Really? I can't deny it anymore.

[waitforufo]

Well bambi lives another day to roam the NW woods. I'll try again tonight. There is always late buck.

 

As an American adult, presumably a citizen, you are not. "We the people" are the political class here - however irresponsibly we may carry out our duties.

 

Marx famously expanded on Smith's observations, noting that the very worldview of the participants in such a limited and blinkered exchange is affected by this lack of information and distortion of the market involved, suffering a form of sensory deprivation often leading even the very wealthy to harbor hallucinations of having "earned" or in some way having become personally entitled to all of whatever wealth has come into their possession.

 

As the silly misconceptions of what has been happening show (delay of the individual mandate, needless anyway, would not have come close to avoiding the shutdown, which had entirely other motives and drivers) the poster has been taking his own advice and ignoring politics.

 

The odd thing is that the poster has firm opinions about these political issues, despite recommending and demonstrating almost complete ignorance of every aspect of them (24 hour news shows?).

 

I love the shift to third person.

 

The circus is put there for our entertainment. Same as in the days of Rome. I'm paying for it so why shouldn't I pay attention? The circus is there for our entertainment and I was forced to buy a ticket.

 

Also, when the circus is in town you need to watch out of the pick pockets.

 

Let's try that third person stuff.

 

Does the poster really think his opinions matter? Does the poster really think those running the big top, the political class, are paying attention to the poster? They vote themselves pay raises and exempt themselves and their staff from the laws the rest of us have to follow, but the poster still believes they care?

 

The poster should appreciate that very few people pay attention at all to politics. Those that avoid the subject avoid those that don't. That puts those champions of of the big top in an echo chamber, believing that everyone cares as much about the circus as they do. Well, they don't, in large part because they know that the "entitled" will never include them. They are just like poor old Boxer in animal farm.

 

My thanks to the poster for his reference to Marx. I won't take the bait. I prefer the Marx with the painted on mustache and the big cigar. Now that's entertainment.

I don't know until you post them.

Popcorn,

Thank you for starting this thread and sticking with it. You continue to be a shining example of the kind of person this country is now producing.

 

If I were you I would sit tight and hold out for your gratis $50k. In the mean time I would recommend that you wait around for others to do your leg work while participating in your own thread.

 

Keep us posted on how that works out.

[Tridimity]

Of course you don't think about me having sex, but you walked right into my feedback comment.

 

All you know about my human compassion is that I don't think the government should be the vehicle for human compassion. I give 10% of my gross to charity, and very few of those charities are religious. The ones that are religious directly serve the homeless. You did not know this so no worries.

 

Neither Jesus or Humanist. Adam Smith is closer to the mark.

 

I don't have a lot of time this morning because I'm off to kill bambi so let me give you my political philosophy in a few sentences.

 

You often hear about classes in society. Things like the middle class. I even use that term myself because it is convenient and well understood. The primary classes I see are the political class and the non political class. I'm in the latter. Like I said in a previous post I barely even vote and then only in local elections. The political class is simply providing us with bread and circuses. The bread of course is governmental entitlement. Even the term entitlement pisses me off. How dare someone say they are entitled to my money when they are not providing me a good or service. The circuses are things like the recent government shutdown. What BS. Now they are going to have to postpone the individual mandate of ACA because the we need even more entertainment. We could have avoided the shutdown with this postponement but the shutdown was in circus circle number 1 and ACA is in circus circle number 2. The big circle has all the 24 hour news shows doing acrobatics. All just a distraction so the political class can push us around like pawns while spending our money.

 

Ignore the political class. Leave the circus. Make our own. Be charitable outside of government.

 

Now off to kill bambi.

 

Well, sorry if I was quick to judge but I generally expect people to maintain a consistency of viewpoint across topics. For example, of somebody whose stance is anti-welfare, I would not expect philanthropic charity giving - for the simple reason that the espoused values are not consistent. Besides which, if you ignore the needs of financially disadvantaged people for long enough by neglecting to provide a basic level of welfare, you will eventually create a larger pool of people requiring charity assistance. The position just does not make sense.

 

The advantage of state welfare provision over charity provision is that the former is better able to vet claimants so as to check that they really are in a position of need and that they are doing all within their power to alleviate their own situation. AFAIAA, most charities do not do this. Moreover, although the welfare system is not perfect, in that there are some inefficiencies and potential for corruption, at least the politicians overseeing the system are answerable to the citizenry. While charities are regulated by a number of independent institutions, they are not accountable to the citizenry in the same manner. Moreover, charity giving is entirely voluntary so it is not a very good idea to leave the most financially vulnerable members of society in the care of people who may or may not, depending on their whims, contribute further to the charity. In this sense, I do think that all citizens are entitled to a basic level of welfare provision should they experience financial difficulties.

