose-toes/llama2.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Would you call a successful pass caught by a receiver running downfield and thrown by a quarterback sweeping in a perpendicular direction (left) luck? Or would you call that timing? Strategy? Practice?

I have friends who were jobless and they relied upon dumb luck to get a job. Randomly applying to a few jobs here and there when they heard of openings. It took a long time for them to find work.

Most if not all self-help books and employment experts say that if you do not approach a job search with a strategy that involves timing the submission of applications and onsite visits to HR departments with resumes then you will not achieve outcomes greater than if you did employ a strategy.

Try working in an environment that's 100% commission where you have to strategically go after clients rather than relying upon luck to bring clients to you.I honestly have no idea what you were going for with that analogy. As near as I can figure the quarterback has the ball which the receiver wants, so they're the company..? I have no idea how the rest of it is supposed to apply. The best stab at a response I can take is that the act of catching to me represents how willing I am to accept a job offer - let me assure you that I am very willing! What I'm talking about is the act of choosing which receiver to throw to, specifically in the case when there are many receivers who (as near as the quarterback can tell) are equally open, equally reliable, and at functionally equal positions on the field.

I'm also not sure why you're talking about dumb luck vs. strategy, or was that part of the post not directed at me?

[Warriorbird]

When you looked up % of GDP as your better stat, didn't it seem weird that the top 4 countries were Cuba, Vanuato, Lesotho and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? That should have clued you in that perhaps that's not the best statistical reference. I mean, even if you didn't understand that.. perhaps the next 3 being Yemen, Brunel and Mongolia might have tipped you off.

Look at your own school system for red flags. In my district, our schools have a half day every 2 weeks for "Teacher preparedness". WTF is that even for? Their expenses are pretty much the same for that day, since the teachers still get paid for a full day, they still have to keep the electricity/heat/AC going, they still run the buses, etc... Here's an idea: If teachers really need a half day every 2 weeks.. maybe combine them into 1 day off per month and save a shitload of money by not running the buses and opening up the entire county school system?

There is plenty of opportunity to cut expenses on education. Start by looking at the pyramid scheme that is the pension plan for teachers.... Just because you cut money doesn't mean poor little Johnny is learning less. You want to improve our scholastic scores? Get rid of the shitty union that forces districts to keep shitty teachers.

So cutting funding will magically solve stuff. Awesome.

The actual productive thing to do is to compare it to other first world countries. But, then again, you don't actually want the public schools to succeed, do you?

[Parkbandit]

So cutting funding will magically solve stuff. Awesome.

And increasing funding will magically solve stuff. Awesome.



The actual productive thing to do is to compare it to other first world countries. But, then again, you don't actually want the public schools to succeed, do you?

How exactly did you make the retard leap that I don't want the public schools to succeed?

It's almost like you try to outstupid your previous posts... and I didn't think it was even possible.

[Warriorbird]

I never proposed increased funding. You, in turn, seem to think that reducing the funds given schools will somehow make them better. With a percent GDP comparison to the schools that do kick our ass we're actually behind, however, so your argument had little merit.

[Parkbandit]

I never proposed increased funding. You, in turn, seem to think that reducing the funds given schools will somehow make them better. With a percent GDP comparison to the schools that do kick our ass we're actually behind, however, so your argument had little merit.

Now you can read minds.. awesome.

Cutting spending by reducing waste doesn't mean cutting spending will fix the education gap between our students and students from other countries.

Stop being retarded.

[Kembal]

Or people get off their asses and go get jobs.

Maybe its just the region that I live in, but I see job postings, help wanted signs, how hiring signs, etc. all over.

Imagine that. http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

It's the region you live in (Houston). The oil industry is doing well, and thus there are job openings in all sorts of industries.

Other areas of the country are not doing so well.

[Parkbandit]

It's the region you live in (Houston). The oil industry is doing well, and thus there are job openings in all sorts of industries.

Other areas of the country are not doing so well.

I live in Tampa and we are high on the unemployment list (12.6% Nov '10 Rank #337 out of 372).. and I see plenty of help wanted signs.

Houston, while better at 8.8% (Rank 185 out of 372) is right in the middle of the list.

http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm

[crb]

So cutting funding will magically solve stuff. Awesome.

The actual productive thing to do is to compare it to other first world countries. But, then again, you don't actually want the public schools to succeed, do you?

