How could anyone in her position even consider taking such
favours and largesse from the very organizations she's to
oversee?

But the agency that Bush has undermined for nearly seven years is apparently disinterested in the interests of consumers.

"Disinterested" is often used interchangably with "uninterested", which is the correct word here. "Disinterested" applies to one not having an interest in one side or the other -- "a disinterested observer". Two different words: two different meanings. Let's keep it that way.

(I might formerly defined disinterested as "fair and balanced" -- so you see the effects of language degradation. Next thing you know we'll all be saying "nucular".)

John Amato,

Did you have to license the use of the term 'Crooks and Liars' from the Bush White House?

Isn't that their trademark?

Theo @ 2:

I don't think this is much of an issue. As a former regulator, it is commonplace for regulator's to attend industry meetings in order to share information that will better enable the industry to meet regulator's expectations. That's actually a good thing. Where it would cross the line - and it is not clear from the information in the report here that this happened - is if the regulator got free travel without there being any kind of meeting, or if the industry also paid for the regulator's spouse or family to travel as well. However, everything I've read about these particular incident's sounds like it was within standard regulatory practice and within the regulations and guidelines for travel.

well, I for one, am relieved that you are a former regulator

President Bush likens his gut as the final say about which is most correct when doing his job. Well my gut tells me this chicken-head was on the take because she is after all a good little neo-con hack. I hope this will lead to at least some jail time, but wouldn't it be nice if we sentenced these people to death the way China does?

Oh, and when they say the "market" will take care of product safety, remember this you dumb-ass republicans, just like before the CPS was created eh? Industry will NOT worry about safety, only PROFITS.....

Theo @ 2:

I don't think this is much of an issue. As a former regulator, it is commonplace for regulator's to attend industry meetings in order to share information that will better enable the industry to meet regulator's expectations. That's actually a good thing. Where it would cross the line - and it is not clear from the information in the report here that this happened - is if the regulator got free travel without there being any kind of meeting, or if the industry also paid for the regulator's spouse or family to travel as well. However, everything I've read about these particular incident's sounds like it was within standard regulatory practice and within the regulations and guidelines for travel.

You are a dumbass. If I am someone that is suposed to make sure you toe the line, I wouldn't be caught dead letting you buy me lunch, wash my car, paint my house etc. Same thing goes for travel, golf, "conventions" etc. It looks bad, and in fact IS bad. If I have to go or do something, it comes out of my own budget, not yours..... It's called "ethics". A new word for you perhaps?

We should give her a 10 year, all-expenses-paid vacation to the nearest Federal prison.

Theo @ 2:

I don't think this is much of an issue. As a former regulator, it is commonplace for regulator's to attend industry meetings in order to share information that will better enable the industry to meet regulator's expectations. That's actually a good thing. Where it would cross the line - and it is not clear from the information in the report here that this happened - is if the regulator got free travel without there being any kind of meeting, or if the industry also paid for the regulator's spouse or family to travel as well. However, everything I've read about these particular incident's sounds like it was within standard regulatory practice and within the regulations and guidelines for travel.

Well, like most Republicans (just a hunch - but I'm sure you'll now tell me you're a devout Democrat ... and a liberal, too) you never let the facts interfere w/ your opinions. Because you conveniently left out that she accepted paid travel reimbursements from organizations regulated by her agency.

Any reasonably ethical person would have thought you would include that as a pertty obvious "NO-NO"! Reasonably ethical? But then that would exclude most from this administration, now wouldn't it?

Is there anyone in this administration that is not corrupt?

I almost laughed out loud when I read this. Not because the story is funny because it isn't. But because I'm known for my cynicism and it just sort of tickles me when I'm proven right without any effort.

And Theo, taking a bribe is illegal. That's the salient fact you seem to have conveniently forgotten.

Why not put Cruella DeVille in charge of regulating the safety of toys? She would do a better job than this skank!

Nancy Nord
Got terribly bored
Sitting at her desk all day

So she called the Chinese
And asked them please
Could she fly 'round the world
But not pay?

AMERICA....

THE BEST COUNTRY MONEY CAN BUY.

kablooie @ 23:

Why not put Cruella DeVille in charge of regulating the safety of toys? She would do a better job than this skank!

Nancy Nord
Got terribly bored
Sitting at her desk all day

So she called the Chinese
And asked them please
Could she fly 'round the world
But not pay?

a limerick!

The inspector (we trust) Nancy Nord...
was appointed and realized she'd scored...

so she accepted vacations...
from her Chinese relations...

Twas americas trust she had whored!

The real story here is that Bush has stacked the government oversight agencies with free-marketeers who have made a career of fighting AGAINST government regulation and oversight. Both Nord and her predecessor were government-fighting corporate lawyers before their FDA gigs. This is the new U.S. government under Bush - people who are fundamentally and vehemently opposed to any government intervention that stands in the way of corporate profits are now running the government and changing the entire definition of what government does (or doesn't do). If it was happening elsewhere, we'd call it a coup.

These are just the trips that we KNOW about. I work in corporate aviation, and I can tell you that policymakers get flown around in corporate/private aircraft all the time. And these so-called policymakers LOVE the perk.

Wag @ 28:

Is this not proof of what many people who think these consumer watchdog groups aren't really interested in consumers?

Is this not proof that socialism DOES NOT WORK?

Is this not proof that having a publically paid group set up by government to "oversee" goods safety is a terrible idea and a waste of money?

You know what I find so hypocritical? The fact that all those morons who think groups like this are neccessary (when they are not), who think it is the responsibility of the government to create groups like these (they don't), and that without these groups every single good that becomes for sale will ipso facto have something bad in them, do not say that they were mistaken or that they had the wrong impression or that they should not have suggested that groups like this are neccessary. They do not admit the errors of their ways. Nooooo.

You know what these people do? They instead blame those who are being spied on, those who are being watched like they are children. They blame the very victims of these immoral groups. They blame the business. They say that it is the fault of the victim that the immoral oversight group is not working.

Well my friends, I don't know about you, but this kind of mentality is the mentality of a raging lunatic. It's just like how dictators think and act. This country is not about setting up all these centralized watchdog gestapo groups in order to oppress the masses. What the hell has this country come to?

When will these idiots start to realize that central planning doesn't work? When will they finally look at history and learn about why socialism failed?

