America's Coming Collapse - Arguing With Idiots - LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community
 
LotusTalk.com is the premier Lotus Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2012, 09:59 AM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
manshoon11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 569
America's Coming Collapse - Arguing With Idiots

Idiot: "It was deregulation and wall street greed that caused the recent financial crisis. Obama inherited this"

Response: Not so fast. Actually George W. Bush added far more regulations to the CFR than Obama did. What we had an "easy money" policy. It simply costed way too little to borrow, and thus there was a surge in demand that drove housing prices up. It doesn't end there! If you owned a home, your equity likely doubled or even more. You were then able to borrow against your equity! High risk loans were bundled up and sold on the market.

It was government orchestrated, and you damn sure can't say that Obama inherited it. Start watching at 4:30 at minimum
Involvement of Obama in financial crisis and housing bubble (Acorn, Fannie Mea and Freddie Mac) - YouTube

A healthy economy would be one that is built off of interest rates that are driven by the market. In essence, interest rates would be much higher. Right now it is costing you money to put your money in the bank, as inflation outperforms the measly interest you receive.

Idiot: "Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary."

Response: Sorry idiot, that is just not true. You are comparing "effective" tax rates versus raw tax rates. Yes, this is actually their fallacious tactic, just look:
The Buffett Rule | The White House
At the right you can put in your tax rate, and it will say how many millionaires paid a lower EFFECTIVE tax rate, and conveniently it doesnt ask for YOUR effective tax rate and conveniently 0% isnt an option. The bottom 47% of earners in America have an effective tax rate of 0% or negative %.

It is purely a PR ploy that Obama signed into law. If they actually wanted to alter tax rates, they could have removed deductions and closed loopholes, they didn't!

Idiot: "We need even more regulation then, that way crisis like these won't happen again."

Response: Well you've gotten more regulation, and the Government has EXPANDED it's easy money policy. Guess what that means?

Idiot: "We can grow our way out of this and avoid any collapse."

Response: I know democrats and republicans like to say that, but it is not true. It costs more for government to create a job than for the private sector to create a job. To decrease government spending will hurt the economy short term, but will be a benefit long term. Thus, it will take a period of restructuring before any growth occurs. Restructuring will be painful, and as it is unavoidable, republicans are lying to us as well.


Idiot: "We just need more stimulus."

Response:The fallacy is that stimulus' results are quantifiable largely, whereas lowering taxes is not. Conditions may exist for jobs growth to be negative, despite lowering taxes. HOWEVER, had you not lowered taxes, the job growth would have been further negative.

If you are able to take home more of your income, you are able to save more, spend more, or grow/start a business. If the government had kept that money via taxing, it would have used it inefficiently:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf

Idiot: "The consensus is in, Global Warming is man made."

Response: Consensus? Actually "consensus" is a word scientists don't like to use. That word is used as a deterrent. To have this conversation, you must show what the earth would have done naturally and compare it to the effect of us here. Thus, any heating and any cooling can not be entirely blamed on humans. The earth's temperature has swung dramatically with and without us here, but just in the last 100 years everything that happens is blamed on humans.

In short, the ability to answer the question of man made global warming is still impossible. The science is in its infancy and the IPCC has changed its predictions every single time they convene. Arctic sea ice has shrunk...... conversely antarctic sea ice is growing. The amount of warming attributable to human activity is and will be unknown for some time.

Idiot: "We can tax our way out of this."

Response: No we can't. If you double taxes, the tax revenue won't double. You will have contracted the economy, and put it into a slow or negative growth pattern. Cutting taxes in half does not cut tax revenue in half either. Low taxes are an investment, and eventually gross revenue from taxes will exceed the higher tax scenario. Our financial situation is simply too dire for an easy fix.

(doesnt even account for the unfunded liabilities!)


Idiot: "Capitalism doesn't work, corporations run the government."

Response: You are confusing cronyism with capitalism. Your demands have only created more cronyism!


-More to come-
manshoon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-10-2012, 10:05 AM   #2 (permalink)
Registered User
 
MTLDean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MTL
Posts: 1,082
About Global warming, if we set aside the mass media attention on the subject, many of us remember greenhouse gas theory and global warming being taught to us in grade school. Back then (early 80's) it was a CFC issue.

A point of confusion is all this Oceanic Administration data on temperature points that seem to vary around this constant mean every year. The data presented and the interpretations rarely can be reconciled.

