Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Amused to Death posted:

I don't know, I'd actually say Yale is pretty liberal from living next to it for two decades. Not socialism for the masses liberal, but liberal enough to at least decently fit in in a city that doesn't have a single Republican on the city assembly.

But it's not like it'd be any different at most other places. Universities tend to be liberal, as do people with high eduction.

Got to admit, my opinion isn't super well informed. I'm mostly going off my impression of Yale and Harvard business school and the people that seem to come out of there and of course the class that generally can afford to attend. Plus, you know, Larry loving Summers and G W Bush. But yeah, I have no idea what they're actually like so I'm just talking out my rear end really.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:39

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

800peepee51doodoo posted:

I finally get to contribute! Got this from my girlfriend's dad and I think its the first liberal email forward I've ever seen, even though I'm sure its just a right wing email with some stuff changed around:

Former LA Times political cartoonist Steve Greenberg did something sort of similar today:

Democrats

It's hilarious for how black-and-white it tries to make things.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:36

Gourd of Taste: Sep 11, 2006; by Ralp

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Got to admit, my opinion isn't super well informed. I'm mostly going off my impression of Yale and Harvard business school and the people that seem to come out of there and of course the class that generally can afford to attend. Plus, you know, Larry loving Summers and G W Bush. But yeah, I have no idea what they're actually like so I'm just talking out my rear end really.

Business schools aren't really representative of the whole place but you're absolutely correct that old money business schools like Harvard and Yale are strongly right wing places.

Amused to Death if you have enough money for a bumper you have enough money to pull yourself up via the rest of the car and ditch the socialist phone.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:37

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Gourd of Taste posted:

Amused to Death if you have enough money for a bumper you have enough money to pull yourself up via the rest of the car and ditch the socialist phone.

Seriously. What are you doing getting government assistance if you've still got a car to put bumper stickers on. Get rid of the car and then maybe I'll think you might possibly deserve a pittance of help; but only if you've got a job.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:42

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Got to admit, my opinion isn't super well informed. I'm mostly going off my impression of Yale and Harvard business school and the people that seem to come out of there and of course the class that generally can afford to attend. Plus, you know, Larry loving Summers and G W Bush. But yeah, I have no idea what they're actually like so I'm just talking out my rear end really.

Business schools are definitely always going to tilt more conservative than most. In general though Yale both in students and faculty, even their news, tends to give off a liberal vibe. Of course I could be talking out my rear end as well since I've never gone to Yale, but I think being liberal holds true for most universities, I think it might even be more pronounced among the Ivy league. Yale though, its faculty and students also have the weird position though of New Haven essentially being a city inside a university. There is absolutely no way for the university or its people to isolate themselves from the masses of poverty stricken people in New Haven. Everyone is forced to interact downtown and around the city, which at least gives people perspective. Yale is pretty aware of this fact too. They spent most of their history not really interacting with the city in any meaningful way, of course as New Haven like many cities began to fall apart in the 70's and 80's this began to boil over. Mass protests from city residents who worked there started to happen and eventually they were allowed to unionize back in the 80's. Yale also began to realize anger was still simmering especially in regards to their property acquisitions and tax status and that other Ivy League universities weren't in the middle of a city with an out of control violent crime rate, so Yale began to pour money into improvement projects and activities for the city. Though there's still a lot of simmering anger towards Yale.

/New Haven history

Gourd of Taste posted:

Business schools aren't really representative of the whole place but you're absolutely correct that old money business schools like Harvard and Yale are strongly right wing places.

Amused to Death if you have enough money for a bumper you have enough money to pull yourself up via the rest of the car and ditch the socialist phone.

I don't have a bumper :negative:

I just assume it's magnetic and was going to slap it onto something, even my bike if it would fit somehow.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:46

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

XyloJW posted:

Democrats

It's hilarious for how black-and-white it tries to make things.

Those ruthuglican fuckers always running over cyclists!! :argh:

Where does that light rail go? The train is as long as the town

# ? Sep 19, 2012 17:47

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Got this on Facebook.

quote:

U.S Economy and how it will effect you one day: QE3.

QE3, if you care about your country, you should research what this is. QE3 will determine what your dollar is worth one day. When you have to take a barrel of cash to buy a loaf of bread, don't say I didn't warn you.

QE is quantitive easing. There was QE1(2008), QE2(2010), and now, QE3(2012).