I'll bite.

I want public schools to fail, I cheer every time one fails.

The public school system is a corrupt government protected monopoly. They actively fight, actively fight, actively fight, reforms and alternatives. Yes, I said it three times for emphasis. Look at the DC voucher program, look at Detroits "fuck you" to hundreds of millions for charter schools. All over the country the public school stake holders and teacher unions fight charter schools.

The school system needs competition, and every time a public school fails we get a little more of it. I would love nothing more than a 100% private charter school system. I still believe in publicly funded education, not just publicly administered education. I'll pay my property taxes to support education, I just want that money to go to independent charter schools.

[crb]

Oh, and maybe we don't need to spend more, maybe we don't need to spend less.

Maybe we need to spend better? Buy fewer bad teachers, buy more good teachers. Buy less technology gimmicks, buy more proven learning tools.

[~Rocktar~]

If it takes a little social engineering ... do it. If it takes a different approach and a curriculum change ... do it.


Ahhh, but you and other Liberal/Socialist idiots don't want that social engineering because it involves kicking little johnny the fuck out of school when he is a jackwagon or criminal. It also involves traditional values of valuing hard work, strong work ethic and the ability to focus on tasks that might be difficult, none of which fit in well with the Liberal mindset of take care of everyone and care for Johnny's feelings so that everyone feels ok and has equal outcomes. In addition, it involves meaningful and direct consequences for failure to perform, not failure to try, another anti-Liberal idea.

All in all, a lot of people would be in great favor of that kind of social engineering, you call it Conservatism or oppression and eschew it at every opportunity.

[waywardgs]

Ahhh, but you and other Liberal/Socialist idiots don't want that social engineering because it involves kicking little johnny the fuck out of school when he is a jackwagon or criminal.

Q: What's the quickest way to fill up the jails and increase the crime rate?
A: Kick all the troubled kids out of school.











Fucking douchebag. Your posts make my skin crawl.

[~Rocktar~]

Q: What's the quickest way to fill up the jails and increase the crime rate?
A: Kick all the troubled kids out of school.











Fucking douchebag. Your posts make my skin crawl.

What's the quickest way to correct the problem to begin with, start in the fucking kindergarten with decent and effective discipline to teach Johnny not to be a fucking hoodlum and learn to fit into society instead of coddling his tantrums and little feelings. Fucking moron, your lack of the concept of personal responsibility and accountability make me wonder how you manage to feed yourself. Or does mom bring food down to the basement regularly for you?

[Warriorbird]

I'll bite.

I want public schools to fail, I cheer every time one fails.

The public school system is a corrupt government protected monopoly. They actively fight, actively fight, actively fight, reforms and alternatives. Yes, I said it three times for emphasis. Look at the DC voucher program, look at Detroits "fuck you" to hundreds of millions for charter schools. All over the country the public school stake holders and teacher unions fight charter schools.

The school system needs competition, and every time a public school fails we get a little more of it. I would love nothing more than a 100% private charter school system. I still believe in publicly funded education, not just publicly administered education. I'll pay my property taxes to support education, I just want that money to go to independent charter schools.

And thus why Republicans talking about this are so fucking disingenuous. Charter schools often don't have to actually take part in state standards testing and do a horrific job of taking care of the disabled and special needs children. This is patently ridiculous...as their NAEP scores often end up much lower, or they skim off students and leave the local public schools in even worse shape.

You basically want to turn the public school system into Blackwater. We see how well that went.

[waywardgs]

What's the quickest way to correct the problem to begin with, start in the fucking kindergarten with decent and effective discipline to teach Johnny not to be a fucking hoodlum and learn to fit into society instead of coddling his tantrums and little feelings. Fucking moron, your lack of the concept of personal responsibility and accountability make me wonder how you manage to feed yourself. Or does mom bring food down to the basement regularly for you?

Personal responsibility is important. Accountability is important. So is social responsibility. So is caring about your neighbor. So is recognizing that we have a vested interest in seeing the society in which we live succeed, because without it we'd all just be scrambling in the dirt for berries and grubs. This isn't a new concept. In fact, it began about 12,000 years ago when people first settled down and started to farm. It's just unfortunate that there are people like you who still can't grasp this concept, even after twelve thousand years.

Some people just haven't evolved, evidently.