 

I don't know until you post them.

 

Hm, you're a bit daft. This is a good thing

Edited October 25, 2013 by Tridimity

[swansont]

They vote themselves pay raises

 

No, they don't, according Article II section 1, and the 27th amendment.

[waitforufo]

 

No, they don't, according Article II section 1, and the 27th amendment.

And the 14th amendment says we can't default on our debt. So what. That is a living document. It means whatever the grand master of the circus want's it to mean. Where have you been?

[Tridimity]

Does the poster really think his opinions matter? Does the poster really think those running the big top, the political class, are paying attention to the poster?

 

 

The judgment as to whether or not something is important is entirely subjective. The majority of people would agree that the work of Isaac Newton is important - there would be a minority of odd dissenters. Pointing out to the dissenters that Newton's work is fundamental to the field of Physics and that most people agree that it is important - is unlikely to sway their opinion. We tend to value the opinions of those whom we care about and/or respect. The poster's opinions do matter to myself and to various other members of the Forum - and if they do not matter to you, why do you continue the debate?

[swansont]

And the 14th amendment says we can't default on our debt. So what. That is a living document. It means whatever the grand master of the circus want's it to mean. Where have you been?

 

What's the point of discussion if you are going to just make stuff up? This isn't an opinion of yours, you are asserting something factual. So give us a fact: when has the constitution been violated in regards to congress or the president voting themselves a raise? If you can't, then admit you were just blowing smoke.

[overtone]

I love the shift to third person.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

Unfortunately, in this:

Let's try that third person stuff.

 

Does the poster really think his opinions matter? - - - - -

- - - - -

Now that's entertainment.

you omitted the key feature of thread or argument relevance. Refer to the OP, your own previous posting, etc, to refresh your memory. One starting point: you claimed neighborhood with Adam Smith, yet exhibited none whatsoever - quite the contrary. You favor the economic policies of Ronald Reagan, for example, which Smith-based analysis explicitly rejects as unsound and predicts to fail with damaging effects (as they did). How did that happen?

 

 

 

What's the point of discussion if you are going to just make stuff up?

The point of waitforufo's posting is to conceal, from himself at least, the results of enacted policies and elected politicians he favored on purpose and for reason: ugly failure and reverberating damages and dishonor to his country and his community - not by whims and accidents, but by cause and consequence of what he thought was best.

 

That seems to me the central political problem of the US right now - a large body of white men between the ages of 35 and 65 (the core population of responsible and powerful adults in this country) are faced with the fact that they have been seriously, harmfully, and inexcusably wrong in their politics - not just mistaken here and there, but committed for decades now to a public ignorance, clownibox foolishness, and extraordinary incompetence in both ideology and action. And these are not people accustomed to public humiliation. They are going to exhibit symptoms. Denial (you're never going to convince me that Reagan was a bad President), avoidance (I don't pay attention to national politics, it's all just a circus for the rubes), anger (attacking the bad news bringers), bizarre squid ink ("the Democrats" are responsible for the Civil War), and so forth.

Edited October 26, 2013 by overtone

[uncool]

 

What's the point of discussion if you are going to just make stuff up? This isn't an opinion of yours, you are asserting something factual. So give us a fact: when has the constitution been violated in regards to congress or the president voting themselves a raise? If you can't, then admit you were just blowing smoke.

Depending on what waitforufo meant precisely, "voting themselves raises" doesn't necessarily require violating the 27th amendment.

 

First, "themselves" could refer to Congress as a class, rather than as its individual members; then they can vote themselves raises, although it takes effects in the next cycle.

 

Second, given the huge rate of incumbency in Congress, there isn't that much difference between cycles. So if they vote for a raise, most of them will survive the next election to receive the raise in the next cycle.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

Depending on what waitforufo meant precisely, "voting themselves raises" doesn't necessarily require violating the 27th amendment.

 

First, "themselves" could refer to Congress as a class, rather than as its individual members; then they can vote themselves raises, although it takes effects in the next cycle.

 

Second, given the huge rate of incumbency in Congress, there isn't that much difference between cycles. So if they vote for a raise, most of them will survive the next election to receive the raise in the next cycle.

=Uncool-

 

 

But that was not the response he chose to give.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Good news (for me at least). I just saw a commercial about the financial crisis we are in and at the end they said "[if we want to solve this problem], we need to have a serious discussion about entitlement."

 

Glad to see that this message is being heard. Can we get the change we need now? I'm not talking about pennies either.

[iNow]

Good news (for me at least). I just saw a commercial about the financial crisis we are in and at the end they said "[if we want to solve this problem], we need to have a serious discussion about entitlement."