In simpler terms for the majority to understand, Quantitive Easing is basically the feds buying back securities, and printing more money to inject into our economy. Their intentions is to lower interest rates with hope that consumers and businesses will borrow and spend more (Stimulus). With QE3 the feds is committing to buy back 40 billion dollars of security each month. The scary part is, they have set no limit to it or when they will stop buying.

Why is this scary? Well every body should know by now, the more money the feds print and inject into our society, the less the value of our dollar becomes. So that mid size Honda you could buy for around 30,000 today might cost you 40,000 next year... With QE1, and QE2, we already saw that we are paying higher at the pump, groceries, and commodities. Not scary high yet. With QE3, things can get worse since there is no limit when the federal government will stop.

if consumers and businesses don't spend or borrow because the banks still won't issue that loan (the stimulus fails). The federal government can continue to inject more money for an unlimited amount of time thus resulting in lowerng the value of the U.S currency at an unlimited rate.

I'm really not good with this stuff but I thought the printing money thing was bullshit, right?

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:06

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Yes, we're not just printing tons of money to pay off bills. First off, it's rather modest amounts, I wish the FED would do something to cause more inflation, inflation is very low right now and that's with two past rounds of QE. The FED is just trying to free up liquidity on financial markets that basically already exists by buying up some assets in an area that is still causing troubles and hoping it means financial institutions will be less worried about possible defaults and will loan out more.

And yeah, they are trying to create some inflation. Inflation is good. You can't have some steady state economy where inflation or deflation never happens, and inflation is a hell of a lot better than deflation. It gives massive companies more reason to invest the piles of cash they're sitting on. It also makes debt easier to pay off, and the main financial instrument of most Americans, including the person who probably posted that, is debt.

Considering there's already two rounds of QE though, ask him if the price of cars has jumped 25% in the past year?

e: Inflation is a hell of a lot better than deflation, not inflation.

Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:14

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Right, and it's not like Harvard and Yale are bastions of leftist thought, either. Its just rah rah go team cheerleading stuff. Good things liberal, bad things conservative. The email lists venture capitalists in the good column of things liberals get to keep ffs.

They're things that conservatives presume would never be aligned with the left and think represent their values.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:16

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

This morning, before I went out on an errand, I asked my dad if he was worried about how Mitt Romney's being tight-lipped about his economic plan. I just came back from that errand and he presented me with a print-out of this blog post, which he'd copy-pasted into Word. He put a quote he considered especially relevant up at the top; I'll bold it below:

quote:

The �insufficient detail� critique of the Ryan budget
Posted August 27, 2012

President Obama�s former budget director, Dr. Peter Orszag, attacked the Ryan budget in the Washington Post. I�ll respond here to his primary critique.

Dr. Orszag argues that the Ryan budget is not a serious fiscal proposal.

quote:
In part because of his winning personality, Ryan � has convinced many in Washington that his budget blueprint is a serious proposal for solving our long-term fiscal problems. Unfortunately, it�s not. Let�s dig into the asterisks of Ryan�s plan and unearth the fine print.

Dr. Orszag�s principal critique is that the Ryan budget is short on details. He argues that the Ryan Medicaid block grant, tax reform, and nondefense discretionary spending cuts, are �capping and punting�limiting spending to a certain level but providing no specifics on how to achieve that number.� Later he argues that the lack of legislative detail creates business uncertainty.

The irony is that while in office neither Dr. Orszag nor his boss, President Obama, proposed any long-term fiscal reforms. Even after enacting the Affordable Care Act, which was purported to significantly address our long-term fiscal problems, the Obama Administration�s own numbers show that we�re still headed toward fiscal collapse.

Paul Ryan is chairman of the House Budget Committee. His day job is to develop and pass through the House a budget resolution, to reach a compromise with his Senate counterpart, and then to pass the compromise budget resolution through the House. For the two years he has chaired the committee Mr. Ryan has done his job, passing House budget resolutions in both years. He has been unable to finish his task because the Senate Democratic majority has not done its budget work the last two years. You can�t negotiate with something that doesn�t exist.

A budget resolution is like a blueprint for a new house. A blueprint specifies the size of the house, how many floors there will be, the sizes of each room, and where the walls will go. A blueprint does not specify where the couch will go in the living room or what color it will be.

While studying the draft blueprint, you and your spouse may not yet agree on the position, style, or even type of furniture to put in each room. Reaching such agreement may be quite difficult, and it may depend on how the rooms look once they are actually built. But to approve the blueprint you don�t need to reach agreement on the furniture details at such an early stage. All you need is to agree that the sizes and shapes of the rooms on the blueprint can accommodate the various detail options you are considering.