[~Rocktar~]

Personal responsibility is important. Accountability is important. So is social responsibility. So is caring about your neighbor. So is recognizing that we have a vested interest in seeing the society in which we live succeed, because without it we'd all just be scrambling in the dirt for berries and grubs. This isn't a new concept. In fact, it began about 12,000 years ago when people first settled down and started to farm. It's just unfortunate that there are people like you who still can't grasp this concept, even after twelve thousand years.

Some people just haven't evolved, evidently.

Keep making excuses dumbass, it has nothing to do with evolution other than to devolve from more effective ways of doing things to less effective ones.

[waywardgs]

Keep making excuses dumbass, it has nothing to do with evolution other than to devolve from more effective ways of doing things to less effective ones.


Oh, I forgot, you think God made the world 6,000 years ago.

Thanks for reminding me who I'm talking to.

[~Rocktar~]

Oh, I forgot, you think God made the world 6,000 years ago.

Thanks for reminding me who I'm talking to.

Ummm, actually, I don't, I'm not Christian dumbass and pretty much everyone that has done something other than sniff the inside of their own asshole for the past couple years here knows that.

[waywardgs]

Ummm, actually, I don't, I'm not Christian dumbass and pretty much everyone that has done something other than sniff the inside of their own asshole for the past couple years here knows that.

It smells like apples in there. Want to take a whiff?

[~Rocktar~]

It smells like apples in there. Want to take a whiff?

Wouldn't touch your asshole with Warriorbird's dick.

[Warriorbird]

Wouldn't touch your asshole with Warriorbird's dick.

We know how you like dudes pretending to be chicks. You're not getting anywhere near my zipper.

[waywardgs]

Wouldn't touch your asshole with Warriorbird's dick.

Of course, only your own. Got it.

[waywardgs]

neg House GOP Lists $2.5... 01-23-2011 11:28 PM Less STTNG and more real life would straighten you out. You aren't more evolved by sitting on your couch waiting for the next welfare check to arrive.

Let me sign it for you: From Squiggles, the Resident Hanging Turd.

PS- wtf is STTNG? Pleese essplain, ese!

Edit- just realized this wasn't from Rocktar, he can't give red rep. Whoever you are, you lose because you imitate him. Get a better role model.

[~Rocktar~]

neg House GOP Lists $2.5... 01-23-2011 11:28 PM Less STTNG and more real life would straighten you out. You aren't more evolved by sitting on your couch waiting for the next welfare check to arrive.

Let me sign it for you: From Squiggles, the Resident Hanging Turd.

PS- wtf is STTNG? Pleese essplain, ese!

Edit- just realized this wasn't from Rocktar, he can't give red rep. Whoever you are, you lose because you imitate him. Get a better role model.

Yes, I can, I just don't bother. I also sign all my rep, unlike a bunch of you spineless babies.

STTNG is likely refering to Star Trek the Next Generation. Where you born under a rock, hell my dad who hates tv and star trek worse knows what that is.

[~Rocktar~]

We know how you like dudes pretending to be chicks. You're not getting anywhere near my zipper.

Troll harder.

[waywardgs]

Yes, I can, I just don't bother. I also sign all my rep, unlike a bunch of you spineless babies.

STTNG is likely refering to Star Trek the Next Generation. Where you born under a rock, hell my dad who hates tv and star trek worse knows what that is.

Sorry, been working too much of my adult life to follow your acronyms.

Oh, I think your mom is calling you for dinner. Time to stop playing with your toy spaceships!

[~Rocktar~]

Sorry, been working too much of my adult life to follow your acronyms.

Oh, I think your mom is calling you for dinner. Time to stop playing with your toy spaceships!

Funny, but I don't have any. Oh, and mom passed away in 1993. Pull your head out of your ass and try to contribute in some meaningful way. I know it's a stretch, but really, please try.

[waywardgs]

Funny, but I don't have any. Oh, and mom passed away in 1993. Pull your head out of your ass and try to contribute in some meaningful way. I know it's a stretch, but really, please try.

Here's my contribution: Sorry your mom is dead. Hope she didn't push any more of you through her hooha. You must have been enough of a...

wait for it...


STRETCH!

[Tsa`ah]

When you looked up % of GDP as your better stat, didn't it seem weird that the top 4 countries were Cuba, Vanuato, Lesotho and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? That should have clued you in that perhaps that's not the best statistical reference. I mean, even if you didn't understand that.. perhaps the next 3 being Yemen, Brunel and Mongolia might have tipped you off.