 

Glad to see that this message is being heard. Can we get the change we need now? I'm not talking about pennies either.

The core driver of our debt is rising medical costs (which are themselves being somewhat curbed by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and which would be even lower still if we just took our thumbs out of our asses and implemented universal coverage). Yet even that healthcare cost "crisis" is not for at least another 10 years (and potentially more), so we still have time to address it.

 

Not only that, but it's already getting better (and government service is doing better than private service, ta boot):

 

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/projected-medicare-spending-has-fallen-by-more-than-500-billion/

 

Heres some good news on the fiscal front: projected Medicare spending over the 2011-2020 period has fallen by more than $500 billion since late 2010 based on a comparison of the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections with those of August 2010. ...

CBO has reduced its projections of Medicare spending in response to a pattern of very low spending growth in the past three years. ... Medicare spending growth has slowed even more than costs in private health insurance, according to Standard & Poors and Medicares actuary.

However, instead of being measured and reasoned and focused about this topic of reducing cost of service for medical procedures and ensuring we pay for quality instead of quantity... instead of taking steps that will meaningfully improve our long-term fiscal health... what we hear instead are calls (usually from people who have been consistently wrong in nearly all of their comments and assertions about the economy for at least the last 5 years) that we must dismantle the social safety net (social security, medicare, and medicaid) NOW NOW NOW in order to protect ourselves and save our nation from impending doom and catastrophe. That is remedially false.

 

 

http://cbo.gov/publication/44172

 

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this yearat 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP.

 

Because revenues, under current law, are projected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next two years, deficits in CBOs baseline projections continue to shrink, falling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 2015. However, budget shortfalls are projected to increase later in the coming decade, reaching 3.5 percent of GDP in 2023, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt.

Yes... 10 years from now, not now. Not as we claw our way out of the single biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. And yet... countless people are calling for us to completely dismantle our social security, medicare, and medicaid systems immediately, or to change these programs in ways that result in them no longer functioning properly and ultimately costing more, and because (they say) we are in a crisis right now? It sometimes feels like we live in bizzaro world.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/about-that-debt-crisis-never-mind/

 

Yes, debt rose substantially in the face of economic crisis which is what is supposed to happen. But runaway deficits? Not a hint.

 

Yes, there are longer-term issues of health costs and demographics. As always, however, these have no relevance to what we should be doing now and its far from clear why they should even be a priority for discussion. As Ive written before, the ["Very Serious People"] consensus seems to be that to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must commit ourselves now now now to future cuts in benefits.

 

Why, its almost as if the real goal was to make sure that benefits get cut even if the fiscal outlook improves.

It is a rather strange argument being made, and it's mentioned above. It basically goes like this: "If we run out of money later, we'll need to cut benefits. So, in order to avoid cutting benefits of people in the future, we need to cut them right now instead." WTF?

 

So, my point is that doomsayer calls of crisis and soap box assertions regarding the need for immediate action are misguided, at best, and ideological while preying on the ignorance of those who are only semi-informed on these topics, at worst.

 

Seriously, show me again where the crisis is? Yes, we have a higher debt and deficit right now. This thing called a Great Recession happened. It resulted in people losing their jobs, which resulted in tax revenues going down at the same time as unemployment and food assistance expenditures were going up. Focus on putting people back to work... invest in this country again instead of trying to cut our way to prosperity and we might improve the very issue you seem to care so much about. There is certainly room here for a more aggressive fiscal response... or ANY fiscal response whatsoever, frankly, from our do-nothing obstructionist Congress that's full of elected officials that hate government itself... but, I digress.

 

I'll just leave you with this, because this is what you and talking heads are freaking out about, even though it's entirely manageable and not an immediate threat:

 

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

 

 

 

Actually... Let me ask, when you mentioned "entitlements," perhaps you meant the massive tax breaks we give the ultra-wealthy and the subsidies we provide to enormously profitable corporations (and you weren't actually referring to social security, medicare, and medicaid)? If so, then I totally agree. We really ought to cut those and start investing in our education and infrastructure and jobs programs again and move beyond this zombie notion that contractionary policies won't generate a contractionary result on the economy.

Edited October 26, 2013 by iNow

[Popcorn Sutton]

Well, my interpretation of this particular use of entitlement is the question of whether the people who make all the money are actually entitled to that money. Like I said before, there should be a cutoff point on how much any given person is able to make. So one priveleged person comes up with a good idea, should they literally be showered in money every day for an accomplishment that happened years ago? They should be taking their money and showering us with it, like a big thank you.

