Would you vote for Jon Stewart?

[Xiona]

im just saying what you see as common sense isnt the case to others. if you grew up your whole life never being around anything hot, then when you were 18 you saw a pot on the stove and burned yourself by grabbing it are you stupid?

sure you can read a book on how to make food, but chances are people who have no clue how to prepare the simplist of dishes see it as a hurdle. while cooking is a pain in the ass, its even more so esculated by the fact you need to bury your face in a book just to know how to properly peel a carrot (or even know you had to peel it).

if you only had the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader sure you could go out and buy a book and go through the painstaking process of learning to read better on your own... or you can get a book on tape or ask someone else how it ended or even see the movie (sometimes).

yes some responsibility falls on the person in question, but you cant totally blame them or even call them stupid, thats just ignorant. thats like a surgeon asking you how to remove a kidney, you going i dunno i never studied that then him going "lol your fucking stupid"

[Eternus]

Well maybe since I am someone who can build a fire without matches in the wilderness and kill and cook my own dinner I think people who can't simply read simple directions on how to operate a stove and prepare food are idiots. The only thing preventing me from gathering vegetation in the wild is full knowledge of some areas folliage to the point of avoiding eating leaves of plants that will make you sick. Jesus 2nd grade reading level is their own damn fault for not going back to public school or attempting to learn to read afterwards. They can blame their parents all they want too, but that is just a copout.

[Xiona]

lol youre missing my point, if the environment you grow up in as well as parental guidance isnt sufficient or current to everyday surroundings youre at a serious disadvantage.

i know there are routes to learn how to read, but if your parents or environment didnt allow you to progress that far later on in life youll be stuck with choosing the long difficult path or an easy shortcut. most people will take the cheap and easy alternative due to other pressing issues in their life.

example Joe Schmoe was an immigrant from africa and in his village they only offered men up to 2nd grade reading level at which point he had to go out into the family business of herding cattle. Joe somehow find a way to immigrate to another country but now hes faced with working and survival ina different environment. with all the other factors to think about do you think hes going to ontop of everything else he has to adjust to and learn pick up a book when theres an easier alternative?

i know this is an extreme case but its basically the same concept. if your parents never teach you that making your dinner is more healthy and how to do so, then you cannot be fully at fault for later in life. your early years are what imprints the generality of things you do. so if you were never taught how to prepare simple meals or that it was better, then when youre out in the real world youll take the easy route because in a sense you dont really know any better.

this is one of the reasons kids have a hard time with handling money when they leave mom and dads. because somewhere the issue of finance has become taboo in the family environment. so youre in a sense almost sheltered from the everydays workings. then when you head out on your own you have no idea how to do anything and most times acrue large amounts of debt. im not saying that its not your fault but i know i had no idea how to do things and only learned because i was forced to.

food is a different issue, you dont have to know how to cook because there is a dollar menu readily available for your easy fix. remove the ease or extreme low cost and you are now forced to adapt.

[Xiona]

currently i live in poughkeepsie NY and there are in a 20min driving radius; 6 mcdonalds, 3 wendys, 2 kfc/taco bell, 1 arby's, and 1 burger king (not including the mall), there are only 3 grocery stores.

[Eternus]

One grocery store is enough and anyone with any motivation can go to the local library and learn how to read and find suitable reading material that is relatively easy to read. That will teach them adequately how to cook and fend for themselves. Hell they can find books that will teach them how to survive in the wilderness if they were so inclined to search them out.

[Brien]

currently i live in poughkeepsie NY and there are in a 20min driving radius; 6 mcdonalds, 3 wendys, 2 kfc/taco bell, 1 arby's, and 1 burger king (not including the mall), there are only 3 grocery stores.

bk broth ah

[Eternus]

guarantee that while some people may not have much room or food to eat, they've got cable and the food network.

just trust me on this one.

I wouldn't be surprised, just proves how worthless most people are. Of course we have laws in place and morals that keep true "survival of the fittest" type conditions from occuring. The type of person who has the money for a TV and cable TV subscription, should by all means be able to make their own food. It is cheaper and much better for you to make your own damn food. Of course these same people would want the government in some way to help them do this, that is why we have public libraries. I was mainly referring to the poor who have nothing in their apartment and can barely pay their electric and water bills, but freely spend their money on fast food. Even these people would like to think they have valid excuses once they are adults.

[Plow]

Uhh yeah I'm like 6 pages and 2 days late but anyway.