This consumer safety group is a group that would exist under socialism. It is an institution specific to that ideology. Why are people calling for death of our country by advocating that we have these types of groups? Do you want us to fail as well as the socialist countries of history?

This is psychotic. These people think they are helping and that they are "making things right". They think that they are making this country better. They are so wrong and I hope one day they will see the light. I hope it doesn't take full fledged socialism to figure it out. By then it will be too late. It probably already is.

1. Bite me, you fucking piece of shit fascist little troll.

2. You don't get to have your cake and eat it. I know the rule of the delusional authoritarian states that if you say it, it's right because you are on the side of the angels.....however for those of us who are in reality know that it makes no sense to stack federal agencies with corrupt incompetents and then when they fail, point the finger at the concept of the agency as flawed. This is like draining the oil out of a car and then starting to drive it......and then when it fails, claim that the car model is no good........

V V

Vitam Vas @ 33:

Wag @ 28:

Is this not proof of what many people who think these consumer watchdog groups aren't really interested in consumers?

Is this not proof that socialism DOES NOT WORK?

Is this not proof that having a publically paid group set up by government to "oversee" goods safety is a terrible idea and a waste of money?

You know what I find so hypocritical? The fact that all those morons who think groups like this are neccessary (when they are not), who think it is the responsibility of the government to create groups like these (they don't), and that without these groups every single good that becomes for sale will ipso facto have something bad in them, do not say that they were mistaken or that they had the wrong impression or that they should not have suggested that groups like this are neccessary. They do not admit the errors of their ways. Nooooo.

You know what these people do? They instead blame those who are being spied on, those who are being watched like they are children. They blame the very victims of these immoral groups. They blame the business. They say that it is the fault of the victim that the immoral oversight group is not working.

Well my friends, I don't know about you, but this kind of mentality is the mentality of a raging lunatic. It's just like how dictators think and act. This country is not about setting up all these centralized watchdog gestapo groups in order to oppress the masses. What the hell has this country come to?

When will these idiots start to realize that central planning doesn't work? When will they finally look at history and learn about why socialism failed?

This consumer safety group is a group that would exist under socialism. It is an institution specific to that ideology. Why are people calling for death of our country by advocating that we have these types of groups? Do you want us to fail as well as the socialist countries of history?

This is psychotic. These people think they are helping and that they are "making things right". They think that they are making this country better. They are so wrong and I hope one day they will see the light. I hope it doesn't take full fledged socialism to figure it out. By then it will be too late. It probably already is.

1. Bite me, you fucking piece of shit fascist little troll.

2. You don't get to have your cake and eat it. I know the rule of the delusional authoritarian states that if you say it, it's right because you are on the side of the angels.....however for those of us who are in reality know that it makes no sense to stack federal agencies with corrupt incompetents and then when they fail, point the finger at the concept of the agency as flawed. This is like draining the oil out of a car and then starting to drive it......and then when it fails, claim that the car model is no good........

V V

Wait, even better.....applying your logic, we could say that Free Market capitalism is a complete bust because ENRON and WORLDCOM (also full of corrupt scumbags) failed at their functions.

I'm sorry....did you want some logic in your "logic"

V V

For those folks out there who like to eat red meat...beware.Meat is now sprayed with Carbon Monoxide..to keep the meat red(avoiding that spoiled look)Congress went to work to pass legislation banning this process(yeah,I know)But the lobbiest got to them....and they caved.So Congress went to work trying to pass legislation for the packaging to be labeled with this process"Meat exposed to Carbon Monoxide to prevent discoloration".And the LOBBIEST went to work as well.. guess what?.............be carefull buying any meat products.....you won't be able to tell if they've spoiled or not.OH....they caved...again.

the junta has put our government up on the auction block

Vitam Vas said…..

"however for those of us who are in reality know that it makes no sense to stack federal agencies with corrupt incompetents and then when they fail, point the finger at the concept of the agency as flawed. This is like draining the oil out of a car and then starting to drive it……and then when it fails, claim that the car model is no good"

I say……..yeah but history shows again and again that when big (leadfoot)federal govt gets behind the wheel of a perfectly good car. the oil never gets checked and they drive it into the ground because they can always depend on you (taxpayer) to buy them a new one!....(I would prefer my own car thank you!)

Wag @ 28:

Is this not proof of what many people who think these consumer watchdog groups aren't really interested in consumers?

Is this not proof that socialism DOES NOT WORK?

Is this not proof that having a publically paid group set up by government to "oversee" goods safety is a terrible idea and a waste of money?

You know what I find so hypocritical? The fact that all those morons who think groups like this are neccessary (when they are not), who think it is the responsibility of the government to create groups like these (they don't), and that without these groups every single good that becomes for sale will ipso facto have something bad in them, do not say that they were mistaken or that they had the wrong impression or that they should not have suggested that groups like this are neccessary. They do not admit the errors of their ways. Nooooo.

When will these idiots start to realize that central planning doesn't work? When will they finally look at history and learn about why socialism failed?

This consumer safety group is a group that would exist under socialism...

Dude. My God. I appreciated the fact that you learned something about socialism once. But that doesn't mean that everything you dislike in the world is an example of how socialism fails. Geez Louise. Since we've talked about what socialism is in the past, I won't get into it again here. But I'll just suggest that you are kind of a one-trick pony. There is an issue at hand here; but it is not even remotely linked to socialism. (I even had trouble typing that sentence because of it's absurdity.) Consumer watchdog, or regulatory groups are supposed to regulate private industry. This is not central planning. I think therein lies the glaringly obvious absurdity that socialism even gets raised. Anyway, enough with your one-track socialism-ism.

If you think that capatalism it truly a self-regulating system, and I assume you do given past discussions with you, I'd be interested in reading your term papers about 19th century and early 20th century American history where children were locked in factories ... let alone all of the corruption and monopolistic environment of the super-wealthy before regulation became more prevelant in American society.

I'm done with this. Socialism. Aye caramba! You're like Rudy Guilliani and 9/11: noun, verb, socialism.

MargeAggedon @ 34:

Wag @ 28:

Is this not proof of what many people who think these consumer watchdog groups aren't really interested in consumers?

Is this not proof that socialism DOES NOT WORK?

No.

Now, why can't I be that succinct?

milquetoast @ 41:

Vitam Vas said…..