I'm not sure if the four you listed have private schools, but a percentage of GDP is just that ... it is a single metric in a field of metrics.


Look at your own school system for red flags. In my district, our schools have a half day every 2 weeks for "Teacher preparedness". WTF is that even for? Their expenses are pretty much the same for that day, since the teachers still get paid for a full day, they still have to keep the electricity/heat/AC going, they still run the buses, etc... Here's an idea: If teachers really need a half day every 2 weeks.. maybe combine them into 1 day off per month and save a shitload of money by not running the buses and opening up the entire county school system?

Teachers are paid a salary, not an hourly or daily wage, but yes, waste should be addressed. However, if you're focused on the nickle and dime crap instead of the quality of education ... you're not really helping, but rather bitching about nickle and dime crap.


There is plenty of opportunity to cut expenses on education. Start by looking at the pyramid scheme that is the pension plan for teachers.... Just because you cut money doesn't mean poor little Johnny is learning less. You want to improve our scholastic scores? Get rid of the shitty union that forces districts to keep shitty teachers.

This is a talking point issue that doesn't address anything other than "I'm paying too much".

If you want quality education, see that the teachers have the tools they need. This ranges to everything from not shoving 30 plus kids into a room with a crappy school lunch program, 10 year old text books, a piss poor test score driven curriculum, and expect the teacher to play the role of baby sitter and not educator.

If your problem is the unions, which is laughable, create a work environment that makes the union obsolete. Other than that, heaven forbid that a crappy paying job that has zero respect potential offer something so basic as a retirement plan.

[Tsa`ah]

What was it Mark Twain said?

Why does this place say something differently:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_pri_sch_stu-spending-per-primary-school-student

US is 4th.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

US is 3rd.

Hey slick, the source doesn't say anything different ... it's the same source.

I specifically didn't use the items you did for the same reason I noted in the GDP figure ... the figures you used are skewed by private institutions. Several hundred thousand students in private institutions where the cost is 20k and up per student is going to play havoc on real numbers.


Then if you're going to knock our university level system, you can bugger off, I'll believe we're inferior there when our campuses stop being populated half by foreigners. People don't leave their families and go across the world to study at an inferior institution.

Yes, I'll knock college education in the US. Because it is perfectly fine that US students have to incur massive amounts of debt before they enter the professional work force.

All of those foreigners? I'm willing to bet a large number of them aren't incurring debt as their education is being subsidized. Perhaps in another hundred years we won't have those foreigners on our campuses ... those that are here now will likely be working at expanding universities in their own countries.


Here is an editorial:

No thanks, my time is limited.



Here is a llama:

Who says short bus kids aren't viable in the work place as adults. You'll do great leading short bus zoo tours.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure if the four you listed have private schools, but a percentage of GDP is just that ... it is a single metric in a field of metrics.

Didn't you bemoan my use of raw dollars because it wasn't showing what you wanted it to show? I'm simply illustrating that the statistical usage you used also has it's flaws... as evidenced by the top 7 spots.



Teachers are paid a salary, not an hourly or daily wage, but yes, waste should be addressed. However, if you're focused on the nickle and dime crap instead of the quality of education ... you're not really helping, but rather bitching about nickle and dime crap.

You do realize that the entire argument brought up by you and your cohorts was that you can't cut make cuts in education no matter what. We've been talking about cutting waste, given this is the only line dealing with the Department of Education:

"Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually."

If that doesn't sound like waste.. not sure what does...

Speaking of nickles and dimes though... given we spend about a trillion dollars on education... and of that we're asking to cut 1.3 billion..... sure sounds like you bitching about nickle and dime crap. Do you need me to do the math for you?



This is a talking point issue that doesn't address anything other than "I'm paying too much".

If you want quality education, see that the teachers have the tools they need. This ranges to everything from not shoving 30 plus kids into a room with a crappy school lunch program, 10 year old text books, a piss poor test score driven curriculum, and expect the teacher to play the role of baby sitter and not educator.

If your problem is the unions, which is laughable, create a work environment that makes the union obsolete. Other than that, heaven forbid that a crappy paying job that has zero respect potential offer something so basic as a retirement plan.

What exactly is the important role of the Teacher's Union in your little mind?