Yeah I'm not saying voting libertarian or green party if you really support it and think that's where your vote should go is a throwaway.

But...

so I voted libertarian for the hell of it

I kinda think that is...


Also, as much as it sucks that there really are only 2 choices for who is actually going to be the president for the next 4 years, it is something you need to take into account.

While you may not like either one in general, if you learn enough about them both you'll most likely come to a decision on which you would actually prefer.

[Plow]

"While you may not like either one in general, if you learn enough about them both you'll most likely come to a decision on which you would actually prefer."

That's kind of like saying "do you want to be fucked in the ass or get a facial from the inside out" by "prefer"

Uhh... no. It's more like saying "there are ENORMOUS differences between the two, and a rational person should be able to make a decision."

If you really believe voting can be legitimately compared to anal rape, perhaps you should do something about it?

[Xiona]

voting in america is like choosing between getting shot in the head or jumping off a sky scraper, they both are shitty options. sure each party is different but no matter whos in office nothing really changes.

[Plow]

voting in america is like choosing between getting shot in the head or jumping off a sky scraper, they both are shitty options. sure each party is different but no matter whos in office nothing really changes.

Nothing really changes?

You really think anyone other than Bush would have decided that he was just going to come out and give Hussein 4 days to gtfo or else?

You really honestly believe that while we went through declining economic times throughout the Reagen and first Bush administrations, and then experienced the biggest economic growth ever under Clinton, and then yet again fell into decline under the next Bush, the president had nothing to do with this?

[Krylanna]

Nothing really changes?

You really think anyone other than Bush would have decided that he was just going to come out and give Hussein 4 days to gtfo or else?

No.

You really honestly believe that while we went through declining economic times throughout the Reagen and first Bush administrations, and then experienced the biggest economic growth ever under Clinton, and then yet again fell into decline under the next Bush, the president had nothing to do with this?

The president is certainly not the sole contributor to economic downfall or windfall. The Federal Reserve, tax rates, businesses, the stock market, and foreign trade all have something to do with how our economy is faring. The president is only directly responsible for one of those, and IIRC has to get congress to approve it anyway. You can't let Clinton take credit for the success of the computer and the internet any more than you can say that the economic boom during his presidency was the result of Reagan's trickle-down economics finally working.

[Krylanna]

Reagan's trickle down economics never "worked"

Which is exactly why I used it to compare with Clinton. Both claims are ridiculous. I heard a lot of people claiming credit for Reagan where the success was during Clinton's term, mostly from relatives and high school teachers, though notably no social studies or government teachers tried to tell me that.

He shouldn't have been impeached though. The godly, moral conservatives are way too obsessed with sex. Most, if not all presidents have those kind of extramarital relationships (God help us if we get a bachelor in the Oval Office! Bad chick flick ftw) and it's not really right or proper but it doesn't have anything to do with how strong of a leader or intelligent a decision-maker the president is. Lots of people are extremely smart and charismatic but have little common sense in their personal lives, especially when forced into a position where the best course of action is to lie. And yes, I believe telling the truth would have been worse for him politically and personally. His wife would have had to leave him for the sake of public opinion, for one thing. Unmarried men and women have little to no political credibility for whatever reason, so she'd likely not be a senator now were she a divorcée.

[Plow]

Reagan's trickle down economics never "worked"

Which is exactly why I used it to compare with Clinton. Both claims are ridiculous.

The claim for Clinton having a dramatic positive effect on our economy is not ridiculous in the least.

The claim for "trickle-down economics," used by both Reagan and the current Bush is proven not to work.


lalala wall-o-text warning, this was written in 1999.
link: http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishm ... rs-03.html

biiiigasss wall-o-text for the lazy:

The Clinton Presidency:
Historic Economic Growth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton’s economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history.

President Clinton’s Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history. Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

Establishing Fiscal Discipline and Paying off the National Debt

President Clinton’s Record on Fiscal Discipline: Between 1981 and 1992, the national debt held by the public quadrupled. The annual budget deficit grew to $290 billion in 1992, the largest ever, and was projected to grow to more than $455 billion by Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. As a result of the tough and sometimes unpopular choices made by President Clinton, and major deficit reduction legislation passed in 1993 and 1997, we have seen eight consecutive years of fiscal improvement for the first time in America’s history.

