Conquer Club

This just in, Paul Ryan drove a weinermobile in college.



We'll have to re-evaluate his stance on franks and morals.


--Andy

Doesn't matter now: Cain is back. Maybe he'll pick Palin as VP.

heavycola wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

A lot of people did, but most who were aware of it murmured about it while continuing to play the game until the very end.

This guy Peter Schiff wrote this book Crash Proof on February 26, 2007, which strongly warned of that upcoming meltdown but also showed strategies for mitigating one's losses and/or for profiting.


Here's a list of Krugman predictions from 1998, assessed by Tyler Cowen: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... tions.html

I can't find much else about Krugman though, as far as predictions are concerned, and with someone reviewing them.


Here's Cowen in 2005 talking about overinvestment in housing:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ved_i.html

I was a little surprised by Paul Ryan being the presumptive nominee for vice president. However, the more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense, I guess. He's the poster-boy for taking anti-Obama stances (as opposed to Romney, who is the poster boy for taking pro-Obama stances, until he becomes a presidential candidate). Ryan is seen as the "smart guy" who, compared to Joe Biden, is going to seem brilliant. Ryan is sort of the opposite of Sarah Palin: he's smart, doesn't "talk funny," and doesn't have the cache as a social conservative (although he is).

I was thinking Romney would choose someone with a non-rich, female, non-white person feel just to balance shit out. But I guess the Republicans aren't going for that again.

rockfist wrote:I am starting from the view that all government spending is waste. It is not up to me to prove it is, it is up to the government to prove to me that it is not - or I will be voting for those who want to lower taxes and cut spending as should every other American. The government is taking our money to fund its spending. If you want something from me - prove that you deserve it - if you can't or won't the answer is no.

It is immoral to take money from one person and give it to another. It is moral and right for people to freely give money to those in need, when the government compels it - it becomes immoral.

Are you a libertarian?

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the three spending programs that are hot topics at this point in the thread, and there's nothing "immoral" about them. People pay into them their whole lives and they deserve the full benefits of the programs. And I hope that when I reach the age of retirement that most young people feel the way that I do. That old man in the video got arrested for espousing as much. I find his red-hot bravery heartening.

Now you might call Medicaid a wasteful program because it pays for hospital visits for poor children and such, but these kids will be full citizens one day. A country's success isn't measured in how much money a single person can make, but in how it treats it's own people. This country is wealthy, it doesn't do the country good to lock that wealth up in 10 individual bank accounts.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Now you might call Medicaid a wasteful program because it pays for hospital visits for poor children and such, but these kids will be full citizens one day. A country's success isn't measured in how much money a single person can make, but in how it treats it's own people. This country is wealthy, it doesn't do the country good to lock that wealth up in 10 individual bank accounts.

I'm not sure the country is wealthy (if you define the country as being the US government). If certain individuals in the country are wealthy, I suspect the measurement of their success is how they've been treating people. Maybe that's what you meant to say. I mean, apart from the assumption that people who support Medicare and Medicaid do it because they want to treat the people of the country well (and not for, you know, selfish reasons).

Juan_Bottom wrote:

rockfist wrote:I am starting from the view that all government spending is waste. It is not up to me to prove it is, it is up to the government to prove to me that it is not - or I will be voting for those who want to lower taxes and cut spending as should every other American. The government is taking our money to fund its spending. If you want something from me - prove that you deserve it - if you can't or won't the answer is no.

It is immoral to take money from one person and give it to another. It is moral and right for people to freely give money to those in need, when the government compels it - it becomes immoral.

Are you a libertarian?

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the three spending programs that are hot topics at this point in the thread, and there's nothing "immoral" about them. People pay into them their whole lives and they deserve the full benefits of the programs. And I hope that when I reach the age of retirement that most young people feel the way that I do. That old man in the video got arrested for espousing as much. I find his red-hot bravery heartening.

Now you might call Medicaid a wasteful program because it pays for hospital visits for poor children and such, but these kids will be full citizens one day. A country's success isn't measured in how much money a single person can make, but in how it treats it's own people. This country is wealthy, it doesn't do the country good to lock that wealth up in 10 individual bank accounts.