In the same way, the Congressional budget process separates debate on the topline numbers of fiscal policy from the legislative details of how those numbers will be implemented. Budget Committee Chairman Ryan�s job is:

to set overall fiscal goals for the federal government: total government spending, total taxes, and the deficits and debt that result;
to divide that spending up into about 10 categories (actually it�s divided by committee jurisdiction);
to set legislative processes that will ensure that subsequent legislation complies with Ryan�s numbers; and
to get a majority of the House to vote for all of the above.

After this budget resolution (�blueprint�) has been approved, then legislative action shifts away from Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee and to the various committees responsible for writing legislation. The House Agriculture Committee develops a farm bill. That committee decides the details of how farm policy will be changed, subject to the numeric limits established in Ryan�s budget resolution. The two committees responsible for Medicare write legislation changing Medicare, which is again required to conform with the numbers in the budget resolution. The Ways & Means Committee writes tax reform legislation, subject to the revenue requirements in the Ryan plan.

To do his job, Chairman Ryan is not required to release any reform plans. He just has to produce a table of numbers, and if he does offer any details on how he thinks Medicare or Medicaid or farm subsidies or taxes should be reformed, those details are not binding on anyone. They are merely his suggestions to the committees responsible for writing the legislative details.

Why, then, might a Budget Committee Chairman publicly propose a broad outline of Medicare or Medicaid reform, or a pro-growth tax reform plan, if they are not binding? For two reasons:

To build support among House Members whose votes he needs for his numbers by showing them sample reform plans consistent with his numbers; and
To influence the legislative debate that comes later.

When Chairman Ryan approaches you, a House Member, and asks for your support for his budget resolution, you might express concern about the amount his budget �cuts� Medicare spending. Mr. Ryan can then show you a plan he has developed that meets his spending targets and assuages your concerns on the details. If you vote for his budget resolution you are not, formally, voting for the particular Medicare or tax reform plan that Mr. Ryan assumed. You are only voting for the numbers, the spending and tax levels, that would result from such a plan. And if you don�t like the details of how Mr. Ryan might implement any proposed reform, you have plenty of opportunities to withhold your support for the actual legislation when it is later developed by other committees.

Chairman Ryan has, for example, supported two different versions of long-term Medicare reform. In 2011 he proposed eventually moving all new beneficiaries into a premium support system. In 2012 he teamed up with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden to propose a variant in which traditional fee-for-service Medicare would remain as an option for future beneficiaries. The numbers in the Ryan budget plan are consistent with either version of Medicare reform, and support of the Ryan budget plan allows the Congress to negotiate later on which version of reform makes most sense. Or it would, had the Senate Democratic majority done its work and passed a Senate budget resolution instead of punting again this year.

There is therefore nothing �unserious� about specifying only a broad outline for spending or tax reforms as part of a budget resolution. In fact, it�s standard practice for the legislative process.

On some of the specifics attacked by Dr. Orszag:

Medicare premium support plans like Ryan/Wyden date back to the late 90s. The first of significance was proposed by Senator John Breaux (D) and Rep. Bill Thomas (R) in 1998.
A Medicaid block grant was passed by a Republican Congress in 1995 and vetoed by President Clinton.
The Ryan budget proposes revenue neutral tax reform. To find such a plan, visit DC and swing a cat. You�ll hit two or three.

Dr. Orszag is therefore attacking Mr. Ryan for doing his job as House Budget Committee chairman. Dr. Orszag argues that Mr. Ryan is being disingenuous by providing insufficient detail on his policy proposals, when it is Dr. Orszag who is taking advantage of general ignorance of the budget process by suggesting that a budget resolution should offer the detail of implementing legislation. As a former director of CBO and OMB, he knows this.

This is a common ploy in fiscal politics. If your opponent proposes policy details, attack the most unpopular of those details. If he does not, attack his credibility for not providing sufficient detail. The only way to avoid this political trap is to avoid proposing any long-term fiscal policy solution and hope no one notices, as President Obama has done so far.

Dr. Orszag also conflates different types of criticisms of the Ryan budget:

policy critique: �I oppose policy X in the Ryan budget;�
legislative critique: �I don�t think policy X in the Ryan budget can get the votes it needs to become law;� or �If it is enacted, policy X will cause too much policy pain and eventually will be repealed;� and
budget credibility critique: �If all policy assumptions in the Ryan budget were implemented as proposed, the numbers still don�t add up.�

Dr. Orszag opposes Mr. Ryan�s proposals for Medicare reform, Medicaid reform, tax reform, and discretionary spending. That�s fine, he�s entitled to his policy opinion.