"however for those of us who are in reality know that it makes no sense to stack federal agencies with corrupt incompetents and then when they fail, point the finger at the concept of the agency as flawed. This is like draining the oil out of a car and then starting to drive it……and then when it fails, claim that the car model is no good"

I say……..yeah but history shows again and again that when big (leadfoot)federal govt gets behind the wheel of a perfectly good car. the oil never gets checked and they drive it into the ground because they can always depend on you (taxpayer) to buy them a new one!....(I would prefer my own car thank you!)

Ah....more "side of the angels" say so......we just know that it is because you say it is ...that's what you say, because that's what is...because that's what you say.....(this is implied circular reasoning...more faulty logic.....got a fancy Latin name that starts with a P like "Pretis Participio" or something like that)

For example?

V V

Wag @ 28:

Okay, I'm not quite done like I said. I made the mistake of re-reading your post. I think I could actually feel my IQ
dropping while reading that tripe.

Just let me reiterate that your crazed rant was one of the most illogical and absurd things I've ever read. The other time we had a discussion, I was convinced you were at least a smart guy who sometimes says things in a way that people can infer things you didn't really mean. I was also convinced that you had a point to make here and there.

This post leads me to believe you were either drunk then, or drunk now. I would love to see you debate almost anyone on this topic while bringing to your argument the excrement you spewed above ... a prepared debate where documentary evidence was mandatory. I say 'debate almost anyone' because if you debated somebody like Bill O'Reilley, you'd both make shit up and not call each other out. Plus you'd agree most of the time.

I don't say this to attack you on a personal level. But your post in this thread is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Vitam Vas @ 50:

When I said "bite me you fucking fascist little troll" above, I DID mean to attack you on a personal level.........."I'm a different kind of liberal."

V V

It is worth noting to anyone who missed it ... V V's utilization of the word "fascist" here is quite apt given the actual definition of fascism. That word often gets thrown around and used generally to describe conservatives. But I thought it was worth pointing out it's literal relevance in this argument.

Ali @ 44:

What does oversight of consumer goods have to do with socialism? Kind of a leap.

This has to do with the motto of the republican party. Protect large corporation profits at all costs. Screw the people.

A compassionate democracy that takes care of its citizens doesn't necessarily have to be a socialist society.

Did you just say OVERSITE OF CONSUMER GOODS?...soundslike a division of the (former..NOT) russian KGB

and as far as the republicans go...demorcrats are not workin for we the people either (in case you haven't noticed) hell...they (some of them) seem to have connections and alliances and even dual citizenship w/to other countries even...

Ali said, "A compassionate democracy that takes care of its citizens doesn't necessarily have to be a socialist society"

I say, "but when you have an agency like the IRS here in america (Extracting from your paycheck to conduct illegal wars overseas)its like socialism and fascism combined!!"

The situation at the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a symptom of a larger disease consuming this government, namely, that we have a government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. So long as elections are choices between two corporate owned candidates these kinds of symptoms are going to persist.

Then, in the case of the Bush regime, we have ideologues who believe that government doesn't work, and have been working nonstop to prove it. The lesser of the two corporate evils (democrats) could probably do a better job.

PurplePatriot:

"There is an issue at hand here; but it is not even remotely linked to socialism. (I even had trouble typing that sentence because of it’s absurdity.) Consumer watchdog, or regulatory groups are supposed to regulate private industry. This is not central planning."

Yes it is. You just have to think more about it. You don't have to insult anyone in order to do it, you can just think. This, in fact, is how socialism becomes accepted. Socialism can never be put into practice overnight, because that would entail theft on a massive scale. It would entail a group that has taken over to go around everywhere and take all assets away from business. That would be chaotic. No, if socialism is to come into effect, it must be done bit by bit, a little by little, over time. That is the only way to do it. Thus, anytime there is any semblance of a group put in charge of how business should be run (outside of fraud and theft), it is one step closer to socialism. When we give up our right to run things how we want them to be run, then we give up our rights of ownership, which is what is required for socialism. I have no problems with stopping those businesses which produce harmful products. But this should be done on a case by case basis, in a court of law. When we get lazy and create these federal agencies that not only prevent these things from happening, but also claim to oversee everyone, then they overstpped their proper limits and thus we are closer to outright socialism. That's why I think most people have trouble with those who say the word "socialism". Most people think that if someone says "socialism", they are exaggerating and are a capitalist whore, or something to that effect. That is why you think it is a "one-trick" saying. But socialism is, like I said, a system that creeps up slowly. That's why we have to nip it in the bud BEFORE it gets any worse. That's why we have to stop any group that would be standard practice under socialism.

"If you think that capatalism it truly a self-regulating system, and I assume you do given past discussions with you, I’d be interested in reading your term papers about 19th century and early 20th century American history where children were locked in factories"

It was not as bad as Marx made it out to be. In fact, the standard of living of the average American doubled within one lifetime during that period. Remember before the industrial revolution the average American was living in poverty. The fact that people lived so bad was not because of capitalism, but rather the fact that there just weren't any modern things invented yet. Capitalism is what allowed everything to be created, and it's the reason you are using your PC right now typing things against me. It is contradictory to think like you. Your thoughts are more in line with sending me smoke signals and not blog posts.

" … let alone all of the corruption and monopolistic environment of the super-wealthy before regulation became more prevelant in American society."

The wealthier people get by free trade, the better off everyone else is because they raise our standard of living in so many ways. There is nothing wrong with having super wealthy people. Why? Because most of their wealth is in the form of capital, meaning equipment, building, factories, materials, etc. These things do not benefit them, they benefit us as consumers. The sooner people realize that we all benefit from rich people (if they got that wealth by trade), the better off we will be. It is required if we are to have computers, cars, houses, or anything. We need the uber-rich for them to make these products cheaply.

PurplePatriot,

I am not wag.
Yes, I was throwing around the terms "socialism"and "fascism"
And I think that America is under assault from both sides by one group dems/repubs using the ever pervading left/right false paradigms "thing"!

and yes, China and your income taxes..will continue to fund our "war on terror" as long as we let them continue the horrible repression of their own citizens and also let them invade Taiwan and we allow the IRS to continue. (blood on our hands)

I am liberal, pro choice, pro union, ...gay rights/marriage, fine by me...
...I am pro gun though...

you dont misunderstand me too bad at all!

I just dont trust the Federal govt to do shit anymore.

I believe in corporate regulation (POLICING EVEN!) but all the corporations are gone!

they have all gone international...away from our laws and regulations ...to where there are none.