[crb]

Yes, I'll knock college education in the US. Because it is perfectly fine that US students have to incur massive amounts of debt before they enter the professional work force.

All of those foreigners? I'm willing to bet a large number of them aren't incurring debt as their education is being subsidized. Perhaps in another hundred years we won't have those foreigners on our campuses ... those that are here now will likely be working at expanding universities in their own countries.


I find it hilarious that the most liberal poster here is complaining about the cost of a college education.

Do you have any idea why there is so much inflation in the cost of a college education? Because the government enables it through subsidies, and because the invariably liberal heads of major universities like spending money on unnecessary things. The number of non-teaching administrative positions has absolutely skyrocketed at colleges and universities all across the country in the last 30 years.

So they spend money, and then they increase tuition, the kids don't like the tuition, but the government then just gives them more subsidized student aid (which they have now taken fully public, thank you Obama). The end result is a wealth transfer by student proxy.

Cut student aid off, limit it to some flat rate that might cover a cheap school, but not an expensive one, forcing students to take more of a realistic economic choice (18-25 year olds often know shit about finances and don't think about the cost of loans since they are deferred). Less students will attend expensive schools, enrollment drops, schools are forced to cut tuition to compete, they have to get lean and mean.

Any industry that gets so much money directly or indirectly from the government ends up being bloated and wasteful, college is no exception.

[Parkbandit]

Cut student aid off, limit it to some flat rate that might cover a cheap school, but not an expensive one, forcing students to take more of a realistic economic choice (18-25 year olds often know shit about finances and don't think about the cost of loans since they are deferred). Less students will attend expensive schools, enrollment drops, schools are forced to cut tuition to compete, they have to get lean and mean.

Any industry that gets so much money directly or indirectly from the government ends up being bloated and wasteful, college is no exception.

Most of the big universities have multi-billion dollar endowments.. so it would take time for them to be forced to get "lean and mean".

[Gan]

We know how you like dudes pretending to be chicks. You're not getting anywhere near my zipper.

Thats what she said!

[crb]

Most of the big universities have multi-billion dollar endowments.. so it would take time for them to be forced to get "lean and mean".
True... make it a fully means tested system.

Currently with student aid parents are expected to pay a portion. There is a formula that takes into account parental assets, and student assets, including things like college savings accounts. So if the parent does the responsible thing and saves for college, the student gets punished through having less federal subsidies. Negative incentive anyone?

But that is another thread. Right now it is assumed parents to pay part of the cost, add another assumption, that the school should pay part of the cost.

Make a per capita GDP for schools, endowment / students. This ratio would then dictate how much money the school is expected to kick in for each enrolled student's education. No sense giving student aid to any student going to harvard, when their endowment could afford to kick in most of the cost for most students. That sort of thing.

This would be a nice progressive system, like our income tax system, liberals should love this. No more government money going to rich schools. Right?

[Cephalopod]

I don't generally pay attention over the weekends and I don't want to read through everything, so I'll just toss this onto the pile:



Colin Powell: Defunding NPR Won't Solve Deficit Problem, Congress Should Look At Cutting Defense (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/23/colin-powell-defunding-npr-deficit-cutting-defense_n_812738.html?ref=fb&src=sp)

On Sunday's "State of the Union," Powell told host Candy Crowley that Congress needed to deal with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid if it wanted to balance the budget, and that announcing a spending freeze was an "inefficient way" of cutting the deficit:

But the real money in the entitlements, it's Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And unless we do something about those, you can't balance the budget. You can't fix the deficit or the national debt by killing NPR or National Endowment for the Humanities or the Arts. Nice political chatter, but that doesn't do it. And I'm very put off when people just say let's go back and freeze to the level two years ago.

Don't tell me you're going to freeze to a level. That usually is a very inefficient way of doing it. Tell me what you're going to cut, and nobody up there yet is being very, very candid about what they are going to cut to fix this problem.

...

"As we draw down from Iraq and as over the next several years as we draw down from Afghanistan, I see no reason why the military shouldn't be looked at," he said. "When the Cold War ended 20 years ago, when I was chairman and Mr. Cheney was secretary of Defense, we cut the defense budget by 25 percent. And we reduced the force by 500,000 active duty soldiers, so it can be done. Now, how fast you can do it and what you have to cut out remains to be seen, but I don't think the defense budget can be made, you know, sacrosanct and it can't be touched."