It's very hard for people my age and in my area to get a job that will let them be independent. I'll be the first to say this, I'm absolutely miserable living where I live. I can't go a single day without being treated like a stupid worthless good for nothing person. I get told to do something at least 3 times every hour. I have no independence whatsoever and can't even speak without the anxiety of the people I live with overhearing something. I can't even talk about the things I love. We are all miserable, to put it lightly.

[iNow]

I'm sorry life is a struggle for you right now, Popcorn. I have confidence things will ultimately work out for you, I really do. Just be patient. Much like your post requesting youtube videos, however, I'm not clear how your reply is related to what I shared or why you think limiting the incomes of others will somehow effect your own.

[Phi for All]

So one priveleged person comes up with a good idea, should they literally be showered in money every day for an accomplishment that happened years ago? They should be taking their money and showering us with it, like a big thank you.

I'm sure your tune would change if the idea was yours. Would you claim you deserve more for YOUR good idea because you define "privileged" differently? How would you feel about your world-changing idea if you only got your $50K for it and next year you have to start all over again?

[Tridimity]

Well, my interpretation of this particular use of entitlement is the question of whether the people who make all the money are actually entitled to that money. Like I said before, there should be a cutoff point on how much any given person is able to make. So one priveleged person comes up with a good idea, should they literally be showered in money every day for an accomplishment that happened years ago? They should be taking their money and showering us with it, like a big thank you.

It's very hard for people my age and in my area to get a job that will let them be independent. I'll be the first to say this, I'm absolutely miserable living where I live. I can't go a single day without being treated like a stupid worthless good for nothing person. I get told to do something at least 3 times every hour. I have no independence whatsoever and can't even speak without the anxiety of the people I live with overhearing something. I can't even talk about the things I love. We are all miserable, to put it lightly.

 

Popcorn, I am not so sure that money is the fundamental root of your unhappiness although it undoubtedly seems a contributory factor. So, you are unhappy living in a particular place with a particular group of people because they do not give you respect, autonomy, privacy or interesting conversation. I do not know exactly what your arrangement is, but I am willing to bet that you would be able to start restricting the amount of time that you are prepared to spend with these people. For example, if you are sharing accommodation together, you could install a lock system on your door and explain to each of the people what they can now expect from you in terms of time spent with them. If there are certain things that you are expected to do for them (e.g. household maintenance) then agree with them beforehand when you will do those tasks (so that they are not perpetually nagging you). Try as far as possible to be assertive with these people, neither passive (from what you have written, I would hazard a guess that, on the whole, you engage in passive behaviours) nor aggressive. And then try and get out to meet friends, or to make new friends, with whom you share the same interests. (This coming from the asocialite. But it is much easier to give advice than it is to heed one's own advice. )

 

Introducing Assertiveness: A Practical Guide

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/david+bonham-carter/introducing+assertiveness/9424701/

 

Let us know how you get on

Edited October 26, 2013 by Tridimity

[TeaParty]

Me too, but a quick glance at the Tea Party in the US and the strong support it receives suggests that this thought is not only somewhat common, but also gaining traction and trending upward.

The TeaParty doesn't like Fascism the TeaParty is a group of people that wants the government and those in love with government to leave them the hell alone. We don't want someone telling us we have to buy health insurance when we don't need or want it. We don't want government getting in the way of our businesses and making it impossible to be profitable because some idiot thinks that they are entitled to everything we have when they themselves haven't done anything but show up and punch a time clock when they're told to and almost can't do that.

 

The democrat party is in love with fascism and wants everyone else to be forced into it. If you support Barack Obama then you support fascism end of story. The democrat party is the party of sheep they believe that the government is the ends to the ends and don't you dare try to get in their way because they will take you out - that is until the teaparty came along.

[waitforufo]

So I have been thinking about this topic and the post below in particular.

 

I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable with releasing my age. I have a bachelors degree in philosophy with a concentration in linguistics.

I'm just saying that when you look at the actual distribution of wealth, it's not fair to most of the people who are living in our system. If we distribute the wealth equally and annually, we would all be making $50,000/yr. I'm looking at getting a job for $30,000/yr if I get lucky. So if you look at it that way, anyone who is making over $50,000/yr is technically stealing money from other people.
I hate to put it that way, there should be at least some incentive for people to be productive, but the way it is right now is not fair.

 

In particular I have been thinking about Popcorn's chosen course of study.

 

I have a bachelors degree in philosophy with a concentration in linguistics.