Largest Surplus Ever: The surplus in FY 2000 is $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever: Between 1998-2000, the publicly held debt was reduced by $363 billion—the largest three-year pay-down in American history. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled. Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
Lower Federal Government Spending: After increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy has been cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000—the lowest level since 1966.
Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt: In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $348 billion in FY 2000. In 2000, interest payments on the debt were $125 billion lower than projected.
Americans Benefit from Reduced Debt: Because of fiscal discipline and deficit and debt reduction, it is estimated that a family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in mortgage payments, like a large tax cut.
Double Digit Growth in Private Investment in Equipment and Software: Lower debt will help maintain strong economic growth and fuel private investments. With government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, private investment in equipment and software averaged 13.3 percent annual growth since 1993, compared to 4.7 percent during 1981 to 1992.

To Establish Fiscal Discipline, President Clinton:

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.
Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. In his 1997 State of the Union address, President Clinton announced his plan to balance the budget for the first time in 27 years. Later that year, he signed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a major bipartisan agreement to eliminate the national budget deficit, create the conditions for economic growth, and invest in the education and health of our people. It provided middle-class tax relief with a $500 per child tax credit and the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits for college. It also created the Children’s Health Insurance Program to serve up to 5 million children and made landmark investments in education initiatives including educational technology, charter schools, Head Start, and Pell Grants. Finally, it added 20 more Empowerment Zones and 20 more rural Enterprise Communities, included the President’s plan to revitalize the District of Columbia, and continued welfare reform though $3 billion in new resources to move welfare recipients to private-sector jobs.
Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt. In his 1998 and 1999 State of the Union addresses, President Clinton called on the nation to save the surplus until the solvency of Social Security is assured. He also repeatedly vetoed large Republican tax cut bills that would have jeopardized our nation’s fiscal discipline. The President’s actions led to a bipartisan consensus on saving the surplus and paying down the debt.
Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025. When President Clinton took office, Medicare was expected to become insolvent in 1999, then only six years away. The 1993 deficit reduction act dedicated some of the taxes paid by Social Security beneficiaries to the Medicare Trust Fund and extended the life of Medicare by three years to 2002. Thanks to additional provisions to combat waste, fraud and abuse and bipartisan cooperation in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, Medicare is now expected to remain solvent until 2025.

Important stuff bolded by me.

[Plow]

and another lovely wall showing why trickle-down doesn't work (even though you know this)

link: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

wall:

economic growth:

It is true that growth increased drastically after the 1982 tax cut, reaching as high as 7.3% in 1984. However, as the Reagan-Bush, Sr. administrations went on and taxes for the rich were slashed even further, growth fell to negative levels during 1991, at the heart of the last recession. And, two of the three years with the highest growth were during the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 91%. Overall, there seems to be no close relationship between the top tax rate and the GDP growth rate, and statistical analysis backs this up: the correlation coefficient between the two variables is 0.03, meaning that there is essentially no connection. (If tax cuts were strongly related to GDP growth, we would see a coefficient close to –1.)

Income growth

Again, we see inconclusive evidence for the power of tax cuts. We do see small peaks in median income growth, a good measure of how the average American household is doing, after top-bracket tax cuts in the mid-1960s and early 1980s, but we also actually see income decreases after the tax cuts of the late 1980s, and strong growth after the tax increase of 1993. It is true that in the year with the worst median income decrease (3.3% in 1974), the top tax rate was 70%. However, it was also 70% in the year with the highest median income growth (4.7% in 1972)! Once again, the lack of connection between the two measures is backed up by a correlation coefficient near zero: 0.06, to be exact. And yes, yet again, the coefficient is positive, indicating that income has gone up slightly (though negligibly) more in years with higher taxes.

Wage growth

Growth in average hourly wages did increase during the 1980s following the first Reagan tax cuts, albeit two years after the cuts took effect. But, just like GDP growth and median income growth, hourly wages decreased following the late 1980s tax cuts, and spiked upwards after the 1993 tax increase.

Furthermore, wages grew at a level of at least 1%, and usually much more, all throughout the period when the top income tax rate was 91%. In fact, it isn’t until 1972 that we see a wage growth rate of less than 1%. However, if we look at the 19 years of the study period when the top tax rate was 50% or less, we see that 8 of the years saw an increase in wages of less than 1%. Thus, it seems that hourly wages grew more when taxes were higher – indeed, the correlation coefficient is 0.34, indicating a mild positive relationship between higher taxes for the rich and higher hourly wages. This finding flies in the face of the conservative theory.