Dr. Orszag also predicts that Members of Congress would, now or later, fail to support the amount of policy change needed to hit Ryan�s long-term spending and revenue targets. That�s a political/legislative prediction, and to judge it we also need to ask �Compared to what?� In isolation he is correct that it is quite difficult to get Members to vote for painful spending cuts and/or tax increases. But when you�re on your fourth year of trillion+ dollar deficits and the future looks even worse, that�s what leadership requires � making painful and unpopular policy choices. And when the path you�re on leads to a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating or, at some point, complete fiscal collapse, policy changes that were previously out-of-bounds will look less unattractive.

Dr. Orszag then morphs his policy critiques and legislative critiques into an attack on the credibility of Mr. Ryan and his budget plan, deeming it an �unserious� proposal. There is, however, a huge difference between �I don�t like the policies you propose� and �Your numbers don�t add up, your proposals are not serious.� Yes, the Ryan budget would require significant policy changes from our current path. But since our current fiscal path is headed toward disaster, that�s a good thing.

The Ryan budget is a serious fiscal policy roadmap. It proposes the detail required for its intended legislative purpose, and it offers a roadmap for future reforms. And until President Obama and a Democratic-majority Senate propose an alternative long-term path or are replaced, the Ryan plan is literally the only long-term game in town.

He also showed me a graph that the Heritage Foundation, which I screen-shotted:

Thoughts?

Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:32

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Yes, let's change this graph around to show all taxes because many conservatives live in a fantasy world where only federal income taxes exist. Not to mention many people who are convinced they pay federal income taxes in fact don't.

You know, crazy theory, maybe if the bottom 50% of the nation controlled more than 2.5% of the nation's wealth, they'd pay more than 2% in income taxes.

Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:35

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Amused to Death posted:

Yes, we're not just printing tons of money to pay off bills. First off, it's rather modest amounts, I wish the FED would do something to cause more inflation, inflation is very low right now and that's with two past rounds of QE. The FED is just trying to free up liquidity on financial markets that basically already exists by buying up some assets in an area that is still causing troubles and hoping it means financial institutions will be less worried about possible defaults and will loan out more.

And yeah, they are trying to create some inflation. Inflation is good. You can't have some steady state economy where inflation or deflation never happens, and inflation is a hell of a lot better than inflation. It gives massive companies more reason to invest the piles of cash they're sitting on. It also makes debt easier to pay off, and the main financial instrument of most Americans, including the person who probably posted that, is debt.

Considering there's already two rounds of QE though, ask him if the price of cars has jumped 25% in the past year?

Thanks, I'll use this.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:36

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Amused to Death posted:

Yes, let's change this graph around to show all taxes

You know, crazy theory, maybe if the bottom 50% of the nation controlled more than 2.5% of the nation's wealth, they'd pay more than 2% in income taxes.

I showed it to Dad. He finds the findings "completely implausible" and wonders "how they found those conclusions." He also speaks disparagingly about CTJ, and was surprised by the notion that the Heritage Foundation is anything but respectable!

EDIT: But he went on to look at an OECD report about tax progressivity measures, and admitted that the finding appears to be correct, or in his words "not complete garbage." Progress! :unsmith:

Pththya-lyi fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:42

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Pththya-lyi posted:

I showed it to Dad. He finds the findings "completely implausible" and wonders "how they found those conclusions."

Ask him what world he lives in where payroll, sales, state income, and other taxes don't exist? Because the Heritage Foundation's graph specifically states only federal income tax. I mean they're being honest in their bias.

e: He trusts the OECD but not CTJ? I find that kind odd given the feelings most conservatives have to international organizations. I mean most didn't care about the WHO rating our health care system at #37.

e2:
If he trusts the OECD to some extent, maybe you should show him this. It's from the NYT, but all they're doing is publishing a report of OECD data

Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:46

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Amused to Death posted:

Yes, we're not just printing tons of money to pay off bills. First off, it's rather modest amounts, I wish the FED would do something to cause more inflation, inflation is very low right now and that's with two past rounds of QE. The FED is just trying to free up liquidity on financial markets that basically already exists by buying up some assets in an area that is still causing troubles and hoping it means financial institutions will be less worried about possible defaults and will loan out more.

And yeah, they are trying to create some inflation. Inflation is good. You can't have some steady state economy where inflation or deflation never happens, and inflation is a hell of a lot better than deflation. It gives massive companies more reason to invest the piles of cash they're sitting on. It also makes debt easier to pay off, and the main financial instrument of most Americans, including the person who probably posted that, is debt.