 

Why would somebody think such a course of study would ever produce a middle class salary. What job title would one expect with such a degree in common vernacular? Yes, the second part of that title would be linguist. Then I thought, well someone would have to be pretty cunning to pair philosophy with linguistics. That is when I knew I had been had. Think about Popcorn's posts on this topic. That doesn't happen by accident. So I think it's time for a little carrier advice for Popcorn,

Popcorn,
I hate to break it to you but I think you need to change your carrier ambitions. I personally know the pleasures of providing cunning linguist services so I know you must have passion for your carrier goals. But let's face it, most guys provide this service for free. Just participating is payment enough for me. On top of that, if we can believe the internets, and on this one I hope we can, lots of gals like providing this service for free as well. At least I like to believe this is true, and I don't think that makes me a bad person. You will never make any money in a field where so many people provide your service for free. You will have to change to something else.

Being from the great state of Washington my first thought was oyster diving since this trade should have similarities to your chosen course of study. But let's face it, all those openings are filled. Maybe others can provide other alternatives.

Moderator,
Since Popcorn is the author of the opener for this thread, maybe topic should be moved through the Lounge.

[TeaParty]

We've been trying. We've been trying really hard, we libertarian lefties and actual liberals. But we can't get the white men between 35 and 65 to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

At some point, we look at you guys voting for Palin, voting for W, voting for Dole, voting for Reagan, voting to get themselves and everything they care about boned hard by sociopaths and robbed blind by professionals and perverted by religious fanatics and covered with poo by incompetent children, and we throw up our hands.

 

 

So you would join me in returning to the pre-Reagan setup? That was the system that produced what middle class we have left. You don't seem to favor it, though

 

On the one hand, you guys say perfectly reasonable things about protecting successful arrangements that have worked for decades. On the other, you vote for - in sequence, repeatedly, over many years, after seeing the destruction right in front of your eyes: Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/ Quayle, Bush/Quayle, Dole/Kemp, W/Cheney, W/Cheney, McCain/Palin, and Romney/ Ryan. So: WTF?

 

Sounds like common ground, if all there was to go on was the talk: - the first step would be revocation of all the tax breaks and financial corruptions Reagan and his subsequent followers handed out to the wealthy, and a return to the systematic regulation of the financial system that Roosevelt imposed (for very good reasons) in the wake of the previous Republican crashing of the US economy. I would look forward to your support, in these restorations of sane government, if I didn't have the record of behavior in front of me.

 

You don't give a dead rat for the social, political, and financial "ecosystem" that provided you opportunities unique in human history. You just vote for the most plausible jackass who promises to lower your taxes.

 

You write a lot of words but fail to say anything.

 

I suppose you support Obama but that clown has yet to fix or even make anything a little bit better. I am in the worst position in my life and I can show you physical proof that it all started when the democrats gain control of the government in 2007 and got worse from 2009 when Obama took office. To use the words of the incredibly stupid current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. When Reagan took office he inherited double digit unemployment, ditto inflation, ditto interest rates and probably the worst economy since the great depression. Unlike Obama though he turned it around and left a booming economy by the end of his second term but had everything well on it's way by the end of his first. Obama and his progressive policies have yet to do anything and he had to beg for a second term because he couldn't point to one thing he had done that fixed anything in his first. Five years in and everything is worse then it ever was. Even under George Bush who spent money like a democrat I had plenty of disposable income but yet under Obama I haven't lost any income as in hourly wages I even make more per hour now then I did then but I had to sell my truck, I had to have my directv turned off, I had to lower my 401k from 10% to 3%, I had to discontinue my charitable contribution that I had taken out of my pay check ever since I started with the company in 1997. My daughter graduated from college and was lucky to find a job working at planet fitness for $7.75 an hour because there aren't any freakin jobs out there. If you add up all the people that are out of work the unemployment rate is around 17% not counting the 9 million jobs that don't even exist anymore since Obama took office.

 

So do you want to tell me again how great everything would be by going back to what it was like before Reagan? I think we already see what it's like and I'll take a Reagan economy over Jimmy Carters 3rd and 4th term economy any day of the week.

[Tridimity]

waitforufo, on 26 Oct 2013 - 3:08 PM, said:

So I have been thinking about this topic and the post below in particular.

 

 

In particular I have been thinking about Popcorn's chosen course of study.

 

 

Why would somebody think such a course of study would ever produce a middle class salary. What job title would one expect with such a degree in common vernacular? Yes, the second part of that title would be linguist. Then I thought, well someone would have to be pretty cunning to pair philosophy with linguistics. That is when I knew I had been had. Think about Popcorn's posts on this topic. That doesn't happen by accident. So I think it's time for a little carrier advice for Popcorn,

 

Popcorn,

I hate to break it to you but I think you need to change your carrier ambitions. I personally know the pleasures of providing cunning linguist services so I know you must have passion for your carrier goals. But let's face it, most guys provide this service for free. Just participating is payment enough for me. On top of that, if we can believe the internets, and on this one I hope we can, lots of gals like providing this service for free as well. At least I like to believe this is true, and I don't think that makes me a bad person. You will never make any money in a field where so many people provide your service for free. You will have to change to something else.