I am a proud libertarian - are you a statist? Those are three programs that never should've been born, but now we need to figure out how to reduce the spending on them before they implode. The current levels of growth are unsustainable. Statists should be more interested in figuring out how to keep the programs alive than anyone else.

rockfist wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

rockfist wrote:I am starting from the view that all government spending is waste. It is not up to me to prove it is, it is up to the government to prove to me that it is not - or I will be voting for those who want to lower taxes and cut spending as should every other American. The government is taking our money to fund its spending. If you want something from me - prove that you deserve it - if you can't or won't the answer is no.

It is immoral to take money from one person and give it to another. It is moral and right for people to freely give money to those in need, when the government compels it - it becomes immoral.

Are you a libertarian?

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the three spending programs that are hot topics at this point in the thread, and there's nothing "immoral" about them. People pay into them their whole lives and they deserve the full benefits of the programs. And I hope that when I reach the age of retirement that most young people feel the way that I do. That old man in the video got arrested for espousing as much. I find his red-hot bravery heartening.

Now you might call Medicaid a wasteful program because it pays for hospital visits for poor children and such, but these kids will be full citizens one day. A country's success isn't measured in how much money a single person can make, but in how it treats it's own people. This country is wealthy, it doesn't do the country good to lock that wealth up in 10 individual bank accounts.

I am a proud libertarian - are you a statist? Those are three programs that never should've been born, but now we need to figure out how to reduce the spending on them before they implode. The current levels of growth are unsustainable. Statists should be more interested in figuring out how to keep the programs alive than anyone else.

Right on, rockfist.

It's interesting how some people fail to be logical consistent when it comes to theft. It's an involuntary exchange made under the threat of force, and so is taxation. Call me crazy, but theft is immoral to me, and since theft is taxation, then taxation is immoral. (same with deficit spending which ultimately relies on taxes and/or depreciating one's own US dollars).

Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

rockfist wrote:I am a proud libertarian - are you a statist? Those are three programs that never should've been born, but now we need to figure out how to reduce the spending on them before they implode. The current levels of growth are unsustainable. Statists should be more interested in figuring out how to keep the programs alive than anyone else.

Wow that is incredibly short-sighted.

Before Social Security, almost half of all Senior Citizens lived below the poverty line. Today it's less than 10%. It's done everything it was designed to do.

I can't even begin to understand how you rationalize that this country doesn't need Medicare or Medicaid.

I'm not sure why you think that these programs are unsustainable. I don't believe that you've ever looked into why Social Security or Medicare was loosing funds or what we need to do to replenish them. At a glance it seems you're opinions are reactionary rather than "let's find the best solution" because you've offered no information except that you're against the poor, elderly, and sick.


Libertarianism as a Philosophy requires ignoring great swaths of history (AMERICAN HISTORY) and the state of world Affairs. Somalia has free markets, and the Wild West also had Libertarian freedom. None of this is a good thing. As a Modern Philosophy, it reminds me of the Communist-Socialist push that came following the great Depression. Except today we have a Libertarian push after the great recession. It all looked great on paper, but thank God smarter men prevailed.



Nice sig. What part of the Constitution do you think that I oppose? The part that says the government has the right to tax you?
I'll make-up my own too, but I'll give you an option. Do you prefer I put your name after "I despise the coloreds" or "The elderly are an unnecessary drain on the productive."

Victor Sullivan wrote:Why should we care that much who the vice presidential candidate is?

Because they're one bullet away from being our President. That was the largest motivating factor for me to be against John McCain.

Aside from that, as Night Strike pointed out, it is the first concrete decision regarding the Presidency that a Presidential candidate makes.

heavycola wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

Krugman is a very smart guy, and someone who I tend to agree with (though not always, certainly)...but yes, he is very skilled in rhetoric, as well. He annoys me.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

rockfist wrote:I am a proud libertarian - are you a statist? Those are three programs that never should've been born, but now we need to figure out how to reduce the spending on them before they implode. The current levels of growth are unsustainable. Statists should be more interested in figuring out how to keep the programs alive than anyone else.

Wow that is incredibly short-sighted.

Before Social Security, almost half of all Senior Citizens lived below the poverty line. Today it's less than 10%. It's done everything it was designed to do.

Note how JB implies that a correlation is the primary cause--and no other factor is relevant or even influential.

To be logical consistent, JB would have to admit that senior citizens who lived below the poverty line would remain there in any place in the world which doesn't have a social security program similar to the US'.

