Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

Quag

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1701

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Quag

  6. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    gvg:

    ref teh petition:

    I disagree I just think it will skew it in another direction, Sometimes doing somethign, anything is worse than nothing. though it is irrelevant as this has 0% chance of actually going anywhere both dems and reps rely too much on corporate money to ever do anything about it.

    Yeah, i know they count it differently. They used full non-working numbers during the depression, then at some point stopped, i dunno when. Which is why I'm skeptical of any 'drops' in unemployment. But then, think of it this way: if it looks like unemployment is going down, that gives people more confidence, giving the economy more confidence, and ultimately improving it. it's not like the government is hiding these numbers, otherwise no one would know about them without a leak. So slightly misleading, yes, but i think with good intention.

    Umm they are hiding the true numbers. They are burying them real deep and spoon feeding the press the message they want to get out. Most of the press is too lazy to actually do any research on their own to see the real stat of affairs, far easier to just regurgitate what someone else tells them (works for both reps and dems btw) As to them doing it on purpose to "stimulate" the economy by fooling people into thinking it is better than it is, come on get real.

    ok so the govt is actually "conspiring" to fool the peopel into a better economy? You dont for 1 second think that perhaps it could have more to do with slowly dropping unemplyment numbers to get them down before the 2012 elections? I have looked but cannot find any definitive answer on how or why they removed the 300k+ people it seems to be an arbitrary number, perhaps not but if not why cant i find a decent explanation of how they calculated the number? Well i suppose if by good intnentions you mean trying to get re-elected then i guess i agree with you :dry:

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 doesnt explain why drops just shows it.

    3. Tax cuts:

    cant watch video from Canada :(

    I think he says it best. Think: the rich got there with help from his or her countrymen

    Nope I disagree with this. The rich got their through one or more of hard work/luck/birth. The country provides an environment that makes this easier but does not MAKE it happen. Even in Somalia there are rich people and ther eis no functioning govt! that is the same left wing war class warfare gargage spouted by Elizabeth Warren. Fact is as i have stated repeatedly the "rich" pay more in both % and total amount than the middle or lower class. Any increase (give up the rhetoric about letting the bush rates expire, its a tax INCREASE) will do vitually nada for the deficit/debt your increases in spending are so far outstripping gdp growth that it is insane. Your problem is 90% spending 10% income not the other way around.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=H0-fed&year=1792_2016&units=p

    Why is it wrong in a time of crisis to ask them to give back and help?

    First off i dislike the term give back, it implies their money is not theirs and 2nd off they altready are giving more! Pissed at the small minority that avoid taxes through loopholes then kill the loopholes (something i completely agree with) but dont punish those that pay "their fair share" I use the word punishement expressly because this is a punative more to increase taxes on the rich as it will not help the deficit/debt and only affect those who pay their full taxes already.

    4. Not sure what this is refering to

    5. Obama care

    These are estimates. Obamacare hasnt even taken effect yet. It will right around the time these issues will be more then just intellectual talking points for me (i think it goes into effect 2013-14, ill be 17-18 by then).

    yes because Govt estimates are never below the actual cost! Lets face it if it is only 2X the cost then as govt spending goes it is a bargain 3X and up is the norm.

    Worst part of it is in my opinion by passing this monstrosity it will make it even harder for you to get an actual helth care program that doesnt punish the poor for being the poor (ie govt suppied health care not govt run insurance program).

    6. Ok glad you and Dawh both agree that culturally you are moving left now i just gotta make ya see that financially you are as well. Lets see deficit spending has been rising exponentially even under republican andminsitations that is the opposite of a conservative economic policy! id go on but that pretty much sums it up!

    Yes Newt was leader of the House when they forced Bill Clinton into passing a balanced budget so kudos on him. Every politician gets somethign right from time to time. I would like at this time to point out that the dems never made a budget in 2010 when they had super majorities. could this have been to not give any ammunition to the reps before the 2010 elections? hmmm makes ya wonder, how many times has congress not passed a budget? ill have to look but it seems to me this is just one more case of politics at the expense of both the electorate and jsut plain honesty and decency!