Considering there's already two rounds of QE though, ask him if the price of cars has jumped 25% in the past year?

e: Inflation is a hell of a lot better than deflation, not inflation.

I just had a different friend respond. I guess the idea of a modest amount is subjective to him. I figured the last two rounds would be enough to show restraint.

quote:

Without getting in to an online debate, (as I'd much rather go and visit you and have this conversation in person) there were a few things you said in that comment that are highly subjective. A "modest amount" relative and compared to what, exactly? And relative to and compared to what are you saying that inflation is "very low" right now? Additionally, you said they are "HOPING it means financial institutions will be less worried about possible defaults and loan out more." I don't know... Anyway, yes, inflation is necessary but an UNCAPPED ability (and intent) to simply print more and more money to add to the system is a very, very bad thing. We can say that it isn't all that bad RIGHT NOW, but RIGHT NOW isn't the focal point as much as what is coming is or at the very least what they are making themselves CAPABLE of bringing on. Unchecked, uncapped, limitless, etc... those are VERY bad terms when it comes to the government.

Aeka 2.0 fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 18:56

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

Except there is a cap. $40 billion a month. Despite what he thinks, economists are not out to ruin the economy. Also we can compare it to the actual economy. The US economy is $15.6 trillion in GDP right now. That's around $1.3 trillion a month and growing. $40 billion is pittance of that(in fact it's around 3%, and it's not money that is being directed injected into consumer spending or even borrowing either), just because it's a large number to him doesn't actually make it a large number in term of the size of things we're dealing with here. Inflation is low as compared to the relative cost of items on the consumer price index. If he has problems with the CPI as many people do, that's legitimate. Saying inflation is high because we're 'printing money' and gas is up is not legitimate.

Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 19, 2012

# ? Sep 19, 2012 19:08

Aeka 2.0: Nov 16, 2000; Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.; Dinosaur Gum

Thanks.

On a side note does anyone have that article about businesses waiting for bills that are locked in congress so they can start investing?

# ? Sep 19, 2012 19:40

ChompOnThis: Aug 20, 2004

I've been lurking in this thread for a while and probably the most common topic I keep seeing is the demonizing of welfare recipients/poors and ARE TAXES!!! My googlefu is kind of escaping me today, but does anyone have any solid statistical data that shows an increase of federal income taxes (particularly on the poor and middle classes) during the Obama and Bush administrations, or even older, that would suggest more is being spent on Welfare programs?

# ? Sep 19, 2012 19:48

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Those clowns at the fed dont know dick all about inflation or its effects. Good thing this email forward is there to straighten em out

# ? Sep 19, 2012 19:50

ThePeteEffect: Jun 12, 2007; I'm just crackers about cheese!; Fun Shoe

Amused to Death posted:

Yes, let's change this graph around to show all taxes because many conservatives live in a fantasy world where only federal income taxes exist. Not to mention many people who are convinced they pay federal income taxes in fact don't.

You know, crazy theory, maybe if the bottom 50% of the nation controlled more than 2.5% of the nation's wealth, they'd pay more than 2% in income taxes.

Also, income =/= wealth since the latter includes assets outside of money (and possibly capital gains depending on how they're measuring income). If you measure against that, the numbers would probably be even more skewed.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 20:20

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Aeka 2.0 posted:

The federal government can continue to inject more money for an unlimited amount of time thus resulting in lowerng the value of the U.S currency at an unlimited rate.

_{They can already do this any time for as long as they want} :ssh:

Also, from what I can tell, the current supply of dollars in the world is around $15T. In order to increase that 33% ($30k car -> $40k car), the Fed would have to "print" $5T. At $40B a month, this would take 10 and a half years.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 20:36

Eulogistics: Aug 30, 2012

Aeka 2.0 posted:

Thanks.

On a side note does anyone have that article about businesses waiting for bills that are locked in congress so they can start investing?

I'm only finding stuff from 2010, a la this. There's more than a handful of article about business hoarding cash for the last couple years, like this (I know, it's also from the same time period and I'm not getting a subscription to WSJ to so I can see the full article).

# ? Sep 19, 2012 20:36

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

ChompOnThis posted:

I've been lurking in this thread for a while and probably the most common topic I keep seeing is the demonizing of welfare recipients/poors and ARE TAXES!!! My googlefu is kind of escaping me today, but does anyone have any solid statistical data that shows an increase of federal income taxes (particularly on the poor and middle classes) during the Obama and Bush administrations, or even older, that would suggest more is being spent on Welfare programs?