[Latrinsorm]

Cut student aid off, limit it to some flat rate that might cover a cheap school, but not an expensive one, forcing students to take more of a realistic economic choice (18-25 year olds often know shit about finances and don't think about the cost of loans since they are deferred). Less students will attend expensive schools, enrollment drops, schools are forced to cut tuition to compete, they have to get lean and mean.Honest question: aren't the most expensive schools the ones that tend to have an overwhelming surplus of applications anyway? Your Harvards, your Yales, and so on? Even if their applications are cut in half, won't they still have the same number of people actually attending?

[Warriorbird]

Make a per capita GDP for schools, endowment / students. This ratio would then dictate how much money the school is expected to kick in for each enrolled student's education. No sense giving student aid to any student going to harvard, when their endowment could afford to kick in most of the cost for most students. That sort of thing.

This would be a nice progressive system, like our income tax system, liberals should love this. No more government money going to rich schools. Right?

It got called socialism when it was proposed and lead to a tax revolt which lead to Reagan's policies which ultimately destroyed California economically. With that said, states and localities pay for the vast majority of lower and upper tier public education.

[Parkbandit]

I don't generally pay attention over the weekends and I don't want to read through everything, so I'll just toss this onto the pile:

Shocking that Colin Powell is parroting a liberal view. Really, really shocking.

[prance1520]

Honest question: aren't the most expensive schools the ones that tend to have an overwhelming surplus of applications anyway? Your Harvards, your Yales, and so on? Even if their applications are cut in half, won't they still have the same number of people actually attending?

This is true, but all Ivy schools give aid based on need, not on merit (since every accepted applicant tends to have high merit). If you cut the funding like crb proposed and kept the same aid program, you'd eliminate students from the middle class. Students from poverty would still get all of their aid and students from the wealthy would still pay.

Your point still stands, Ivys would still fill their classes. Not that they care about tuition money anyways, they run on endowments.

[~Rocktar~]

Here's my contribution: Sorry your mom is dead. Hope she didn't push any more of you through her hooha. You must have been enough of a...

wait for it...


STRETCH!

Why to keep that high quality standard we have all come to expect from you. Keep up the, ummmm, whatever.

[waywardgs]

Why to keep that high quality standard we have all come to expect from you. Keep up the, ummmm, whatever.

.

[crb]

Honest question: aren't the most expensive schools the ones that tend to have an overwhelming surplus of applications anyway? Your Harvards, your Yales, and so on? Even if their applications are cut in half, won't they still have the same number of people actually attending?

Yes.

Probably because student loans are too easy to get.

Don't get me wrong, this overdemand for college (which is what drives inflation, too many dollars chasing too few enrollment spots), is a mountain, not a hill. If you were serious about dealing with it you would need to really attack it hard.

On the other hand, the problem is slightly better than it looks, because many people apply to multiple institutions, but obviously can only attend one, so the number of applications is much higher than the number of students.

[crb]

It got called socialism when it was proposed and lead to a tax revolt which lead to Reagan's policies which ultimately destroyed California economically. With that said, states and localities pay for the vast majority of lower and upper tier public education.

Reagan destroyed California? This is news.

I thought it was overspending, estimating the DOW to reach 20 million, and public employee unions.

[Parkbandit]

Reagan destroyed California? This is news.

I thought it was overspending, estimating the DOW to reach 20 million, and public employee unions.

Reagan was '90's version of IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!! WB is just having another flashback.

[Warriorbird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) and the followups.

[crb]

On comparative education spending between countries....

http://mercatus.org/publication/k-12-spending-student-oecd

[Gan]

Reagan destroyed California? This is news.

I thought it was overspending, estimating the DOW to reach 20 million, and public employee unions.

That's crazy-talk. We all know that California's insolvency issues are because the state is so full of those nasty greedy Republicans.

[Warriorbird]

That's crazy-talk. We all know that California's insolvency issues are because the state is so full of those nasty greedy Republicans.

Curiously large number of Republican governors, as a general note.

[Androidpk]

Where you born under a rock, hell my dad who hates tv and star trek worse knows what that is.

Probably because he got sick and tired of buying you Star Trek toys and costumes for you long after you turned 18.

[waywardgs]

Probably because he got sick and tired of buying you Star Trek toys and costumes for you long after you turned 18.

:rofl:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Androidpk again.