    As to Unions the large ones such as UAW are just corporations with a different business model. They dont give a crap about their members. unions are usefull and necessary but the big ones are monstrosities, that care only about the "UNION" not the memebers, when the 2 objectives coincide that great when they differ too bad on the worker! Full disclosure i am a member of one of these huge unions, used to be small but then we merged (got taken over) by a corporate union with NO positive effects for us as workers excet that our previous union money was taken by the large one and we will hav eless $ if ever we go on strike (we wont).

  9. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    2nd point first

    I was replying to what i thought was your attempt to equate rebublican fillibusters to the USA moving to the right. I was trying to point out that "Lying, imploring, yelling, scaring, bribing, whatever" was neither right nor left and has always been around. Obviously i didnt get my point across very well. So if you didnt mean to imply that conservatives are the only ones who act like this and it isnt a move to the right then i misunderstood and well am still confused on what your actual point was, Please elaborate.

    Bernie:

    If Bernie had wanted to include Unions he would have, the fact he didnt speaks volumes! Actually i doubt it really matters anymore. thanx to the internet any group can base activities outside the USA and spam the internet with whatever they want. There is no way for the govt to effectively regulate this. I am not saying this is a good thing, i think it is terrible! i just dont see any way around 3rd party interference in elections in modern times. Thus money will always be a factor. having said that at a certain point it makes little difference. If politician A spends 100 million and politician B 200 they have both pretty much saturated the market. Presidential elections have reached this level, though i do not believe senatorial or lower have yet.

    You seem to be very cynical regarding all politicians, believing that they are all craven publicity seekers, uninterested in actually making the world a better place. I'm just a little miffed because you demonize Sanders and Pelosi in particular and in my opinion, while there are certainly a lot of craven politicians, those two seem to be two of the more earnest ones. Being a career politician isn't necessarily a bad thing. It means you know the game and that you know how to get things done efficiently and one hopes that you know what works and what doesn't work when crafting legislation.

    Yes i am cynical. I believe most (i hope) enter for the right reasons but they soon learn if you dont get elected you cant do squat and even then unless you are chair of a commitee leader of the house/senate/opposition few peopel listen to you. they only want to influence you not let you influence them. Thus the old adage the primary job of a politician is to get elected becomes a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts. I agree a career politician isnt necessarily bad but Bernie has done nothing NADA SQUAT of any use and i see him as a fraud who doesnt give a crap about the little guy but spends all his time pretending he does. I do not see Bernie even remotely capable of working outside his extreme left wing ideology on any matter under any sitiation and thus is EXACTLY what you are accusing the reps (partialy rightly partially wrongly) of doing. This complete waste of time of a petition is just another example as far as i am concened.

    I dont like Bernie if you cant tell yet!

    As to Pelosi Well i just consider her a moron not fit for any office. Certain remarks make me dismiss politicians as being unfit. The we must pass the bill to see whats in it is a prime example. For a politician to be against a bill I do not believe they have to read it all if it is opposite to their political views but to be for a bill you damn well better read it and understand it! It could be very very different than what you think. (again the Bernie Sanders petition doesnt mention Unions and that IS on purpose) I would attack republicans liek Newt but i see no need as you and gvg are doing a fine job.

    having said all that if a politician does the right thing for the wrong reasons i will dislike him/her but will be more inclined to vote for them that someone who does the wrong thing regardless of reasons.

    Efforts to curtail "career politicians" by imposing term limits have usually been bad in my view because it prevents good, effective politicians from staying in their job as long as the voters want. It also limits the amount of experience in the government body. If your politicians can only hold a particular position for 2 terms of 4 years, then they can only get a limited amount of experience before they become ineligible to hold the position again, meaning you get stuck with relative neophytes in the job because there is such a high turnover rate (by design).

    i dont think ive ever said i was for term limits. i am actually very divided on them opposed for reasons you say but see soem use at often politicians get elected because peopel remember their name not because of anythign they have ever done (often remembering the name because they have actually been in the news for being so incredibly bad at what they do)

  11. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    I think the graph in this article from Talking Points Memo shows that the Democrats and Republicans are not the same when it comes to filibuster use. Both sides have been using it for more things, but the Republicans have been far more cavalier with it. And accusing someone of doing something is not the same as that person doing it.