(Note: lack of sources; shifting definition of poverty line; and this is only the first two lines of his post.)

Why is SS unsustainable? That isn't the issue. The issue is unfunded liabilities, and who is going to pay for them (us young'ins) and how much (most likely a lot--especially if most people remain as ignorant selfish statists as JB does. He's well-intended but completely mistaken).


Haha, JB's history "lesson" was hilarious. It's okay rhetoric because he could at least have used a flimsy existence proof or something to bolster his weak assertions.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

rockfist wrote:I am a proud libertarian - are you a statist? Those are three programs that never should've been born, but now we need to figure out how to reduce the spending on them before they implode. The current levels of growth are unsustainable. Statists should be more interested in figuring out how to keep the programs alive than anyone else.

Wow that is incredibly short-sighted.

Before Social Security, almost half of all Senior Citizens lived below the poverty line. Today it's less than 10%. It's done everything it was designed to do.

I can't even begin to understand how you rationalize that this country doesn't need Medicare or Medicaid.

I'm not sure why you think that these programs are unsustainable. I don't believe that you've ever looked into why Social Security or Medicare was loosing funds or what we need to do to replenish them. At a glance it seems you're opinions are reactionary rather than "let's find the best solution" because you've offered no information except that you're against the poor, elderly, and sick.


Libertarianism as a Philosophy requires ignoring great swaths of history (AMERICAN HISTORY) and the state of world Affairs. Somalia has free markets, and the Wild West also had Libertarian freedom. None of this is a good thing. As a Modern Philosophy, it reminds me of the Communist-Socialist push that came following the great Depression. Except today we have a Libertarian push after the great recession. It all looked great on paper, but thank God smarter men prevailed.



Nice sig. What part of the Constitution do you think that I oppose? The part that says the government has the right to tax you?
I'll make-up my own too, but I'll give you an option. Do you prefer I put your name after "I despise the coloreds" or "The elderly are an unnecessary drain on the productive."

First of all the number of people of any specific type living or not living in poverty does not justify taking from others - it does not matter. If you are in poverty does it justify your taking all my stuff so you are no longer in poverty - no, not if you believe in private property.

Second, I imagine you oppose the parts you don't agree with; you actually said that in response to someone a year or so ago maybe it was sarcasm, but then its the internet who knows. I never said those things. So that would be dishonest.

Third, I reject your premise of "replenishing funds" for those programs. Instead we need to limit spending.

thegreekdog wrote:Most statists have a good idea on how to keep those programs going - tax people more. I'm just saying, it's not like statists don't have ideas in mind; it's just that politicians don't like saying "let's raise taxes" because then their chances of reelection dwindle.

Then it would be dishonest and deceptive to not run on that plank. So most statists (presuming they aren't Walter Mondale) are deceptive and dishonest.

Juan_Bottom wrote: or what we need to do to replenish them.

Oh, that's easy! The government can just have the money printed up or created instantly through digital means. Problem solved!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

heavycola wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

A lot of people did, but most who were aware of it murmured about it while continuing to play the game until the very end.

This guy Peter Schiff wrote this book Crash Proof on February 26, 2007, which strongly warned of that upcoming meltdown but also showed strategies for mitigating one's losses and/or for profiting.


Here's a list of Krugman predictions from 1998, assessed by Tyler Cowen: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... tions.html

I can't find much else about Krugman though, as far as predictions are concerned, and with someone reviewing them.


Here's Cowen in 2005 talking about overinvestment in housing:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ved_i.html

Don't forget about Bawny Fwank in 2005

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

heavycola wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Krugman's very skilled in rhetoric.

Isn't he the guy who predicted the subprime meltdown?

A lot of people did, but most who were aware of it murmured about it while continuing to play the game until the very end.

This guy Peter Schiff wrote this book Crash Proof on February 26, 2007, which strongly warned of that upcoming meltdown but also showed strategies for mitigating one's losses and/or for profiting.


Here's a list of Krugman predictions from 1998, assessed by Tyler Cowen: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... tions.html

I can't find much else about Krugman though, as far as predictions are concerned, and with someone reviewing them.