...and are calling to us now at this very moment...

come...come join the new world order...

I am voting for Ron Paul

Dennis Kucinich is my second choice.

PurplePatriot said, "–Oversight of private industry resembles the Soviet Union. Totally disagree. The Soviets had very little private industry; and they couldn’t have cared less about the welfare of their citizens.

I say all soviet industry was state owned and it is lookin that way in America too...and...If you think Dems or repubs care about the welfare of their citizens....well

milquetoast @ 59:

PurplePatriot,

I am not wag.
Yes, I was throwing around the terms "socialism"and "fascism"
And I think that America is under assault from both sides by one group dems/repubs using the ever pervading left/right false paradigms "thing"!

and yes, China and your income taxes..will continue to fund our "war on terror" as long as we let them continue the horrible repression of their own citizens and also let them invade Taiwan and we allow the IRS to continue. (blood on our hands)

I am liberal, pro choice, pro union, ...gay rights/marriage, fine by me...
...I am pro gun though...

you dont misunderstand me too bad at all!

I just dont trust the Federal govt to do shit anymore.

I believe in corporate regulation (POLICING EVEN!) but all the corporations are gone!

they have all gone international...away from our laws and regulations ...to where there are none.

...and are calling to us now at this very moment...

come...come join the new world order...

I am voting for Ron Paul

Dennis Kucinich is my second choice.

PurplePatriot said, "–Oversight of private industry resembles the Soviet Union. Totally disagree. The Soviets had very little private industry; and they couldn’t have cared less about the welfare of their citizens.

I say all soviet industry was state owned and it is lookin that way in America too...and...If you think Dems or repubs care about the welfare of their citizens....well

I am not you, but I agree with what you said. You shouldn't call yourself milquetoast.

Wag,

I know you just read through Ayn Rand's fascist plutocratic diatribes, but do yourself a favor and look at how REALITY works. Rich people aren't angelic souls, the sources of all good and life. With only a few exceptions, they're greedy, selfish asses with no concern for anyone who isn't them.

Nor do the rich people cause all good in the world to flow from their holdings. They, in fact, do very little good for others, finding ways to dodge taxes so they don't have to pay their part of the social contract.

Then again, I don't expect you to understand. You're a brainwashed little liartarian. You believe that being rich means you're just better, and that anything government does, no matter how many people it helps, is a horrible evil.

Troll.

Clinton was impeached because an intern gave him oral sex and he lied about it under oath.

This entire administration sucks corporate dick, lies only when speaking and is untouchable.

I have to go back and relearn my concept of reality...

Vitam Vas @ 62:

"Generally speaking, these fucking idiots don't even realize what the actual distinctions are between systems of government. And they LOVE to claim that we are a capitalist country. I have news for them. The United States has been a SOCIALIST country for a long long time. We have a hybrid of an interventionist government and free market capitalism."

The US is not socialism, it's a hampered market economy. Believe me, you would know it if you were living in a socialist country. You would know it by the miles long line-ups for bread, the policemen in every store making sure nobody sells for greater than the controlled price, and the fact that you would in all likelihood be starving to death, with no shoes, prospects, or health.

"Conversely, if they would like to see what pure unfettered capitalism looks like they should just pop right on over to like Sierra Leonne."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha......

"And incidentally, what the right wing practices is actually a bastardization of capitalism, a hybrid of crony capitalism (passing economic activity back and forth between an established "old boys club") and monopoly capitalism (eliminating competition in the marketplace by merging together)......"

Your right versus left argument is irrelevent when both parties are not about free economies.

"...both have the effect of retaining wealth exclusively into the hands of the people who previously had it."

No. Even those WITH wealth must fear themselves under a hampered system or a socialist system. In hampered systems, Microsoft are the targets. In socialist systems, YOU are the target AS WELL.

"Supply side/trickle down/voodoo economics are with the exception of a few paid off hacks regarded by economists as as a monstorous JOKE."

There is NO "trickle down". It is a tidal wave up.

"Want to know how to ACTUALLY generate economic activity? Put it into the hands of the people who SPEND it"

What monstrous ideas you have. Any idiot can spend.

"...take an economics class.....ask the professor to explain "marginal propensity to consume" and "mutiplier effect" to you...

Any prof who propunds these theories is flat wrong. There are profs who DO NOT propound these fallacious doctrines. You have to remember that just because one prof says so, even if the majority say so, doesn't make it correct.

"Want to see an economic EXPLOSION?"

I would, but I don't think you have the answers.

"Up the minimum wage to a LIVING wage, around $12 an hour"

Which would do nothing but raise the prices of goods for sale. You give people more money to spend, and they will spend it. Demand in this case would go up, but supply you never said anything about. So a rise in demand with no increase in supply will simply raise prices, making people no better off than before. Sorry dude, you are wrong. For if you were right, then if we were to raise the minimum wage to $1 million, then not only will there be an economic "explosion", there would be an economic "atomic bomb".

"...and move the tax burden back onto the wealthy"

You don't get it. You don't get it that YOU will be harmed if this is done, for YOUR standard of living depends on wealth accumulation. You can tax the rich all you want, but that would mean they have less money to pay for wages.

"...(this pretty much actually affects nothing......they are actually for the most part economically insensitive to changes in tax rates)."

Hahahahahahahaha

"There would be so many people out SPENDING MONEY, that it would generate copious profits"

What good are profits and spending if there is nothing to buy? Your views are so typical of brainwashed graduates these days.

"Generally speaking, these fucking idiots don't even realize what the actual distinctions are between systems of government. And they LOVE to claim that we are a capitalist country. I have news for them. The United States has been a SOCIALIST country for a long long time. We have a hybrid of an interventionist government and free market capitalism."

The US is not socialism, it's a hampered market economy. Believe me, you would know it if you were living in a socialist country. You would know it by the miles long line-ups for bread, the policemen in every store making sure nobody sells for greater than the controlled price, and the fact that you would in all likelihood be starving to death, with no shoes, prospects, or health.

Yea, Ireland is a horrible terrible place (that economic boom that they are having must be an abberation)....the UK too....Norway...rough one there.....Canada...you ought to see those Canucks standing in line for bread......Germany.......FRANCE......

******
"Conversely, if they would like to see what pure unfettered capitalism looks like they should just pop right on over to like Sierra Leonne."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha......