I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly. Federal Income Taxes on poor and middle class are down since Bush took office, and for 2009-2010 they were even lower under Obama. And I'm not sure how an increase in taxes translates to an increase in welfare programs.

There has been an increase in use pretty much every welfare program in the US since 2007:

Unemployment Insurance
Food Stamps
TANF (Welfare)
Social Security Disability Insurance
Medicaid

All of it has increased; but all of them have increased in response to the Recession, which is what you would expect. More people are economically depressed, more people need to draw on social programs to get by.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 20:45

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom Vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

Amused to Death posted:

Ask him what world he lives in where payroll, sales, state income, and other taxes don't exist? Because the Heritage Foundation's graph specifically states only federal income tax. I mean they're being honest in their bias.

e: He trusts the OECD but not CTJ? I find that kind odd given the feelings most conservatives have to international organizations. I mean most didn't care about the WHO rating our health care system at #37.

e2:
If he trusts the OECD to some extent, maybe you should show him this. It's from the NYT, but all they're doing is publishing a report of OECD data

Quoting this because my god :stare:

Got another rah rah MY SIDE! image to show up in my feed.

I love the JPG artifacts :allears:

(Rehosted, but I confirmed they're in the original image)

# ? Sep 19, 2012 20:55

Elder Postsman: Aug 30, 2000; i used hot bot to search for "teens"

One of my conservative friends just posted this beauty:

quote:

An ode to QE3

More money, more money
it's coming for sure
there's so much money
it's becoming a blur
and it has little value
that is for sure
but worry not
say the our leaders
it will keep us from the brink
but I say: stand back!
and watch the economy sink

I'm pretty sure he wrote it himself. Very inspiring.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 21:42

Admiral Bosch: Apr 19, 2007; Who is Admiral Aken Bosch, and what is that old scoundrel up to?

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

I have no idea posted:

I stole this but what needs to happen this is what should be spreading like wildfire not the next media gossip. We watched high school principal Dennis Prager of Colorado, along with Sara Palin and Tom Brokaw on TV a couple of weeks ago, what a dynamic, down to earth speaker. Even though Palin and Brokaw were also guest speakers they did little but nod and agree with him. This is the guy that should be running for President in 2012!

A Speech Every American High SchoolPrincipal Should Give.
By Dennis Prager.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American.

This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America , one of its three central values -- e pluribus Unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America 's values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.
Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America 's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English --but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.
Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "friend of the family," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue... There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately fortunate -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:14

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

I don't understand why "printing money" means the money that's already out there becomes less valuable. I'm not saying that isn't the case, just that I don't understand it. Why should I care if billions more dollars exist? What does that do to the stack of dollar bills I may already have? Also I don't understand "printing money", I mean where does it go? Do they just fill up planes and drop it over cities? I've never seen any falling bills...Something with buying back securities or something? This stuff is hopelessly complex :smith:

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:20

Assepoester: Jul 18, 2004; Can't post for 10 years!; Melman v2

Call me fanatical or a conspiracy theorist but Obama�s recent executive orders sound like just what Hitler did to take complete control of Germany!! Read them below:

*EO 13603 allows the President to �nationalize� all private assets, country�s industrial and technological base, and critical resources.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

Which is in line with the Defense Production Act, a law that has existed for 62 years.

*EO 13618 allows the government to take over the nation�s communications assets.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

An update of EOs issued by Reagan.

*EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

*EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision

*EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

*EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

*EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.

*EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

I was not aware President Obama's real name was "John F. Kennedy".

That is a heck of a lot of power given to the government which it should not have and most definitely is not constitutional!!!

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:35

Mo_Steel: Mar 7, 2008; Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together; Fun Shoe

myron cope posted:

I don't understand why "printing money" means the money that's already out there becomes less valuable. I'm not saying that isn't the case, just that I don't understand it. Why should I care if billions more dollars exist? What does that do to the stack of dollar bills I may already have?

Money is used as a means of exchange and follows the economic principles of supply and demand like other goods and services. If the supply of dollar bills increases enough, the relative value of each dollar decreases.

To use a simplified example, let's say there are 100 $1 bills in existence. $1 can buy you a loaf of bread from the store. Now the government puts another 100 $1 into the economy by printing that money. With more money in the economy, demand for bread increases, but the supply of bread hasn't changed. The price of bread goes up as a result to the new equilibrium price, and the relative value of $1 goes down: before $1 could buy you a loaf of bread, now it buys you half a loaf of bread.