Does anyone know where the correct data comes from and what it means? I too, don't agree with people who just say "consensus" and I sure as hell won't accept the blanket-opinion of someone who is not directly in the field or has some freakish understanding of the scientific method and data in general. I'm not for or against, I'm just scientifically curious. Lately it seems the issue has died down and a huge group of people with some media-savvy are changing the party line from global warming to "climate change" because the data on warming is all over the map.
MTLDean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:27 PM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Hello Kitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,837
Images: 88
Why call people idiots, when YOU dont have any more, or any better information than they do. Your information is nothing more than your viewpoint. You said yourself that you cant trust a scientist, therefore ANY information you have is highly suspect. Dont pretend that you have the real facts, and everyone else is mistaken. Maybe the idiot is the guy calling everyone an idiot.
Hello Kitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:32 PM   #4 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 392

The above addresses calling people who disagree with you idiots. Might want to give it a watch, and then ask yourself "What if I'm wrong?"
Deja Vu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 01:46 PM   #5 (permalink)
Registered User
 
MTLDean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MTL
Posts: 1,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello Kitty View Post
Why call people idiots, when YOU dont have any more, or any better information than they do. Your information is nothing more than your viewpoint. You said yourself that you cant trust a scientist, therefore ANY information you have is highly suspect. Dont pretend that you have the real facts, and everyone else is mistaken. Maybe the idiot is the guy calling everyone an idiot.
Me? Did I say something wrong?
MTLDean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:06 PM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
RENDERMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Le Banane Republique (305)
Posts: 5,124
Images: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello Kitty View Post
Why call people idiots, when YOU dont have any more, or any better information than they do. Your information is nothing more than your viewpoint. You said yourself that you cant trust a scientist, therefore ANY information you have is highly suspect. Dont pretend that you have the real facts, and everyone else is mistaken. Maybe the idiot is the guy calling everyone an idiot.
I've never been able to understand that myself, if they disagree you're the imbecile, idiot, moron, stupid and they're the geniuses.... Ok I admit it, I'm also guilty, Romney spent $25K in fireworks to celebrate his win, he's fargen idiot!!
__________________
"MY PARENTS SAID I COULD BE ANYTHING SO I BECAME AN A$$HOLE"

Adobe Photoshop CS6 and Autodesk Maya 2014 Certified Instructor
WILL.I.AM
RENDERMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:33 PM   #7 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Podunks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 1,285
An idiot is someone who is shown the facts, and refuses to believe what is right in front of their faces...

My own definition.

Websters Definition:

usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2
: a foolish or stupid person



So if someone is foolish, which would be the case with whom Manshoon is referring, they are an idiot by definition.

Btw A+ Manshoon. Loved it!
__________________
Will your accomplishments be worth remembering once you have passed? 11B

The greatest gift ever given, was our Salvation, the release from the bonds of addictions, and sins. To rise above the petty things that hold us down.
Podunks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:53 PM   #8 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Westrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by manshoon11 View Post

Idiot: "Capitalism doesn't work, corporations run the government."

Response: You are confusing cronyism with capitalism.
There is also Oligarchy

Quote:
Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next
and Plutocracy

Quote:
Plutocracy, also known as plutonomy or plutarchy, is rule by the wealthy. Its first known use was in 1652. Unlike systems such as democracy or anarchism, plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy and has no formal advocates. The concept of plutocracy may be advocated by the wealthy classes of a society in an indirect or surreptitious fashion, though the term itself is almost always used in a pejorative sense.
Either way, the problem is that the regulation by the government and the corporations (in this case LARGE companies) is not independent from each other. Lobbying is biggest problem. If industry and regulation were completely segregated then it would be *more* successfull.
Westrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 02:59 PM   #9 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Grunschev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 136
Bringing facts to a political discussion is pointless. Most people tend to decide before collecting facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by manshoon11 View Post
Idiot: "The consensus is in, Global Warming is man made."

Response: Consensus? Actually "consensus" is a word scientists don't like to use. That word is used as a deterrent. To have this conversation, you must show what the earth would have done naturally and compare it to the effect of us here. Thus, any heating and any cooling can not be entirely blamed on humans. The earth's temperature has swung dramatically with and without us here, but just in the last 100 years everything that happens is blamed on humans.

In short, the ability to answer the question of man made global warming is still impossible. The science is in its infancy and the IPCC has changed its predictions every single time they convene. Arctic sea ice has shrunk...... conversely antarctic sea ice is growing. The amount of warming attributable to human activity is and will be unknown for some time.
I find most conservatives today unreasonable. Climate change is a perfect example. We start with two simple, undeniable facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. We pump trillions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere.