 

Being from the great state of Washington my first thought was oyster diving since this trade should have similarities to your chosen course of study. But let's face it, all those openings are filled. Maybe others can provide other alternatives.

 

Moderator,

Since Popcorn is the author of the opener for this thread, maybe topic should be moved through the Lounge.

 

 

Philosophy and Linguistics. PhD level study, teaching jobs, academic jobs, professorships, transferable critical thinking and communication skills. I would think that a Philosophy and Linguistics graduate would be a major asset in the workplace.

 

And, wfu, “most guys provide this service for free”? Seriously, how many people are sufficiently knowledgeable and willing to provide insights on the nature of language?

 

“my first thought was oyster diving since this trade should have similarities to your chosen course of study”

 

In the same vein, wfu, I would advise you to join the circus. You’d be really good at tossing.

 

Popcorn, if Philosophy and Liguistics are your passions then you should continue to pursue them. I would not advise that you take advice from anyone who spells career as ‘carrier’, much less when that person is our resident clown, wfu.

 

Wfu: take your FED EX advice elsewhere

I can show you physical proof that it all started when the democrats gain control of the government in 2007 and got worse from 2009 when Obama took office

 

 

And, to paraphrase iNow, I can show you physical proof that I tend to be carrying an umbrella when it starts rain. Doesn't mean that the umbrella-carrying caused the rain to fall.

 

TeaParty, your entire argument - if it can be called an argument - is based on one person's life experience (your own). There is no way to establish a causal link between your particular set of circumstances and the election of Obama.

 

Come back when you have some convincing national statistics on GDP, unemployment rate, inflation and interest rates during Obama's term in office.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Tridimity

[Phi for All]

You write a lot of words but fail to say anything.

 

I suppose you support Obama but that clown has yet to fix or even make anything a little bit better. I am in the worst position in my life and I can show you physical proof that it all started when the democrats gain control of the government in 2007 and got worse from 2009 when Obama took office. To use the words of the incredibly stupid current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. When Reagan took office he inherited double digit unemployment, ditto inflation, ditto interest rates and probably the worst economy since the great depression. Unlike Obama though he turned it around and left a booming economy by the end of his second term but had everything well on it's way by the end of his first. Obama and his progressive policies have yet to do anything and he had to beg for a second term because he couldn't point to one thing he had done that fixed anything in his first. Five years in and everything is worse then it ever was. Even under George Bush who spent money like a democrat I had plenty of disposable income but yet under Obama I haven't lost any income as in hourly wages I even make more per hour now then I did then but I had to sell my truck, I had to have my directv turned off, I had to lower my 401k from 10% to 3%, I had to discontinue my charitable contribution that I had taken out of my pay check ever since I started with the company in 1997. My daughter graduated from college and was lucky to find a job working at planet fitness for $7.75 an hour because there aren't any freakin jobs out there. If you add up all the people that are out of work the unemployment rate is around 17% not counting the 9 million jobs that don't even exist anymore since Obama took office.

 

So do you want to tell me again how great everything would be by going back to what it was like before Reagan? I think we already see what it's like and I'll take a Reagan economy over Jimmy Carters 3rd and 4th term economy any day of the week.

 

Your FOX is showing. And everything you've mentioned here can be traced back to wages shifting from middle-class workers to C-level management. That's not the government's fault, it's the fault of your biggest backers, the Kochs and their circle, although they certainly have influenced legislation most when Reagan and the Bush's were in office.

 

I'll never understand why anyone who isn't part of the 1% would ever support the TP extremists. They may have started out with good intentions but were quickly taken over by people who want the 99% to pay for everything the 1% use most, like highways and airports, while denying the 99% what they need the most, like public works, well-regulated business practices and affordable healthcare.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Waitforufo, I'm not going to listen to pessimism. I worked very hard to get the degree that I have. I did a lot of reading and even more writing. I've never attempted to get published, but part of me knows that people would love to read my work in a journal. I know that my contributions have been invaluable and have interdisciplinary implications. Just the other day I asked one of my friends, "Have you ever heard of a unit of knowledge?" (I coined that term). He said "yes, but the problem is that it's so vague." And I responded with "that's the beauty of it, it's a variable for a variable. That type of object has never been presented in the history of mankind until now, and the thing about it is that if you believe that the mind is part of the body, and that you have knowledge, then you must believe that there are physical bits of knowledge contained inside of you." This bit of information is literally being taught at every university that I know of now and I've heard it being talked about by very respectable intellectual people. Leanord Suskind almost said it in one of his lectures on statistical mechanics. Part of me feels, with a good deal of confidence, that statistical mechanics would not even exist if I never shared my ideas.