[Gan]

Curiously large number of Republican governors, as a general note.

I don't really know if I would qualify Arnold as Republican.

[~Rocktar~]

Reagan destroyed California? This is news.

I thought it was overspending, estimating the DOW to reach 20 million, and public employee unions.

I thought it had a lot to do with the ability of the people to vote themselves money directly from the treasury through the Public Proposition system without any sort of fiscal responsibility. That and allowing any and all illegal aliens into the school system, welfare system and having them flood the criminal justice system. Of course, the above items did play into it as well, guess they were abusing their prescriptions for pot, huh? They need to legalize it, tax it at about 500% and it would still be cheaper than the illegal crap and likely other tobacco and be the tax boon that they need. And everyone else needs to chip in for a fence around them to keep their mush headed selves contained and stop migrating to other states like a locust swarm of economic and legal ruin.

[~Rocktar~]

Probably because he got sick and tired of buying you Star Trek toys and costumes for you long after you turned 18.

Nice try fail troll. Troll harder.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't really know if I would qualify Arnold as Republican.If a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of trickle-down economics, maybe we can too.

[crb]

You know what is funny to me? For all liberals like to complain about conservative "economic voodoo" blue states tend to be the ones in the crapper. Coincidence?

[TheEschaton]

Really? Last I checked, blue states pay the bills for most of the rest of the country.

[~Rocktar~]

Really? Last I checked, blue states pay the bills for most of the rest of the country.

Not any more now that they are in the crapper and can't afford their own failed socio-economic policies.

[Gan]

Really? Last I checked, blue states create the debt for most of the rest of the country.

Fixed that for you.

[Parkbandit]

Really? Last I checked, blue states pay the bills for most of the rest of the country.

:rofl:

You are kidding, right?

[BigWorm]

I know this might now match the standard Republican worldview, but federally the bluer states pay money that ends up going to red states. Here's some info that is a little out of date but clearly illustrates the point: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Apparently its easier for states like Alabama and Mississippi to balance their state budget since they are receiving massive amounts of federal cash.

[~Rocktar~]

Out of date information is out of date.

[crb]

I know this might now match the standard Republican worldview, but federally the bluer states pay money that ends up going to red states. Here's some info that is a little out of date but clearly illustrates the point: http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

Apparently its easier for states like Alabama and Mississippi to balance their state budget since they are receiving massive amounts of federal cash.

It is actually quite funny. I remember some people from NJ complaining about it, but all it is is the progressive income tax system projected onto states.

Rich states (mostly as defined by population) pay more, and poor states (generally the less populous ones) pay less. In situations where money is distributed to states equally, for the smaller states that is a bigger deal to them in absolute terms. Sometimes, if for instance you have a senator on the appropriations committee, a small state (again, population) can get tons of cash.

Unfortunately for the rich states there is no "tax writeoff" for fiscal malfeasance.

The statistic for which states get what will probably change if the Feds bail out California, Illinois, or one of the others. Not likely considering the GOP house, but you never know.

[Rinualdo]

Out of date information is out of date.

Do you have some contradicting information or something to suggest it is no longer true?

[~Rocktar~]

Do you have some contradicting information or something to suggest it is no longer true?

You are the one that posted info that is form 2006 that reports data from 2004. Based on the massive changes we have seen in tax revenue in the past 3 years and job redistribution, I would tend to believe that it is in fact different now. To use your and others tactics, I will say this: It's not my job to find supporting info for your argument. You want to argue a point, then you support it.

[Androidpk]

I hope the Federal government does not bail out California. We should just sell that state to China.

[Deathravin]

http://i.imgur.com/5zRew.gif

[Rinualdo]

You are the one that posted info that is form 2006 that reports data from 2004.

I did?
Are you sure?



Based on the massive changes we have seen in tax revenue in the past 3 years and job redistribution, I would tend to believe that it is in fact different now. To use your and others tactics, I will say this: It's not my job to find supporting info for your argument. You want to argue a point, then you support it.

So, as usual, you are talking out of your ass, have nothing to base it on, and when people support their arguments, you dismiss them with no contriving information to support your "nut-unh" position.

Classy.

[EasternBrand]

your "nut-unh" position.

Also, the nut-unnnnggghhhhh position always pleases the ladies.

[Rucca]

I hope the Federal government does not bail out California. We should just sell that state to China.

Let me get out first.