How anybody can use reason to accept these facts but dispute the obvious conclusion amazes me. Once they have come to the conclusion that man is not affecting the climate, they'll place significance on any scrap of data that supports their conclusion, in spite of the obvious reality. See the nonsense about the antarctic sea ice mentioned above. (The thing to do here is simply add the amounts of ice together and notice that the sum is decreasing, and decreasing faster over time.)

I find the climate change "debate" interesting for other reasons. These folks will often take the stance that drilling for oil here in the US can make us no longer dependent on imported oil. These folks are not only unreasonable but innumerate as well.

What I don't hear any talk of, regarding energy independence, is the strategic aspect of it. We won World War II primarily due to two things which don't get much attention. First, we were the world's largest oil producer. Second, our domestic construction program from mid 1941 to mid 1944 was history's biggest and best example of Keynesianism. The two combined not only to win the war but to set the table for US economic dominance through the mid-70's.

One small example here is airfields. In April of 1941 we had 31 airfields in the US suitable for large transport aircraft (i.e. with 3500' runways). By the end of 1945 we had 1,315 of them. Think about that for a minute. What would the domestic airline industry have looked like in the 50's and 60's without those airports? Hell, what would the airline industry look like today without those airports?

In addition, our domestic construction program during the war was responsible for a huge increase in oil refineries, pipelines, and roads. These are only a few aspects of this enormous Keynesian stimulus that transformed our economy and helped us lead the world for decades.

Today, we are still the world's greatest consumer of oil but no longer the world's largest producer. We are dependent on other countries. This is the situation both Germany and Japan found themselves in in 1939 - they needed oil they couldn't produce. They were strategically insecure and this fact was fundamental to their military defeat.

Play a little mental game. What would happen if we found ourselves unable to import oil? Our aircraft carriers can drive around the oceans all they want without oil, but the planes need oil to fly sorties. So if the military was to take all the oil they need, domestic consumption would be reduced to what's left. Think about that.

I suggest that the USA needs to launch a great stimulus program to free us not only from imported oil, but free us from oil to the greatest extent possible. A nice side effect will be the reduction of climate change effects, but the primary effect will be strategic. Such a program could put the US back in a position of primacy like we had in 50 years ago.

You conservatives can preach salvation through increased domestic oil production, but sooner or later you'll realize it's misguided. There simply isn't enough domestic oil to support our still growing appetite for the stuff. Continuing the status quo is destined to end badly for the US.

America's coming collapse isn't due to people believing that burning trillions of tons of oil causes climate change. America's coming collapse won't be caused by people who believe the government can stimulate growth. The coming collapse will be brought on by people refusing to understand science and history. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (science), and we've put trillions of tons of the stuff in the atmosphere (history). The largest Keynesian stimulus program ever was the domestic US construction program in WWII (history) which fundamentally transformed our economy.

Did you know that every Republican president since 1928 save one has left office with higher unemployment than when he got in? Did you know that no Democratic president in the same time has left office with higher unemployment than when he was elected? You Republicans can chalk that up to coincidence or bad luck, but I think there's enough history there to call it a pattern. A pattern, no doubt, caused by Republican economic philosophy. (That one Republican president was Reagan, BTW. Anybody here think Romney would have been a better president than Reagan? Anybody?)

Did you know that since 1960, Republican presidents have grown the national debt at twice the rate of Democrats? And that the worst democrat grew debt at the average rate of Republican presidents? Again, you Republicans can blame it on bad luck or coincidence, but there's just too big a pattern there for that. It's gotta be on purpose.

How about GDP growth? Did you know Democrats grow the economy nearly 50% more, on average, than Republicans? As of 2010, Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%. Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%. Again, it's a pretty poor argument to claim it's not a result of philosophy.

All you Republicans need to take a look at history, maybe hone some mathematical skills. Take a good look at your economic policies. And you conservative businessmen - if you hired from two pools of candidates and one pool kept under performing the other year after year after year, would you rethink your hiring policies? Why won't you make the same analysis of the folks you want the public to hire as president?

If you're a Republican and place value on science, ask yourself why only 8% of American scientists are registered Republican. Just coincidence and bad luck? Or the purposeful result of Republican policies? When your candidates don't believe evolution doesn't that tell you something about your party?

"Arguing with idiots" is very funny. Particularly when they self-identify.