 

The truth is that you can get my general philosophy online for free, you will not be able to find it in scientific journals (unless it is plagiarized), and you will not find it in a library. As Chomsky says, it's amazing how the fundamental question has been ignored for this long ("what is language?"). I did not ignore this question, I gave a very sensible answer to the question and proposed an argument that no one has been able to refute. People may have been hesitant at first to adopt this type of philosophy, but seriously, it has been adopted at least tacitly. Truth is, I'm a punk, I've done my fair share of kicking and screaming on a very vast scale. If I didn't try to explain my ideas, then science in general would be that much slower or behind in it's philosophy and computation. I didn't study much math, but since I seriously concerned myself with the one thing that I've always loved in an intellectual sense, I've pioneered (I hate that term) a new type of math. I literally took math and made it compatible with cognitive science (psychology, linguistics, computer science, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, etc.). I gave hope for unification of these sciences. I provided an equation that is one square inch that gives the general understanding of how to acquire cognitive capabilities in mechanical terms. This information is free if you know what you're searching for. However, when it comes to the actual logic and the actual math that goes into the computation, I guarantee you that you will never find anyone as specialized as I am. I made a program that will literally acquire any language, even dolphin. Some people are skeptical, and Chomsky would even say that it's a failure, but he knows that that is by the standards of the science that came before my generation, and it is besides the point. He says, what do we learn from this endeavour? "Nothing, maybe a little around the margins." It's true, my lifes work literally boils down to the biggest list that mankind has ever been able to contemplate. It's a list that is so large and so complex that it's entirely useless to contemplate, and if you try to look at the thing your computer will crash (and I'm sure that even the worlds best supercomputer would crash). Just because you can't look at it doesn't mean that it's not useful though. It's accessible instantaneously. The computer does not need to search through every item on the list to know whether the point of interest is in the list. The military has benefitted greatly from my philosophy. I've heard them use my terms themselves.

 

All of this is irrelevant, but I think that anyone insightful in these areas knows the truth. My name is kept silent, and I kind of like it that way, but I also wish that people knew that the very basis of their technology relies on my philosophical insights. Where do I come in though? When will I be rewarded for what I have done? Part of me really wants to believe that I am a modern day Newton, but the other part of me says that I'm nothing but a schizophrenic (whatever that means). I've taught classes large enough to fill a lecture hall in my time. I've presented my ideology in plenty of classes. Suspicious things have happened in my presence that no one wants to acknowledge. Ever since I started talking about these things, my classes have been audited, my professors say that someone is like a "baby crying in the forums". I talk to a professor of mine and say that I'm paranoid, he's like "why? What would PROMPT you to say that?" Hence, another one of my terms are being used... prompting. I will help where I can because I feel that I am able to provide the insight that others simply do not think about, and I've even done it here in these forums with regards to the plague of spam that we all encountered. It doesn't happen anymore.

 

I hate to seem like I'm self aggrandizing, but seriously, where do I come in here? Will someone not take me under their wing at least for graduate studies? Can I go back to school for computer science? Can I get the grant for my research that these people keep calling me about? I can make a computer speak dolphin for gods sake. Where do I come in? Where is my place in society? People love to speak with me, people love to speak about my ideas, but people don't want to hire someone with just a bachelors degree who didn't get the degree in computer science or computational linguistics. I'm very confident that I can write that program that will have general intelligence, and not only in English, but in any language that it encounters.... yes, even dolphin.

 

Don't tell me that my degree will never provide me with a middle class job, I'm searching every day for that job and when I get it, I will cherish it more than anyone before me. I think that I can be the key employee for your business, you will have to insure my life because that's how valuable I could be for your business. The real question is, does the job exist? I can't tell you how many professors of mine have simply told me, "you're doing something different." The field that I concern myself with didn't exist. I call it computational linguistics, but it's actually cognitive science (a science that I also feel bases itself on my philosophy). It's just kind of ironic that when these professors from Stanford, MIT, and other schools with people that seriously concern themselves with work like my own (and write about it, or post videos of their classes on youtube) do not release the videos of classes that are concerned with my philosophy. There was a Stanford cognitive science class posted on youtube where he was going to teach the next class on the freedom of will, the class was never put on the internet. Leonard Suskind himself almost had a slip when one of his students asked "[what exactly are you talking about?], "A unit of..... Well, let's just call it a bit of information." Yup, there it is. There is the reconciliation that I need. It makes me happy to know that I've been useful, but can you make use of me as a person? Will you let me have some independence?