This is a very simplified example and a lot more plays into inflation and money supply than that, but that covers the basic premise well enough I feel. Inflation caused by an increased money supply devalues the currency that already exists. It's important to keep in mind this doesn't just impact bread prices though: if the price of bread goes up, wages would probably also be inflated as a result, which means the relative value of a persons savings goes down but the relative cost of their debts also goes down. Owing $1 to your friend when there are 100 in the market is more costly in real terms than when there are 200 in the market.

quote:

Also I don't understand "printing money", I mean where does it go? Do they just fill up planes and drop it over cities? I've never seen any falling bills...Something with buying back securities or something? This stuff is hopelessly complex

Quantitative easing involves a central bank using newly created money to buy long-term assets from commercial banks. This puts more money in the commercial banks reserves, and commercial banks want to not sit on more money than they have to, so they are more willing to extend credit and loans out to businesses, home buyers, etc.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:57

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Admiral Bosch posted:

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

If it makes you feel any better, its not real. Dennis Prager is a conservative radio host who has never been a Principal at any school. This is just a wet dream he wrote up of things he would say if he were a Principal. Fortunately, the content makes it clear why he would never actually be chosen to be a Principal at any school. Plus it shows a deep misunderstanding of how schools function. The Principal can't just toss out sex ed, those kinds of things are decided by elected school board members at the district level.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 22:57

800peepee51doodoo: Mar 1, 2001; Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune

Admiral Bosch posted:

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

Dennis Prager? The talk show host? When did he become the principal of a high school? Oh wait.

That poo poo is super aggravating because it just reeks of privilege. Oh you think you have some sort of "identity" that shapes your experiences in the world? Haha not here buddy. I don't care if you're black, brown or yellow as long as you pretend that this has nothing to do with how you are treated. Oh you're gay? Big deal, shut up about it and maybe you won't get constantly bullied and harassed. See the real reason that racism exists is because you minorities just keep yammering on about it.

The part about getting rid of politics is just utterly amazing hypocrisy. See, politics to Prager is anything he doesn't like and his beliefs are just The Way Things Are. The whole thing is just a bald assertion that white culture is the default culture and right wing politics are the default policies and any deviation is a wrong-headed perversion that will destroy America.

And the guy is a Jew who speaks and writes extensively about Jewishness and Judaism and generally has his identity tied up around being super Jewish. But I guess that's not identity politics when he does it.

Gah, sorry for the rant but this just got me. I used to listen to his show many years ago because he used to be a really mellow and reasonable conservative. I even had some arguments with him via email that were always polite and good natured but somewhere along the line he got tied up in some culture war nonsense and went way off the deep end.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 23:07

Dr Christmas: Apr 24, 2010; Berninating the one percent,
Berninating the Wall St.
Berninating all the people
In their high rise penthouses!
🔥😱🔥🔫👴🏻

Admiral Bosch posted:

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

I imagine the people complaining about "Everyone gets a trophy :argh:

" going to a park, seeing kids frolic and play, and fume that more of them aren't being ground into the dust by life.

As a recipient of many participant medals, I can say that no one gets puffed up by them. Also, kids care more about what their peers think than their teachers, coaches, or parents. Those peers still care when you lose the ball or miss the goal, even at a no-stakes gym class or intramural game where the coach is barely bothering to keep score.

So there's no need to sit in your den after a hard day's work and give yourself an aneurism about not enough kids are being called fags or told they suck, because they are.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 23:20

myron cope: Apr 21, 2009

Mo_Steel posted:

Money is used as a means of exchange and follows the economic principles of supply and demand like other goods and services. If the supply of dollar bills increases enough, the relative value of each dollar decreases.

To use a simplified example, let's say there are 100 $1 bills in existence. $1 can buy you a loaf of bread from the store. Now the government puts another 100 $1 into the economy by printing that money. With more money in the economy, demand for bread increases, but the supply of bread hasn't changed. The price of bread goes up as a result to the new equilibrium price, and the relative value of $1 goes down: before $1 could buy you a loaf of bread, now it buys you half a loaf of bread.

This is a very simplified example and a lot more plays into inflation and money supply than that, but that covers the basic premise well enough I feel. Inflation caused by an increased money supply devalues the currency that already exists. It's important to keep in mind this doesn't just impact bread prices though: if the price of bread goes up, wages would probably also be inflated as a result, which means the relative value of a persons savings goes down but the relative cost of their debts also goes down. Owing $1 to your friend when there are 100 in the market is more costly in real terms than when there are 200 in the market.