I won't say that the victory of Obama over Romney will prevent "Americas coming collapse" but I do believe it changed the trajectory. We won't collapse as quickly as had Romney been elected.
Grunschev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 03:01 PM   #10 (permalink)
Back to the Future, again
 
Notorious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: LaLaLand
Posts: 5,809
Don't even bother bringing up facts against the progressive left. They want big government and they don't care how they get there. Freedom and choice is abhorrent to their very core. Central command and control is everything to them.

However, the most important part of their tenet is that they also do not subject themselves to what they want for you. Look how fast every union and federal government worker exempted themselves from Obamacare. If it's so great, why ask to be exempt? They should be the ones signing up right away since they pushed so hard for it.

Same for all the other regulations they want to hoist upon you. Drive little econoboxes for greener earth... while they fly in private jets and drive big SUV's because they are important and have business to attend to. You plebians just do what we say.

Oh, as for Wall Street... ask the former Chairman of the Banking/Finance Committee, Barney Frank (D), who actually pushed for all the stuff which ultimately brought about the collapse?
__________________
My 2009 Elise for sale: MoMo SloMo MoFo Joyrides upon request w/lots o' cash money http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f94/...-995-a-116554/
Notorious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:14 PM   #11 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Woodlands Tx
Posts: 2,206
The best way to argue with idiots is to ignore them. I am most skeptical of people who know without a doubt they are right.

Later guys.
__________________
Seriously, my car is small
07 Exige-S, "Landshark"
05 Saffron Yellow "bumbleBee", on to a new owner
Also:
84 930 turbo, 06 WRX Wagon
aschen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:21 PM   #12 (permalink)
Registered User
 
manshoon11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 569
Idiot: "Arguing with idiots" is very funny. Particularly when they self-identify."

Response Yes they sure do.


Idiot: I won't say that the victory of Obama over Romney will prevent "Americas coming collapse" but I do believe it changed the trajectory. We won't collapse as quickly as had Romney been elected.

Response Thank you for proving my point for me. The cost of addressing the dire financial position of the US has increased YoY. Every delay costs 4.5 trillion more than the previous year to rectify(recent figures). The correct thing to do is immediately address it. Instead we have had children elected (R & D's) that only kick the can down the road. So how again is it a good thing for Obama to "delay" the coming collapse?

You can do two things to pay off your debts.
1. dilute
2. go bankrupt

Both options are similar in one sense and both have very different peripheral effects. Through dilution, you pay your creditors with devalued money. The purchasing power they receive is significantly less than they lent you. Through bankruptcy, you again give them less purchasing power than they gave you, however your currency remains intact.

Idiot: "I find most conservatives today unreasonable. Climate change is a perfect example. We start with two simple, undeniable facts:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. We pump trillions of tons of the stuff into the atmosphere."

Response Had you read and understood my previous statement, you would not have made this one. My statement addresses the quantifying our effect, not qualifying it. You, just like your idiot counterparts have attempted to over-simplify a very in-depth subject.

blank: "I suggest that the USA needs to launch a great stimulus program to free us not only from imported oil, but free us from oil to the greatest extent possible. A nice side effect will be the reduction of climate change effects, but the primary effect will be strategic. Such a program could put the US back in a position of primacy like we had in 50 years ago."

Response: A bit misguided, but basically.......... With what money.


Idiot: "America's coming collapse isn't due to people believing that burning trillions of tons of oil causes climate change. America's coming collapse won't be caused by people who believe the government can stimulate growth. The largest Keynesian stimulus program ever was the domestic US construction program in WWII (history) which fundamentally transformed our economy."

Response: Keynesians love this "stimulus" Because it is quantifiable. They can spend 1 trillion tomorrow and instantly see x number of new jobs as a result. So...... we have had over 10 years of war, and our economy crashed nevertheless. Our financial position is worsening. If you don't call the past 10 years "keynesian" then I don't want to even imagine what you would.



Idiot: "Did you know that every Republican president since 1928 save one has left office with higher unemployment than when he got in? Did you know that no Democratic president in the same time has left office with higher unemployment than when he was elected? You Republicans can chalk that up to coincidence or bad luck, but I think there's enough history there to call it a pattern. A pattern, no doubt, caused by Republican economic philosophy. (That one Republican president was Reagan, BTW. Anybody here think Romney would have been a better president than Reagan? Anybody?)"