    Hmm graph seems to show that the trend is up regardless of who controlls the senate. but i still dont see how that makes your country more right wing. i see it as showing the 2 parties going farther apart, something i said in the very beggining of this thread before it got all crazy anarchist then morphed into what it is now. I still maintain your county is moving more to the left. it is not linear but the general trend is moving to a more liberal society. Politicians being politiicans will use whatever they can to get themselves elected. Lying, imploring, yelling, scaring, bribing, whatever they think will work. This is not new it is as old as well human civilization.

    Being a fiscal conservative/social liberal I applaud the social mouvement towards the left but lament the fiscal imprudence shown by well so darn many of your politicians of all stripes.

  14. in New Logic/Math Puzzles

    Posted

    Hi Amanda welcome to brain den,

    Try the games like thalia said, i like the rollos myself, everyone here is pretty welcoming and remember to use lots of smileys :thumbsup:

    :ph34r: watch out for miki she has a tzer and a nefarious plot (possibly several) :ph34r:

    Also despite what anyone says I DO know how to spell i just cant type

  15. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    Nope the personal attacks are as old as the congress. ill have to disagree with you there. as to fillibusters dems did the same thing there really is no change.

    i can remember the republicans accusing the dems of the exact same dirty tricks during the bush era, then the dems accusing the reps under Clinton. then reps accusing dems under bush the elder (heheh sounds more polite and old world britishy than bush 41) and regan and dems accusing reps under Carter, before that i was too young but if you look at the historical material it is all the same. only in old timey times they used pamphlets and newspapers not tv radio and the internet

    Not that i think Newt is a nice polite politician or anything but he hasnt invented squat.

  16. Four Letters ROLLO

    in Games

    Posted

    TheCube - 368

    Molly Mae - 327

    WombatBreath - 277

    Hidden G - 200

    Dej Mar - 164

    Fabpig - 162

    curr3nt - 104

    kristmark1 - 93

    Cat - 76

    Quag - 74

    MissKitten - 71

    Aaryan - 65

    Maquis - 57

    Bong - 49

    Maurice - 43

    unreality - 37

    sks - 36

    smEEster-Michael - 31

    MoMoney - 28

    Shadow7 - 25

    Shakingdavid - 17

    SMV - 5

  20. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    The mandate is the integral part of reducing costs. It creates a bigger pool of money flowing into the system and with everyone paying in, the higher costs incurred by people with pre-existing conditions is supposed to be negated (and surpassed). So premiums go down.

    Premiums were already sky-rocketing before the healthcare bill was passed and the predictions were expecting them to only go higher. The healthcare law has tempered the rise by some accounts (sorry no links, I'm being lazy). In any case, premiums have just started to come down as a new part of the law has gone into effect requiring 80% of money from premiums to pay for claims, rather than overhead or administration. Since the administrators can no longer pad their paychecks with premium money (above 20%), they can't justify the higher premiums of the past. If the law works as expected, premiums should level off now or go down a little as they balance out with the 80% requirement.

    Yes that is the theory but unfotunately it doesnt actually happen that way. for the reasons i stated above

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/us-health-insurance-costs-climb

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

    I have only seen reports of the increases gaining in speed, not slowing down. Please find me where they are coming down?

    As to the 20% law please tell me you dont think that politicians are smarter making a 2000+page bill than insurance company executives who will invariable find loopholes and other ways around this? The red part is where it WILL fall apart as it will never work as expected!

    But lets assume that this insane thing "works as planned"

    Guy A 20k income

    Guy B 200K income

    Guy C 2kk Income

    all pay lets say 2k for new obama care (i know is low but easy math)

    A=10% salary

    B= 2% Salary

    C= .2% salary

    How is that remotely fair? even flat taxers would never propose a regressive tax system!

    plus A risks fines if he chooses to feed and house his family at the expense of health care is that insane or what??

    Left didnt need 1 single republican stop naming them for this monstrosity they didnt need them for this they wouldnt have needed them for a decent health care bill providing some sort of universal coverage either!

    Republicans made the word "taxes" so toxic that the Democrats couldn't put it in the bill for fear of scaring vulnerable Democrats away, so that's one reason the bill didn't include them in the reform. If people were willing to discuss taxes in a reasonable manner, rather "TAXES: EVILLLLL!!!!!" we could have had a better bill.

    Taxes are not a toxic word Obama hasnt stppoed talking about raising them since he got into office! again its not the republicans fault the dems made a stupid bill!