 

Enough said. I'm an unusual person. I might even call myself a freak to some extent. The very first book I got was "the handy science answer book." I've concerned myself with science since I was a wee little boy, and I've been contemplating it ever since. I can't even count how many languages I've studied, and I've found commonalities in all of them and I've proposed a reasonable answer to the fundamental question, what is language. Language is one type of unit acquired through sensory mechanisms, it is equal to any sequence of occurrences, and it is entirely grounded in a constellation of other cognitive capacities.

Please excuse me for being such a childish philosopher, independence, I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT! Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

A unit of knowledge is a variable that does not take equal values. It is a zero dimensional point of interest.*

[overtone]

The TeaParty doesn't like Fascism

The Republicans in general, and their T faction in particular, have adopted fascism as their governing ideology.

 

 

 

I think we already see what it's like and I'll take a Reagan economy over Jimmy Carters 3rd and 4th term economy any day of the week

You spend whole paragraphs detailing your unhappiness with the Reagan economy and its effects on you personally, and then you say you prefer it to the former prosperity of the American middle class. Go figure.

 

Jsut to note: Carter only served one term as Pres (not "three or four"), and managed to avoid crashing the US economy despite the OPEC oil shock and Paul Volcker's manipulation of the interest rates. (The US economy Reagan was given was healthy and prosperous, despite the Republican owned and controlled Federal Reserve bank doing this, from Wiki: "The primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.^[4] In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, - - - ").

 

In addition, the only double digit unemployment rate then was recorded around November of 1982 - toward the end of the effects of Reagan's second annual budget. Also, "the Democrats" did not take over the US governmen in 2007; at most, they gained a slim majority - if all the Blue Dogs voted Party line - in the House, with an even split in the Senate (and the tiebreaking vote a Republican), and Repuiblican control of the Supreme Court and the White House -getting a narrow and negotiable voting majority in one half of one branch of the US government is not "gaining control". And so forth. Know your history, or you'll repeat it.

Edited October 26, 2013 by overtone

[Ringer]

And, wfu, “most guys provide this service for free”? Seriously, how many people are sufficiently knowledgeable and willing to provide insights on the nature of language?

He was attempting to make what he thought was a witty insult. 'Cunning linguist' is word play for cunnilingus, hence his oyster diving crack. It's childish, insulting, off-topic, and idiotic.

[Popcorn Sutton]

I want to teach a class.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[TeaParty]

 

Your FOX is showing. And everything you've mentioned here can be traced back to wages shifting from middle-class workers to C-level management. That's not the government's fault, it's the fault of your biggest backers, the Kochs and their circle, although they certainly have influenced legislation most when Reagan and the Bush's were in office.

 

I'll never understand why anyone who isn't part of the 1% would ever support the TP extremists. They may have started out with good intentions but were quickly taken over by people who want the 99% to pay for everything the 1% use most, like highways and airports, while denying the 99% what they need the most, like public works, well-regulated business practices and affordable healthcare.

Your CNN is showing. First of all if you want to see an extremist just turn on the tv the next time Obama is giving a speech. Secondly as was pointed out earlier there is no 99%, I'm neither in the 1% nor am I poor. I used to be in the middle class but I am quickly moving backwards under the Obama and democrat lead Senate. It's always amusing to listen to leftist throw out unsubstantiated facts about how the rich are soaking the poor and middle class and they refuse to acknowledge how under the leadership of a republican lead administration the economy was chugging along and I was receiving raises and overtime on a regular biases. Since Obama has been elected and the democrats had control of all three branches for 2 years I went two years without raise, overtime is almost nonexistent, my gross income has decreased $10,000 a year and the price of everything I need has increased by as much as double of what it was when George Bush was president just 5 years ago. Back when George Bush was president I didn't have a single problem with my health insurance, but after Obamacare law has passed my insurance has changed every year at enrollment. My prices have gone up and my coverages have gone down. Since Obamacare my insurance no longer pays 100% for preventive visit to my doctor yet before that it did. Even my dental insurance no longer pays 100% for cleanings and my vision insurance no longer pays 100% for regular checkups.

 

It's depressing that so many people refuse to think for themselves, they regurgitate everything they hear from propaganda "news" organizations but they can't offer a single shred of factual evidence to backup anything they say. Their arguments are purely emotion and zero facts. BTW I don't watch FOX in case you missed it I had to have my directv turned off thanks to this democrat booming economy and unlike you I can actually point to and offer up proof of the lies and exaggerated facts passed off as news on CNN. Give me something FOX has lied about.