Job Creation

Once again, while the top tax rate trends downward over the period, the annual change in unemployment doesn't seem to trend at all! Although the largest increase (2.9%) did occur in 1975, when the top marginal tax rate was 70%, three of the four largest decreases in unemployment occurred in years when the top rate was 91%. The mixed results do not bode well for those who see tax cuts for the richest as a sparkplug to incite job growth. The correlation coefficient between the variables here is 0.11 -- meaning that there have been slightly more jobs created in years with lower top tax rates, but this pattern is negligible -- nowhere near strong enough to signify a relationship.

Basically, Reagan and GW Bush have promoted an economic model designed to make the rich richer regardless of the effects on the rest of the country, while dishonestly claiming it was in everyone's best interest.

Meanwhile, Clinton dealt with having to make unpopular decisions which he knew would help to make him an easier target for dissenters and make his term tougher, while making the proverbial chronies unhappy. In doing so he created the most jobs, saved Americans the most money, and overall built the strongest and most consistent economic growth ever.

Bush has since pretty much thrown it all away.

No difference at all, really.

[Kross]

Wow Plow, that's some pretty cool info right there.

Although, every coin has 2 sides.

[Eternus]

You give presidents too much credit and blame. They do alot of important things, but alot of outside factors beyond their control shape the economy in greater ways than they could.

[Kross]

You give presidents too much credit and blame. They do alot of important things, but alot of outside factors beyond their control shape the economy in greater ways than they could.

They decide if they want to go to war or not. They are responsible imo.

[Eternus]

You give presidents too much credit and blame. They do alot of important things, but alot of outside factors beyond their control shape the economy in greater ways than they could.

They decide if they want to go to war or not. They are responsible imo.

War is a different subject entirely, but it can be tied to the economy. Innovations sparked by war can later on boost the economy. There have been inventions made solely for war, that have turned out to be beneficial in the civillian world. Yes a president can make a country go to war, but the congress has to approve. You seem to forget the congress supported Bush as he went into Iraq. They just recant that position now in order to take a opposing stance that is beneficial to their own election agendas.

Telling me that war cost lives and money is not a revelation, neither is that wars are often started for the wrong reasons. That is a big OFN there. The economy has more problems than just the war in Iraq lol.

Look at the massive outsourcing going on in China.... Gore was spotted contributing to the Chinese years ago and encouraged American companies to move jobs to China and other countries. He was caught red handed. GM has cut 130,000 jobs from Americans and moving them out of the country, they plan on another 300,000 jobs to be outsourced in the next 5-8 years. Cisco teaches Indians CCNA and CCNP certs so they can outsource IT jobs. Microsoft does the same thing with outsourcing MCSEs. Our corporations are run by big wigs who are all about the bottom line and fattening their own wallets at the cost of the middle class.

[Demetrick]

Look at the massive outsourcing going on in China.... Gore was spotted contributing to the Chinese years ago and encouraged American companies to move jobs to China and other countries. He was caught red handed. GM has cut 130,000 jobs from Americans and moving them out of the country, they plan on another 300,000 jobs to be outsourced in the next 5-8 years. Cisco teaches Indians CCNA and CCNP certs so they can outsource IT jobs. Microsoft does the same thing with outsourcing MCSEs. Our corporations are run by big wigs who are all about the bottom line and fattening their own wallets at the cost of the middle class.

In Inconvenient Truth, Gore says that the reason GM is cutting jobs, is because American car companies don't build cars that are built to "last." Watch it for details about the American car business and the oil companies and you'll understand why. Companies like Toyota and Honda are succeeding incredibly. Why? Because they produce low CO2 emitting fuel effecient vehicles especially in areas where oil isn't as much of a luxury as here. Why are companies like GM failing in the states? Because they refuse to aknowledge a global trend of emmision standards and less gas guzzling cars and support idiots who think that Hummers are still cool.

I've had my last job outsourced to Peurto Rico, which feels shitty and theres is no way in hell I would want a product (think one of the largest medical device companies in the US) of ours going into my body unless it was built here in the states. I've trained them to do my job, I know their attitudes about the job and no way I want something that came from there inside me.

The World Is Flat is a good book on a lot of the shit that's been outsourced, like tax filing and drive-thru ordering and there are some good reasons why it is, other than just fattening someones wallet. But I couldn't name any because they aren't that good of reasons.