believer;807755 wrote:You obviously do.

Yes I actually paid attention in class, You just paid your fee and got your B at BGSU.

Bigdogg;807882 wrote:Now that you completely shit on the thread, do you think it is a good thing that a continuing smaller group of people control a greater percentage of the total wealth? And why do you think this is a good thing? When will it end, like a monopoly game where the last player wins?

No sir, it was not I that defacated herein. You stated I don't know Marx and can't possibly compare him to Reichhh's economic view. There are dozens of quotes wherein Marx espounds on the greatness of labour and the purported luckiness of the capitalists that profit from labour. Reichhh uses the term, "middle class", instead of labour but they're saying the same things.

The representation of private interests ... abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object.

Marx, On the Thefts of Wood, in Rheinische Zeitung (1842)

Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering.

Marx, Human Requirements and Division of Labour (1844)

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

Marx, German Ideology (1845)

Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor.

Marx, Poverty of Philosophy (1847)

It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier..

Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (1850)

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875)

Let's update Marx's quote to 21st Century Amerika shall we?

Between capitalist and socialist society there lies the period of the gradual transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which Big Government can be nothing but the socialist dictatorship of the working and middle classes.

Believer, Critique of the Gotcha Program (2011)

Bigdogg;807887 wrote:Yes I actually paid attention in class, You just paid your fee and got your B at BGSU.

Right conference, wrong university.

Footwedge;807172 wrote:Umm.......I don't think so. Where do you people come up with such utter nonsense? According to the CBO, the national debt increased 4.3 trillion under W. You, just like Jmog, don't understand what a fiscal year means. 1.3 trillion of Obama's debt his first year was Bush's signed legislation. And....even if you didn't include this 1.3 trillion, Bush increased the aggregate national debt an additional 3 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

And this....

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/a-texas-size-whopper/


The fact is....presidents set budgets....not Congresses. True, Congresses can reject a budget...but they never have...at least to any significant amount. Since 1980, the budgets set by Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 were 1.5 times higher per year than the annual budgets set by Clinton. Moreover, the list of "staunch Republicans" who have stated that "defecits don't matter" would astound you.

You try to poke fun at people's knowledge of a fiscal year and them post this garbage? Everyone whoever passed a civics or government class knows this is horse crap. The president basically gives his opinion inhospitable budget and then Congress can choose to use his opinion or completely reject it and do their own.

BGFalcons82;808006 wrote:No sir, it was not I that defacated herein. You stated I don't know Marx and can't possibly compare him to Reichhh's economic view. There are dozens of quotes wherein Marx espounds on the greatness of labour and the purported luckiness of the capitalists that profit from labour. Reichhh uses the term, "middle class", instead of labour but they're saying the same things.

Is that the answer to my questions? If so you just got a zero.

jmog;808430 wrote:You try to poke fun at people's knowledge of a fiscal year and them post this garbage? Everyone whoever passed a civics or government class knows this is horse crap. The president basically gives his opinion inhospitable budget and then Congress can choose to use his opinion or completely reject it and do their own.

zzzzzzzz.....

You want to dispute the numbers posted? And you call it garbage? Yeah....the official numbers from the CBO are garbage....according to you. And Believer posting that utter rubbish. Your love affair with bashing Barry on fiscal irresponsibility does not pass the stink test. And save the horse crap on civics. The fact is the president sets the budget...and the Congress histocally does NOTHING to change it. You right winged hacks are ten times more hypocritical than the lefty loons. The national debt increased at a 3-2 ratio higher under GOP budget setters than their Democratic counterparts since 1980.

"Your love affair with bashing Barry on fiscal irresponsibility does not pass the stink test."

There's no test to pass. Obama's spending and lack of economic development speak alone. We might not survive another term of his. The national debt is only a portion of our fiscal woes, our unfunded liabilities is a greater, and far less covered, problem. Its like the film "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey's character tells the bad guy (Charlie Rocket, if I recall correctly) that the IOU for one Lamborghini is as good as cash. It was a funny joke, so is our fiscal situation - well maybe not funny. At some point our debt isn't going to be worth anything without a major disruption. We've run out of bubbles, and Obama's economic "dream team" has left the building.

Bigdogg;807882 wrote:Now that you completely **** on the thread, do you think it is a good thing that a continuing smaller group of people control a greater percentage of the total wealth? And why do you think this is a good thing? When will it end, like a monopoly game where the last player wins?

Do you think it is a good thing that a continuing smaller group of people control a greater percentage of political power. If so why do you think it is a good thing? How will it end? Like a Monopoly game where all power is concentrated into the hand of one?

Federal deficit spending is nothing new. It has been around for a long time. Admittedly the spending has grown to dizzyingly insane levels the last couple of years of the "W" administration and it's fair to say that BHO has upped the ante to much scarier heights.

The interesting thing is this is not a uniquely American phenomena. The Europeans, Japan, and the United States are all in similar fiscal crisis. It is almost as if the economically developed countries have collectively decided to create a major world-wide economic disaster that will eventually force everyone to the negotiating table with the Chinese to come up with some method of popping the global debt bubble without causing too much financial chaos.

Historically and unfortunately when global financial conditions reach such dire straits, war eventually erupts to "resolve" the differences.

With the developed countries and China sitting on vast nuclear stockpiles coupled with the popular uprisings in the Middle East and seasoned with a good sprinkling of radical Islam, the dynamics this time have a far, far more frightening backdrop.

Obama is certainly not the answer and I do not see anyone in the American or European political arenas with the intelligence and charisma needed to lead us out of this quagmire.