Here's Cowen in 2005 talking about overinvestment in housing:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalr ... ved_i.html

Don't forget about Bawny Fwank in 2005

Hey, and recall how some people in here have been throwing around CBO predictions to support/refute whatever.

I wonder if past CBO reports predicted the 2008 financial crisis, or at least the upcoming housing bubble?

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Hey, and recall how some people in here have been throwing around CBO predictions to support/refute whatever.

I wonder if past CBO reports predicted the 2008 financial crisis, or at least the upcoming housing bubble?

The CBO would have a hard time predicting if the sun will rise tomorrow or not. lmao

beezer wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

beezer wrote:This shocking news just in: CC atheists hate conservatives

Well it's good that you could at least discuss the topic.

There is no "discussing" any topic with the atheists on this site. They are absolutely insane with wealth envy and slavishly devoted to their ideology. Juan's crazy threads are proof of this.

Juan posted a thought provoking thread that he put a lot of work into and you say "This shocking news just in: CC atheists hate conservatives", then you go on to say "There is no "discussing" any topic with the atheists on this site". You never debated, or even contributed, you simply stated you can't debate with "atheists". You sir are an atheist. You have become what you hate Beezer.

You must be the only one in Dallas.


PS: How much oil stock do you own?

PPS: Why do you have Mr Kotter, who was probably as liberal an American as there was in 1976, as your avatar?

Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

Start with the CBO report. Then realize that EVERY government program costs more than the CBO has told us they would at inception.

In other words history tells us that it costs more than anyone estimates.

Neato Missile wrote:Open question to anyone shitting on the CBO report: where should people like me, who are not economic scholars, look to for non-partisan assessment of things like this? I was of the opinion that if the CBO report is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for me; the fact that writeups on both side of the aisle cite it seemed to prove that notion. Is this not the case? If not, where can more "honest" analyses be found?

(1) Learn about Public Choice.

(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.

(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.

(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.

(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?

rockfist wrote:First of all the number of people of any specific type living or not living in poverty does not justify taking from others - it does not matter. If you are in poverty does it justify your taking all my stuff so you are no longer in poverty - no, not if you believe in private property.

Second, I imagine you oppose the parts you don't agree with; you actually said that in response to someone a year or so ago maybe it was sarcasm, but then its the internet who knows. I never said those things. So that would be dishonest.

Third, I reject your premise of "replenishing funds" for those programs. Instead we need to limit spending.

We're not talking about "taking away from others." Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cover everyone because everyone pays into them. Your idea of limiting spending is to cut the three most important domestic programs that this country has, outside of law enforcement, education, and transportation. I wouldn't really count those other three in the same suit as the first three. These programs don't need any limits on spending. Americans pay into them, so they deserve their full benefits.
I mean, look at this, you don't even know why they're in trouble, you just want them gone. These programs directly benefit you, so for some unbelievable reason you're trying to tell me that you're working against yourself. I just cannot believe it.
I reject your irrational rejection. Just by doubling the cap we charge billionaires, Social Security would remain safe for the next 75 years. Bernie Sanders has been railing about this for years.

And to your first point, that's cold, selfish, and wrong. Nelson Mandela said "Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed through the actions of human beings." You're being the problem with your reckless support for apartheid for the poor, that you created. Marie Antoinette didn't care about the problem either, and things didn't work out so well for her. You put all the Gold into the hands of the few and the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich.
Nobody is taking your shit, wtf is up with that? Nobody is talking about taking your shit. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution explains why the Federal government has the power of taxation for the general welfare. So you pay, what, like $400 a year to keep Medicaid funded? It's the only one of the three programs that you may never use. But like insurance, it will be there if you need it. And if you don't like Social Security, you can always opt-out.
My point being that crying about being robbed by your government when you pay your few hundred dollars into the safety net is so stupid. It's your safety net too. I could go on and on about why people are poor in this country, around the world, and on reservations, but I know you don't care. Libertarianism is the politic of selfishness.


&
You're gonna need to actually quote what I said if you're gonna lob an accusation like that. I remember you saying that you hate coloreds but I haven't added it to my sig yet.

That is a lie. I never said that. Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

The rest of your post makes sense - if you ignore the math of the programs. Young people today will pay in far more than they will ever take out of those programs. Old people today extract far more from entitlements than they ever paid in. Compelling people to pay more into a program than they will get out is morally wrong.