Non-answer, implied circular reasoning "I'm right because I'm right" means that you lose.

********

"And incidentally, what the right wing practices is actually a bastardization of capitalism, a hybrid of crony capitalism (passing economic activity back and forth between an established "old boys club") and monopoly capitalism (eliminating competition in the marketplace by merging together)......"

Your right versus left argument is irrelevent when both parties are not about free economies.

Strawman logical fallacy. I didn't say anything about the democrats. They are actually as a whole the SANE part of the RIGHT WING, although kind of pussies as they won't stand up to you fascist freaks.......we the people are going to have to eliminate you as they obviously aren't up to the task of eliminating your slimy asses.

************

"...both have the effect of retaining wealth exclusively into the hands of the people who previously had it."

No. Even those WITH wealth must fear themselves under a hampered system or a socialist system. In hampered systems, Microsoft are the targets. In socialist systems, YOU are the target AS WELL.

I'm just going to call babbling on that one....definitely again implied circular reasoning...."it is because it is, and because I say it is, it is"

****************

"Supply side/trickle down/voodoo economics are with the exception of a few paid off hacks regarded by economists as as a monstorous JOKE."

There is NO "trickle down". It is a tidal wave up.

Actually you are CORRECT here. It is a tidal wave up from the POOR to the rich....the exact opposite what it looked like you were advocating before I got overcome by bullshit fumes.

****************

Want to know how to ACTUALLY generate economic activity? Put it into the hands of the people who SPEND it"

What monstrous ideas you have. Any idiot can spend.

Yes, they can....and that is what generates ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, which pays wages....which get spent...which creates more activity (multiplier effect)..........do be assured that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.

***************

"...take an economics class.....ask the professor to explain "marginal propensity to consume" and "mutiplier effect" to you...

Any prof who propunds these theories is flat wrong. There are profs who DO NOT propound these fallacious doctrines. You have to remember that just because one

prof says so, even if the majority say so, doesn't make it correct.

And yet even again "it is because I say it is....therefore it is..." What I'm talking about isn't a majority opinion, it's TEXTBOOK doctrine.....let me draw an analogy....the medical equivalent of what I am saying is something like "alcohol kills germs"......whereas you are expounding on the merits of trepanation (look it up)

************

"Want to see an economic EXPLOSION?"

I would, but I don't think you have the answers.

Unsubstantiated opinion....meaningless

**************

"Up the minimum wage to a LIVING wage, around $12 an hour"

Which would do nothing but raise the prices of goods for sale. You give people more money to spend, and they will spend it. Demand in this case would go up, but supply you never said anything about. So a rise in demand with no increase in supply will simply raise prices, making people no better off than before. Sorry dude, you are wrong. For if you were right, then if we were to raise the minimum wage to $1 million, then not only will there be an economic "explosion", there would be an economic "atomic bomb".

For one thing, it actually doesn't matter what the denomination of the wealth is.........The richest man on the planet could have $1 and be quite happy about this, so long as your average citizen had a net worth of 1/10th of a cent............under that scenario, a luxurious mansion would cost a nickel, a sports car, a penny.....IT"S the DIFFERENTIAL that makes the difference.

Furthermore, again with the no fucking idea what you are talking about. The way that economics works is that when demand drives up prices, then EXCESS RETURNS are generated......this causes the additional SUPPLY to enter the marketplace, driving prices back down. Go pick up a microeconomics textbook. Open it. See what the words say.

******************

"...and move the tax burden back onto the wealthy"

You don't get it. You don't get it that YOU will be harmed if this is done, for YOUR standard of living depends on wealth accumulation. You can tax the rich all you want, but that would mean they have less money to pay for wages.

The money to pay for wages comes from ECONOMIC ACTIVITY (best generated by putting money into the hands of the poor with the highest marginal propensity to spend), not the capital owners checkbook. When you go to work, aren't you ultimately generating REVENUE for someone? Are you getting paid out of this revenue, or from your bosses (I should say capital owner's)personal checking account as you are asserting above. Yet even again be assured that you are ignorant, delusional, clueless, and have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

******************

"...(this pretty much actually affects nothing......they are actually for the most part economically insensitive to changes in tax rates)."

Hahahahahahahaha

Non-answer....implied circular reasoning. Fallacious logic. Wrong.

**********************

"There would be so many people out SPENDING MONEY, that it would generate copious profits"

What good are profits and spending if there is nothing to buy? Your views are so typical of brainwashed graduates these days.

Further demonstrating your ignorance.........as previously stated, the potential for excess profit (for example being the only gas station within a 250 mile radius....you think they would do pretty well----think someone else might open a gas station to draw off some of that market?) DRAWS in competitors, whose COMPETITION drives down prices.

OK, I'm done trying to drag this fuckstick out of his ignorance and deluded reality.......he like his right wing breathern doesn't understand that an illogical answer has no more meaning than saying "doodle doodle dee wubba wubba", and they are able to spout them to infinity (not to mention being so ignorant that he doesn't realize how ignorant he is)....I'm going to the movies.

V V

I apologize to any readers for the illegibility of my previous post. My answers to dumbshit's "rebuttal's" were the ones directly preceding the little blocks of askterisks......while it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a delusional moron that I know a lot about economics (I took almost a bachelors degree worth while getting my MS in Finance), not so good with the html.

V V

Vitam Vas

"Yea, Ireland is a horrible terrible place (that economic boom that they are having must be an abberation)….the UK too….Norway…rough one there…..Canada…you ought to see those Canucks standing in line for bread……Germany…….FRANCE……"

All these countries you have just listed are ALSO hampered market economies, they are not socialist. If you want examples of actual socialist countries, then they are North Korea, former Soviet Union and all her satellites, former Nazi Germany, former China, the many countries of Africa. You seem to not want to learn that socialism means everything is owned by the state. Simply having the word Socialist in either name of the country or political party doesn't make a country socialist either. They have to practice it. These countries did or do practice it, the list you gave don't practice it.

"Yes, they can….and that is what generates ECONOMIC ACTIVITY, which pays wages….which get spent…which creates more activity (multiplier effect)……….do be assured that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about."