Quantitative easing involves a central bank using newly created money to buy long-term assets from commercial banks. This puts more money in the commercial banks reserves, and commercial banks want to not sit on more money than they have to, so they are more willing to extend credit and loans out to businesses, home buyers, etc.

Thanks! Those actually made sense.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 23:21

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

However, the result is only inflationary if the bakers decide to respond to increased demand by raising prices instead of by baking more bread. If the supply of bread increases along with the demand, the price will remain the same.

# ? Sep 19, 2012 23:28

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Juffo-Wup posted:

However, the result is only inflationary if the bakers decide to respond to increased demand by raising prices instead of by baking more bread. If the supply of bread increases along with the demand, the price will remain the same.

Its really a marginal utility of the dollar thing. Lets take a super extreme example and say that the government printed a bunch of dollars and gave everyone $200M. Who would work for Walmart at $15000 a year when they have that much money? No one. But if they started paying $25M a year, they would get employees, but they'd have to start selling socks for $100,000 to afford it. But that's ok, cause everyone else would have tons of cash, and other employers would be doing the same thing.

In the end, everything you bought would just have a bunch more 0's in the price, and so would your paycheck. And the result is that each individual dollar is worth less (and worthless) because a single dollar could buy less than an individual penny can buy now. Which is already nothing.

# ? Sep 20, 2012 00:30

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Cardboard Box A posted:

Call me fanatical or a conspiracy theorist but Obama’s recent executive orders sound like just what Hitler did to take complete control of Germany!! Read them below:

*EO 13603 allows the President to “nationalize” all private assets, country’s industrial and technological base, and critical resources.

*EO 13618 allows the government to take over the nation’s communications assets.

*EO 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

*EO 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision

*EO 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

*EO 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

*EO 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.

*EO 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

That is a heck of a lot of power given to the government which it should not have and most definitely is not constitutional!!!

Wrong thread?

# ? Sep 20, 2012 00:31

constantIllusion: Feb 16, 2010

Admiral Bosch posted:

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

No instruction in languages other than English? How, pray tell, in this idiots fantasy world are foreign languages are to be taught?

Also, no anti-smoking or bullying (since I consider sexual harassment in schools to be a form of bullying) lessons? No, no, these are not public health issues, no. Just liberal whining yeah.

And he thinks people outside of high school actually give a poo poo about class rank and valedictory awards?

# ? Sep 20, 2012 01:09

Trivia: Feb 8, 2006; I'm an obtuse man,
so I'll try to be oblique.

Also keep in mind that not everyone wants to buy bread. Perhaps someone would rather have the more expensive / higher quality X instead of bread, now that they can afford it. Or maybe they are already satisfied and just save the extra income, or don't see any of that increased money supply at all and are now priced out of bread. Any number of situations can arise.

Cause and effect in econ can get pretty vague, especially since it's nigh impossible to do controlled experiments in a realistic setting. This leads to assumptions and model simplifications like "assuming all people are rational..."

# ? Sep 20, 2012 01:55

Boxman: Sep 27, 2004; Big fan of

Admiral Bosch posted:

So this ended up being too big to screencap, and it was on Facebook. I hope it can find a home here.

Sorry about the wall of text, but this really irritated the poo poo out of me.

There's a lot of horse poo poo in there, but one of my favorites is "I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness." I am in love with the idea that these divides only exist because of the bogeyman of political correctness. Certainly no one has ever enslaved another because of race, persecuted someone because of their religion, or committed violence because of sexual orientation.

Nope. It's all the libs' fault.

Also :lol:

at instituting a formal dress code for school to be more in line with Hollywood galas. Hope everyone has their tuxedo pressed! :v:

# ? Sep 20, 2012 02:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 10:39

Bombadilillo: Feb 28, 2009; The dock really fucks a case or nerfing it.

Boxman posted:

There's a lot of horse poo poo in there, but one of my favorites is "I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness." I am in love with the idea that these divides only exist because of the bogeyman of political correctness. Certainly no one has ever enslaved another because of race, persecuted someone because of their religion, or committed violence because of sexual orientation.

Nope. It's all the libs' fault.

Also at instituting a formal dress code for school to be more in line with Hollywood galas. Hope everyone has their tuxedo pressed!

No that your not enslaved because of your race, WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP!?!?!?

# ? Sep 20, 2012 02:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Got a crazy forwarded political email from your family? Post them here.

«‹›2810 »