Response: I'm not a republican, I thought that was obvious. But again, you are trying to over-simplify a very in-depth subject. For instance: A president that did the right thing right now would immediately bring on financial crisis. Immediately declare bankruptcy(we are by definition insolvent and have been for decades) Unemployment would skyrocket. The collapse would be blamed on this one individual, and not the past umpteen presidents. Some of the worst presidents have been republican, and some democrats. We have built prosperity on borrowed money. This is hardly true prosperity. Since inception, the US has spent the social security surplus, all the while promising future generations they would still receive benefits. This is what "mortgaging our future" is all about. We have sacrificed our future for the present, while still expecting the future to remain unchanged.

blank: "Did you know that since 1960, Republican presidents have grown the national debt at twice the rate of Democrats? And that the worst democrat grew debt at the average rate of Republican presidents? Again, you Republicans can blame it on bad luck or coincidence, but there's just too big a pattern there for that. It's gotta be on purpose. "

Response:Are you expecting me to defend policies and actions that I disagree with, just because you mistakenly believe me to be a Republican?


Idiot: "How about GDP growth? Did you know Democrats grow the economy nearly 50% more, on average, than Republicans? As of 2010, Democrats have occupied the White House in 26 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth in the country over those 26 years has been 4.01%. Republicans have occupied the White House in 36 of the 62 years since 1948. Average GDP growth over those 36 years has been 2.75%. Again, it's a pretty poor argument to claim it's not a result of philosophy."

Response Obama can go out right now and spend 10 trillion. This will no doubt cause explosive growth..... now why exactly hasn't he done this? If the answer all along is to simply spend massive amounts of money, then........

What we are really looking for is the creation of wealth, not the destruction of wealth. The above 10 T spending would destroy far more wealth than it created. It would however look good short term. Any spending that takes place needs to create wealth to make it sustainable.

blank: "All you Republicans need to take a look at history, maybe hone some mathematical skills. Take a good look at your economic policies. And you conservative businessmen - if you hired from two pools of candidates and one pool kept under performing the other year after year after year, would you rethink your hiring policies? Why won't you make the same analysis of the folks you want the public to hire as president?"

Response: I did say the crash was unavoidable....... you did see that right? Obama is guaranteed to be a bad idea if the crash occurs on his watch. There was a hope that Obomney wouldn't destroy our currency when the collapse took place if elected. It is obviously an opinion that Obama would inflate(print), but I think there is a pretty fair amount of precedence to prove I am correct.


Idiot: "If you're a Republican and place value on science, ask yourself why only 8% of American scientists are registered Republican. Just coincidence and bad luck? Or the purposeful result of Republican policies? When your candidates don't believe evolution doesn't that tell you something about your party?"

Ahh, the joy of over-simplifying complex subjects...... mmmmm

Response: I value common sense. Look at what is told to you, then look at a contradicting point of view. I spent a great deal of time studying global warming for instance. There is actually a consensus. A consensus exists that there is no consensus.

I don't listen to someone who says that ALL warming is attributable to humans, nor do I listen when someone says there is ZERO warming attributable to humans.

This is consensus?
Google Image Result for http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/IPCC%2520Verification%252090-95-01-07%2520vs%2520Obs.png

Last edited by manshoon11; 11-10-2012 at 04:33 PM.
manshoon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:27 PM   #13 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Westrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 2,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunschev View Post
Did you know that since 1960, Republican presidents have grown the national debt at twice the rate of Democrats? And that the worst democrat grew debt at the average rate of Republican presidents? Again, you Republicans can blame it on bad luck or coincidence, but there's just too big a pattern there for that. It's gotta be on purpose.
Visual reference:



Of note is that the debt did indeed grow while Clinton was in office, despite his claims of a "surplus". He did not have a surplus, he simply spent social security of the dot.com bubble (just something to note).
Westrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:31 PM   #14 (permalink)
Registered User
 
anthonyseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 370
Images: 4
anthonyseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:42 PM   #15 (permalink)
Registered User
 
manshoon11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 569
Google Image Result for http://dollarcollapse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Unfunded-liabilities-to-US-debt2.jpg
manshoon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:44 PM   #16 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 188
Truce?