I won't be assured because YOU don't know what you are talking about. You think that since you learned it in school that it is correct. But you have absolutely no idea what the multiplier doctrine actually entails, because if you did you would not be saying what you do. The multiplier doctrine is false on many levels. Keynes was wrong. Here's why:

It is only on the basis of utterly illusory, nonexistent, shadow purchases that you and the other people duped by Keynes can believe that additional expenditure by consumers for the goods and services of business constitute an additional demand for the labor and other inputs bought by business.

You cannot claim that what is really meant when it is propounded that the multiplier doctrine is only that an inflation-financed rise in consumer demand results in a rise in the demand for labor and other factors of production because business enterprises will spend their additional sales revenues in buying factors of production.

The Keynesians explicitly argues that income is raised insofar as the additional incomes corresponding to the additional sales revenues are consumed, i.e., are not spent for business purposes, and that the rise in incomes will be the greater, the higher is the “marginal propensity to consume” and the lower is the “marginal propensity to save.”

You are utterly unaware that the overwhelmingly greater part of any income that could possibly be increased by virtue of the process of the "multiplier doctrine" you described would be profit income.

If the economic world operated in accordance with the ideals of the multiplier effect (Keynesian economics), and the greater part or all of the additional business sales revenues and profits were consumed, it would be disastrous for wage earners and for all business firms that sell to other business firms, and even for those business firms that sell to consumers and which would have higher profit incomes. For the wage share of the national income would fall, the ratio of the value of capital to the value of output, (viz., the degree of capital intensiveness) would fall, and the relative production of capital goods would fall.

In short order, economic progress would be brought to a halt and economic retrogression would commence, as capital began to be decumulated. Both real wages and real profits would steadily decline. The interests of everyone in the economic system, but foremost the interests of wage earners, lie with the highest possible productive expenditure, which means: the lowest possible consumption expenditure on the part of those making productive expenditure.

When you so righteously declare that all that needs to be done is give those who spend a lot a larger amount of money, for that allegedly drives economic activity, you have absolutely no idea how wealth is generated.

If we were to increase spending for goods, then using your logic we could theoretically raise spending so much that every dollar in existence is spent on goods. But if this happened, then there would be no more saving, which is required on the part of business in order to pay wages. No wages means all wage earners are worse off, meaning they're out of a job.

The multiplier effect doesn't see that any and all of the extra spending going on would simply be profit income and not wage income.

Sorry Vitam, but your hyper way of making statements isn't impressive at all. I've heard your ideology before, and it has been shown wrong by many people. Don't be so gullible.

And finally:

"The way that economics works is that when demand drives up prices, then EXCESS RETURNS are generated…"

Hahahahaha..ya, that's how it works...in looloo land

Excess returns are generated? On the basis of which costs? For if prices go up, then prices for ALL goods goes up, including the prices for the factors of business like machinery and materials. Consumers goods aren't the only goods made by business. In fact, more money is spent on factors than consumers goods in an economy.

" …this causes the additional SUPPLY to enter the marketplace"

Woah, you just made a HUGE jump in false logic here. Profits don't GENERATE production. SAVING generates it. Profits merely show which lines of industry and companies are more in demand than other lines.

"...driving prices back down. Go pick up a microeconomics textbook. Open it. See what the words say."

It would say......Vitam Vas is a proto-typical example of the same kind of ideologue, who, has been proven wrong by so many people that it isn't accepted even by modern economists anymore.

fwacbar @ 11:

Oh, and when they say the "market" will take care of product safety, remember this you dumb-ass republicans, just like before the CPS was created eh? Industry will NOT worry about safety, only PROFITS.....

Right. And what kind of profits can they expect when informed consumers refuse to buy their toxic crap?

A free market is EXACTLY the right remedy for product safety issues. These problems will NEVER go away as long as moronic socialists insist on entrusting their safety to government beauracracies that could not possibly care less.

Just stop buying this junk, and the manufacturers will make product safety their most important goal. We don't need a bunch of connected technocrats in Washington to protect us. What's it gonna take for you stupid socialists to figure this out?

Wag @ 75:

And finally:

"The way that economics works is that when demand drives up prices, then EXCESS RETURNS are generated…"

Hahahahaha..ya, that's how it works...in looloo land

Excess returns are generated? On the basis of which costs? For if prices go up, then prices for ALL goods goes up, including the prices for the factors of business like machinery and materials. Consumers goods aren't the only goods made by business. In fact, more money is spent on factors than consumers goods in an economy.

" …this causes the additional SUPPLY to enter the marketplace"

Woah, you just made a HUGE jump in false logic here. Profits don't GENERATE production. SAVING generates it. Profits merely show which lines of industry and companies are more in demand than other lines.

"...driving prices back down. Go pick up a microeconomics textbook. Open it. See what the words say."

It would say......Vitam Vas is a proto-typical example of the same kind of ideologue, who, has been proven wrong by so many people that it isn't accepted even by modern economists anymore.

Logic trumps illogic.

Knowledge trumps ignorance

I win

You lose.

V V

PS.....I didn't bother reading your copy and paste job. I can point to the truth of what I'm saying in every micro and macroeconomics textbook that is printed in English.

Sean @ 78:

kablooie @ 23:

Why not put Cruella DeVille in charge of regulating the safety of toys?

What part of the U.S. Constitution says the federal government is responsible for "regulating the safety of toys"?

In the free society envisioned by the founders, it's parents that are responsible for providing safe toys to children, not government.

Braindead socialism fails, time and time again, and the stupid socialists just demand even more socialism in response. Use the brain nature gave you, and stop buying the cheap toxic crap. Problem solved.

better yet...make them for your children....that's a win,win
unless.....

Oh dearest Randian pigf%*kers,

One can argue economic theory until they are blue in the face and not get anywhere. However, reality trumps all of your Libertarian illogic completely. Trickle-down tax theory has been a huge failure as practiced over the past 7 years. While the riches held by the upper levels of our economic structure has gone skyrocketing up, REAL wages for the majority of Americans have been stagnant over that same period of time. The is not theory, that is fact.

By the way, there was no "argument" there. I was putting up the results of over 300 years of study by intelligent rational people who did things like perform experiments to test their hypothesis, observe actual human behavior with money, have their results independently verified, and peer reviewed.........

He conversely was babbling and reciting propaganda probably given to him by an obese impotent sex tourist who as mentioned, presumably couldn't hack it through sophomore or junior level broadcast communications classes

V V

And if there is anyone who has even a slight bit of doubt that this wag troll thing is making it up as he goes along and has no fucking idea what he is talking about.......