Frankly I'm concerned about the future of my children. I sincerely believe that they may witness worldwide political and financial conflict that will make the Great Depression and WWII seem like the best of times.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/obama-gets-30-of-americans-certain-to-support-re-election-in-economy-poll.html

Only 30% to support obama for sure .......... still have to wonder how 30% could be so moronic.

majorspark;809386 wrote:Do you think it is a good thing that a continuing smaller group of people control a greater percentage of political power. If so why do you think it is a good thing? How will it end? Like a Monopoly game where all power is concentrated into the hand of one?

Please cite your source that this is happening at a greater rate presently and I will gladly respond.

QuakerOats;809587 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/obama-gets-30-of-americans-certain-to-support-re-election-in-economy-poll.html

Only 30% to support obama for sure .......... still have to wonder how 30% could be so moronic.

Wonder no more- with people like this, there will always be those who support Obama:

“So far Obama’s doing an OK job, not as great as I was hoping for,” said Pam Kaltenbach, 62, a Democratic voter from Chillicothe, Ohio, who supported Republican presidential candidate John McCain in 2008. “But now the Republicans don’t understand the working man. They don’t tax the rich more, they just want to take away the programs that are needed by the middle class.”

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr . . . . . .

Belly35;809662 wrote:

Sad that he still leads everyone running against him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

Tell me, bigdogg, and the Obama supporters:

What policies has he created or put in place that merits a 2nd term? In other words, what has he done so well that we, as a country, need to champion or repeat? Remember, you can't kill Bin Laden twice, so that one is out.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343

now its the obama food police ......... do they ever stop encroaching on our freedom?

change we can believe in .......

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/americans-worse-now-than-when-obama-inaugurated-by-44-34-margin-in-poll.html

-- still marveling at the 30 odd % who support this regime ...... I guess I didn't realize there were that many socialists/marxists/communists inside the border.

Bigdogg;809633 wrote:Please cite your source that this is happening at a greater rate presently and I will gladly respond.

I noticed you added the phrase "greater rate presently". A phrase not in your post I was responding to and not what you were saying either. I can't say it is happening at a greater rate presently. Its been happening for decades, but it is like you said continuing to happen.

I have said this many times before. Power and money are increasingly centralized in one place in this country, Washington DC. When power and money are concentrated in one place the soil is fertile for the corrupt to plant their seeds and reap their crop. Our founders designed a government to discourage this. The original intent of the constitution was steadily encroached upon by the federal government, and outside of the amendment process state authority was taken and handed to Washington DC, through deception and misinterpretation of our founding document. As a result, like locusts on a wheat field they are gathering in Washington DC. The author of the Cato article aptly names it the parasite economy.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5073
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-growth-of-government-in-america/

BGFalcons82;810269 wrote:Tell me, bigdogg, and the Obama supporters:

What policies has he created or put in place that merits a 2nd term? In other words, what has he done so well that we, as a country, need to champion or repeat? Remember, you can't kill Bin Laden twice, so that one is out.

Wrong question and that question can get you in trouble.
The correct question is what can the other candidate do, concrete policies, that would merit them the honor of being President?
Broadly, the President can be bad, but if he still has better ideas and policies than the other guy, he should win.

It's the bear saying. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

ptown_trojans_1;810556 wrote:Wrong question and that question can get you in trouble.
The correct question is what can the other candidate do, concrete policies, that would merit them the honor of being President?
Broadly, the President can be bad, but if he still has better ideas and policies than the other guy, he should win.

It's the bear saying. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

Why is the bear saying anything?

ptown_trojans_1;810556 wrote:Wrong question and that question can get you in trouble.
The correct question is what can the other candidate do, concrete policies, that would merit them the honor of being President?
Broadly, the President can be bad, but if he still has better ideas and policies than the other guy, he should win.

Just about anything or anyone will be better than what we have. Reminder: It's still early.

It's not just the US that is bleeding - take a look at Europe or Japan. With the exception of Canada and Australia (mainly because they are commodity-rich), most OECD countries are struggling under a mountain of debt. Seems perhaps the natural cycle is the more wealthy and established a country becomes, the more the do-gooders will destroy it with unsustainable handouts. It may have been fine when these countries were booming and GDP and the workforce were growing, but as those demographics have aged the pay-as-you-go systems can't support all the hungry mouths.

ptown_trojans_1;810556 wrote:Wrong question and that question can get you in trouble.
The correct question is what can the other candidate do, concrete policies, that would merit them the honor of being President?
Broadly, the President can be bad, but if he still has better ideas and policies than the other guy, he should win.

It's the bear saying. I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.

Sadly better ideas don't get people elected. The current state of the public's wallets does.

gut;810595 wrote:It's not just the US that is bleeding - take a look at Europe or Japan. With the exception of Canada and Australia (mainly because they are commodity-rich), most OECD countries are struggling under a mountain of debt. Seems perhaps the natural cycle is the more wealthy and established a country becomes, the more the do-gooders will destroy it with unsustainable handouts. It may have been fine when these countries were booming and GDP and the workforce were growing, but as those demographics have aged the pay-as-you-go systems can't support all the hungry mouths.

Western Europe is a disaster, far worse than the U.S., any analyst of practically any industry will tell you that (i) its market opportunities are shrinking and (ii) its drowning in debt and entitlements. The company I work for has more or less written it off - they have to do business there due to the amount of people there, but there are no growth possibilities. Eastern Europe has some opportunities but there's always political risk there.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/blodget-vs-meltzer-uncertainty-over-obama-policies-really-162640423.html

And the Forbes clip that follows is pretty good as well.

Today's employment report is bad - again - and the premarkets are way down.

The Golfer-in-Chief needs a permanent vacation.