    My point was, "Sure it's class warfare, but the other side is making the rules forbidding calling it that and they are waging it against the poor and middle class already." So I don't see it as a bad thing. It's an attempt to balance the advantage the rich have already taken from the current system. And the Dems have been more than willing to compromise and they have done it on multiple occasions, but the Reps never moved an appreciable amount on anything. Offering "alternatives" is not saying that they moved to the left on their proposals. They scattershot a bunch of bills that shifted some things to the left in some small ways, only by pairing it with a further skewing of something else to the farther right. Democratic proposals can only be started in the Senate right now since the Republicans control the House, but because of the ridiculous filibuster rules in the Senate, none of the Democratic bills can even make it to the floor to be discussed.

    Ok were you admit class warfare good. Now i just need you to admit the dems are much more inflexible than the republicans. I never said the republicans moved to the left i said they are trying to come up with compromises but the dems are saying NONONONONONO and offer NONE of their own except the same old thing give us 100% of what we want. Reps want NO tax increase and speding cuts, dems want tax increase no cuts. republicans have moved and accepted some tax increases dems havent moved at all! Now i dont think the reps are being slightly malleable out of niceness but politics. the dems are being inflexible for same reasons. They have tied their horse to tax increases on the "rich" and cant back down. Obama got a lot of flack for the extension he already gave and fear of pissing off the base will not let them budge. NEITHER side does things because the believe them 100% they both do things for political reasons.

    And since Gingrich came to power, the Republicans have been demonizing the Democrats at every turn, so it's a problem stemming from him in terms of decency and decorum. The Republicans have been working hard to get the public mad at the Democrats ever since 1992.

    actually the DEMS and REPs have been demonizing each other since well the beggining of your nation. it si Niave to think that this is relatively new. They did a survey here and found the guy l;eading the NDP (now deceased, evil cancer) who was constantly demanding a return to civility ion our house of commons was by far the most rude and insulting of all the politicians in parliment. I know its an aside but jsut pointing out this has been going on forever and peopel have been decrying it forever saying if only we could get back to the civility of yesteryear, unfortunately it never existed :(

  21. Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

    in Others

    Posted

    i agree that PROPER govt regulation could have prevented the bubble and subsequent meltdown. We had such regulations here and did not have the problems. But the fact was that the govt modified the rules and encouraged banks and mortgage brokers to lend to peopel who would never in a million years get a loan her ein canada. So no govt interference was A MAJOR FACTOR! it is not a republican meme it is a fact. Republicans are at fault for this as well as democrats.

    No it was the risky loans in the first place. When you give interest only variable rate mortgages to people and then let them refinance every year as the "value" of the property rises to peopel who shouldnt qualify for a loan in the first place you get the bubble you saw. The repackaging of the loaans merely let the bubble grow bigger before bursting but it would still have been a bubble and bursted in any case. The whole thing came apart when interest rates rose and people statrted to default. The ball just stated rolling on its own after that gathering momentum.

    As to food stamps. Despite the (i will use it slightly imprperly but with purpose) class warfare crap comming out of the democrats the poverty rate is not really changing it goes up and down between about 11 and 15% highest ones seem not surprisingly to coincide with recessions.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104525.html

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/census/1960/cphl162.html

    the EBT program is just getting more generous. I am not saying this is a bad thing only that is going to more people and that the poverty rate is not changing much.

    Yes the amnesty thing is relatively new but both REPs and DEMS are onside/against depending on where they are from and whether they are ideologically bent a certain way to begin with.

    What does regan making the govt bigger have to do with anything? republicans can do more left wing things just as democrats can do more right wing things.

    REPUBLICAN does not equal RIGHT wing

    DEMOCRAT does not equal LEFT wing.

    perhaps i shoudl define what i consider right wing and left wing. because if we are not using the same language we cannot begin to have an intelligent conversation

    RIGHT = small govt, personal responsability

    L:EFT = large govt, social responsability

    please demonstrate regans taxes being higher than they are now?

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

    yeah when he came in they were high but he brought them down continually under his presidency untill they were lower than they are now.

    So basically you say culturally to the left we agree but why economically to the right? taxes have done nothing but go up since regan, except under 2nd bush but still above regan levels govt is bigger than ever. where is the economic right wing stuff happening?

×
×
  • Create New...