"All these countries you have just listed are ALSO hampered market economies, they are not socialist. If you want examples of actual socialist countries, then they are North Korea, former Soviet Union and all her satellites, former Nazi Germany, former China, the many countries of Africa.

In order as appropriate: COMMUNIST, communist, FASCIST (like the US is---yes, I know that their official name had "socialist" in the title but they were fascists), communist......not sure about Africa off the top of my head, except for knowing that they have a lot of pure capitalism there....and some of the worst poverty on the planet to go along with it.

"You seem to not want to learn that socialism means everything is owned by the state."

No COMMUNISM means that everything is owned by the state, or that all property is communal.....notice the identical root word. SOCIALISM is a different animal, a hybrid of capitalism and communism, neither of which work especially well in their purest form. Look it up. You don't have the FOGGIEST idea what you are talking about.

"Simply having the word Socialist in either name of the country or political party doesn’t make a country socialist either".

How Ironic that I just corrected you for labeling NAZI fascists as socialists. You may actually be the only person on the PLANET who doesn't know that Nazi's were fascists.

They have to practice it. These countries did or do practice it, the list you gave don’t practice it."

Since we've shown that you obviously don't know what's what, I'm not going to bother wading through that bunch of babbling.

Now he's gonna tell us to disregard that thair book lairnin and skoolin' an' lissen tu whut hai sais ahs raht, cussin he's gotta be raht, because he's raht.

V V

Sean @ 78:

kablooie @ 23:

Why not put Cruella DeVille in charge of regulating the safety of toys?

What part of the U.S. Constitution says the federal government is responsible for "regulating the safety of toys"?

Where within it does it say that corporations are allowed to exist on the back of underpaid lower-class workers? Nowhere? Good, then fuck you.

In the free society envisioned by the founders, it's parents that are responsible for providing safe toys to children, not government.

Ah, that's right, because we shouldn't have standards for what comes into this country, and parents should, by virtue of being parents, be able to tell at a glance whether or not a toy is safe. Because, you know, it's just right there on the package that toys contain lead, right?

Braindead socialism fails, time and time again, and the stupid socialists just demand even more socialism in response. Use the brain nature gave you, and stop buying the cheap toxic crap. Problem solved.

Do you even KNOW what socialism is, or do you just consider all government that doesn't turn its power over to plutocrats "socialism"?

Stupid, mindless, brainwashed, bleating, liartarian sheep like you prove, time and again, that liartarianism is nothing more than childish hatred of government and wil never, ever be anything more than the pipe dream of whiny worshipers of plutocracy.

Vitam Vas @ 87:

"And if there is anyone who has even a slight bit of doubt that this wag troll thing is making it up as he goes along and has no fucking idea what he is talking about......."

Afraid that I am right and you are wrong? You know, it seems like your parents never tought you that being loud and obnoxious does not show your intelligence, it shows your ignorance. Swearing all the time makes you sound very uneducated. If you want to convince me (I think you actually want to convince yourself), then you should tell me what you know rather than what I don't know. You have to fight ideas with ideas, not cuss words.

"In order as appropriate: COMMUNIST, communist, FASCIST (like the US is---yes, I know that their official name had "socialist" in the title but they were fascists), communist......not sure about Africa off the top of my head, except for knowing that they have a lot of pure capitalism there....and some of the worst poverty on the planet to go along with it."

A lot of pure capitalism? Haha...poverty follows socialism, not capitalism.

"No COMMUNISM means that everything is owned by the state, or that all property is communal...."

Hmmm...I think you better look up the definition of socialism Vitam, really just look it up. I'll help you:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism

It states right there that socialism is the lack of private ownership. I don't where you got you got your almost bachelor degree, but it looks like you got it at "almost a real school"

"Look it up. You don't have the FOGGIEST idea what you are talking about."

I just did. Now you try! Amazing what happens when you tell people to do what you apparently don't.

"How Ironic that I just corrected you for labeling NAZI fascists as socialists. You may actually be the only person on the PLANET who doesn't know that Nazi's were fascists."

Fascism is a philosophy, socialism is a way of actually organizing a society economically. Yes the Nazis were fascist, but they practiced socialism because the Nazi government told every business what to produce, where, in what quantity, for what price, and who to sell it to. Since they had private ownership in name only, and not in practice, then logic here states that they were fascists enacting a socialist economic agenda.

Vitam, I am not sure where you derive your anger from, but if you want some free advice, then I would suggest you calm down a bit, consider things a little more than you have, and learn more. I think your attitude is holding you back in life, your anger is really preventing you from being able to take in information properly. I feel sorry for you.

Damian @ 92:

Wag, I hereby order you to leave. Your trolling is no longer amusing.

Why are my posts called trolling when I am not the one swearing, not the one making false statements, not spreading fallacies to the other readers here, and only responding to other posters here who say crazy things too? Why are certain views simply not tolerated? The last time I checked, this blog was about Crooks and Liars, NOT political wanker hacks.

Wag @ 91:

Vitam Vas @ 87:

"And if there is anyone who has even a slight bit of doubt that this wag troll thing is making it up as he goes along and has no fucking idea what he is talking about......."

Afraid that I am right and you are wrong? You know, it seems like your parents never tought you that being loud and obnoxious does not show your intelligence, it shows your ignorance. Swearing all the time makes you sound very uneducated. If you want to convince me (I think you actually want to convince yourself), then you should tell me what you know rather than what I don't know. You have to fight ideas with ideas, not cuss words.

"In order as appropriate: COMMUNIST, communist, FASCIST (like the US is---yes, I know that their official name had "socialist" in the title but they were fascists), communist......not sure about Africa off the top of my head, except for knowing that they have a lot of pure capitalism there....and some of the worst poverty on the planet to go along with it."

A lot of pure capitalism? Haha...poverty follows socialism, not capitalism.

"No COMMUNISM means that everything is owned by the state, or that all property is communal...."

Hmmm...I think you better look up the definition of socialism Vitam, really just look it up. I'll help you:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism

It states right there that socialism is the lack of private ownership. I don't where you got you got your almost bachelor degree, but it looks like you got it at "almost a real school"

"Look it up. You don't have the FOGGIEST idea what you are talking about."

I just did. Now you try! Amazing what happens when you tell people to do what you apparently don't.