The reason for the coming collapse of America is not because of the any issues you talk about - it's because the majority of Americans couldn't even have a semi-informed discussion about these things

A country's core is its people. If the masses are uneducated and lazy, who cares who was elected? Politicians cannot fix the problems caused by this, no matter what they say. Should we think China is catching up to us because they have elected the correct people into office - it's because the people are hungry and willing to do anything and everything to succeed, despite their crappy gov't

Instead of fighting about Republican/Democrat/whatever - we seriously need to figure out a way to make our population more intelligent and able to compete in the global economy - everything else can follow.
LateApexer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 04:55 PM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunschev View Post
I won't say that the victory of Obama over Romney will prevent "Americas coming collapse" but I do believe it changed the trajectory. We won't collapse as quickly as had Romney been elected.
Let us not take the word "collapse" too literally. I doubt anyone here really believes that the country would collapse if their chosen candidate did not win on Tuesday. The biggest issue this past election was the economy, it wasn't social, it wasn't religious, it was economic. So let's just focus on the economics of things. GDP growth is about 70% consumer spending in this country, with private investment making up another 15% or so percent. The remaining 15% left is everything else, including government and public sector spending. If given a choice, with a mandate of growing the economy, which switch would you flip first? Easy answer. It is no secret that the "average american" (for what it is worth, I deplore that term) is struggling. Whether that was brought on by previous administrations or poor individual financial planning is irrelevant. The only important part is that people are going to both Wal-Mart and the Lotus dealership less. So let me ask you this. What would it take for you to go out and buy a new car or even a new 70" flat screen? Probably a raise or at least the confidence that next year you'll earn more. That is really the heart of the issue. People aren't confident in their jobs and are looking to the government for support, assistance and guidance. I happen to think that is misguided but the popular and overwhelming electoral vote certainly speaks to the contrary. However, the last time I checked, my paycheck wasn't signed by President Obama and I'm sure neither is yours. It's tough out there either way you slice the cake but let's not lose sight of the fact that the companies that pay us have to make sacrifices and decisions that involve us directly around what the government forces upon them indirectly.

Bigger government may sound good on paper, just look at all those positives. And getting those 1%-ers who earned "too much" sounds like a good idea as well, but in standing your ground as a 99%-er for life, aren't you really fighting against what makes this country great? Because the reality is that if you want to become a 1%-er, you can. It's hard but not impossible...as it should be. However, the removal of that option forever leaves us all in the 99%-er camp looking at each other trying to figure out out who it is this time that we should blame. Next thing you know we're all pointing at each other.
CircuitTested is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 05:10 PM   #18 (permalink)
Registered User
 
sootyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Carlisle area Pennsylvania
Posts: 181
Actually the coming collapse is nothing new. All great empires through out history reach a pinacle and plateau. At that point the society decays, gets bored, weakens, and falls. This was especially true with the roman empire (an empire taht lasted over 800 years). Read history and it is the same pattern over and over again. When Rome was beginning it was filled with fierce, strong, hardened men and citizens who were busy building something great. At the end of it, it was filled with fat, weak, lazy, soft, bored, spoiled citizens, who were delving into extremes such as homosexuality, and all sorts of wild entertainment because they became bored. Society rotted, and became a shell of its former greatness. It became ripe for the pickens, and collapsed.

When your building, people are busy, they are hungry for better things, they have a vision. When you reach your pinacle, the people get bored, weak, fat, and lazy, and invent extreme things for entertainment (colliseum) because they have done everything.

This is history over and over again. Americas problem is it has reached its pinnacle, and there are hungrier nations than ours. Society has rotted, and became narcisstic.
__________________
Not how many mistakes you make, but how many you correct.
sootyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:31 PM   #19 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Hello Kitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,837
Images: 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTLDean View Post
Me? Did I say something wrong?
No, i was talking to manshroom
Hello Kitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 06:43 PM   #20 (permalink)
Registered User
 
manshoon11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by LateApexer View Post
The reason for the coming collapse of America is not because of the any issues you talk about - it's because the majority of Americans couldn't even have a semi-informed discussion about these things

A country's core is its people. If the masses are uneducated and lazy, who cares who was elected? Politicians cannot fix the problems caused by this, no matter what they say. Should we think China is catching up to us because they have elected the correct people into office - it's because the people are hungry and willing to do anything and everything to succeed, despite their crappy gov't

Instead of fighting about Republican/Democrat/whatever - we seriously need to figure out a way to make our population more intelligent and able to compete in the global economy - everything else can follow.
The population is screwed because the population refuses to think for themselves. We live in an era dominated by soundbites.

Per an above discussion on global warming...... I BELIEVED IN anthropogenic global warming until I did my own research. I took Al Gore(and other's) word for it, and I was sadly mistaken...... I was an idiot.
manshoon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  LotusTalk - The Lotus Cars Community > Community > Other



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.