"How Ironic that I just corrected you for labeling NAZI fascists as socialists. You may actually be the only person on the PLANET who doesn't know that Nazi's were fascists."

Fascism is a philosophy, socialism is a way of actually organizing a society economically. Yes the Nazis were fascist, but they practiced socialism because the Nazi government told every business what to produce, where, in what quantity, for what price, and who to sell it to. Since they had private ownership in name only, and not in practice, then logic here states that they were fascists enacting a socialist economic agenda.

Vitam, I am not sure where you derive your anger from, but if you want some free advice, then I would suggest you calm down a bit, consider things a little more than you have, and learn more. I think your attitude is holding you back in life, your anger is really preventing you from being able to take in information properly. I feel sorry for you.

Well I'll be damned. The fucktard scores half a point. It's now 250 to .5.

Actually, I had forgotten the OLD usage of "socialism" was in fact a synonym for communism.

The old quote that right wing scum like to attribute to Winston Churchill (I believe incorrectly......he actually BECAME a socialist at age 30 if I recall correctly the last time I had this argument) "Any man who isn't a socialist at 20 has no heart....any man who isn't a capitalist by 30 has no brain" was actually referring to what is the MODERN definition of communism. If I recall correctly, that quote was uttered around 1870.

The meaning of words changes over time. For example "gay", which probably around the same time period still meant "happy", and "queer", same period more or less "strange". Why don't you go find yourself a big biker type guy and tell him that he looks "gay"........who would possibly take offense at being told that they look "happy"

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051012/market-socialism

A link right off your own citation.

FASCISM along with a list of other characteristics (demonization of an enemy, "us vs them" mentality...) is characterized by government in alignment with for profit corporations....

By the way, fucktard, that you are not swearing doesn't make you not a troll. Swearing is a legitimate form of expression.........IGNORANT babbling however isn't.

And I have rage because there have been corrupt knowledge and logic free morons illegitimately in charge of our government for going on the last 7 years

V V

Hey WAG, the only thing this proves is that the Bush Admin and Republicunts in particular are incapable of running the government. I WANT a federal agency to make sure the gun I buy wont explode in my face. I WANT an agency that will force auto companies to put in seatbelts, airbags, laminated glass, etc. I want a government agency that will inspect food, medicine, water and air. I want an agency to make sure childrens toys don't contain any lead. I WANT these things as they help to make sure me and mine arent poisoned so some ass-wipe can get richer. The fact that we hear so much about e-coli, lead paint, tainted drugs, poisoned air and water is simply proof that Bush is an idiot and WON"T DO THE JOB he was elected to do.

Vitam Vas @ 95:

"Well I'll be damned. The fucktard scores half a point. It's now 250 to .5."

Hahahaha...ya in your dreams Vitam. Actually, if you were able to concede that you simply "forgot" the definition of socialism, then THAT is the first smart thing you have said on this post. That would mean the score is 1,000 to 0.01 for ME. You have not once in your entire rant shown any semblence of rationality or knowledge. Your next point shows you do not believe in absolute truth:

"Actually, I had forgotten the OLD usage of "socialism" was in fact a synonym for communism."

The "old" usage?? Excuse me, but facts do not change over time, only people's perceptions of those facts change. The fact that you are saying that definitions "change" means you believe that there is no true knowledge which can be learned, for true knowledge in your head always changes. But facts do not change. That is why you have failed in your argument, virtually everywhere. I must admit, you sound like a smart person, smarter than most here, but like I said, your anger is definitely holding you back. You probably convince a lot of people of what you think, but that's only because those people are weaker than I am. I will not be convinced of your arguments just because you swear and yell. Garble never wins, truth does.

"The meaning of words changes over time. For example "gay", which probably around the same time period still meant "happy", and "queer", same period more or less "strange"."

Sure, the meanings of words do change. But the essence of what is being explained does not. We use different words to describe the same thing all the time. But what we don't do is change truth itself. When I described socialism to you, YOU were the one who immediately said THAT is not socialism. YOU said the word is wrong (old). But the essence of what I said never did change. Your examples of socialist countries under the definition I gave you is contradictory. What you have to understand is that names are names, they change yes, but the underlying actual truth never does.

"FASCISM along with a list of other characteristics (demonization of an enemy, "us vs them" mentality...) is characterized by government in alignment with for profit corporations...."

Yes, you are right on this one. Fascism does imply this. But this state of affairs you have described says nothing about who exactly has the substantive powers of control over the means of production. If private businessmen have control, then one could call this socialism under the Nazi pattern. If private business does not have control, then it could be called socialism under the Soviet pattern. Either way, it is unclear exactly when the defining moment arrives when a country was once called market but is now called socialist. As more and more business comes under state control, it becomes more and more socialist. That much is clear. As a country privatizes more and more, it moves closer towards market economies. Where many people are frightened is when they think they have no say in what happens in this process. But if government is small, then there is no way fascism, communism or any other philosophy can gain a foothold because there is simply nobody there to take control of private business, end hence us as citizens.

"By the way, fucktard, that you are not swearing doesn't make you not a troll. Swearing is a legitimate form of expression.........IGNORANT babbling however isn't."

Swearing is a legitimate form of expression? Sure, at a bar or at your buddies place. But I dare you to talk like you do giving a seminar or at a job interview. Trust me, my "ignorant babbling" is more productive and makes the world a better place than your "legitimate" cussing. I feel your anger dude, trust me. I know you hate Bush, so do I. But you don't have to focus that anger on me because I do NOT support him in any way. Bush is a fascist. He is not a communist. He wants to privatize everything, but he doesn't want to NOT tell business how to run. That is why Blackwater, Halliburton, etc, all these supposed private companies are not actually private because even though they are private in name only, control actually rests with the state. Thus the US is turning into a fascist state, meaning socialism under the Nazi pattern. As more and more "private" companies come into existence, more and more substantive control of business comes under the control of the state. But I will NEVER think this is in any way free markets in action. Free markets are when the state exercises LITTLE control over business. The only way to guarantee this is by actually shrinking the size and scope of government, just like our founders intended. We can grow the state, for any reason, but the larger it is, the more chance there is of private companies coming under control, either by fascism (Bush), or Communism (Stalin). It makes no difference to us regular Americans, because we're fucked either way.

"And I have rage because there have been corrupt knowledge and logic free morons illegitimately in charge of our government for going on the last 7 years"

I hear you, believe me. But you have to focus that anger at those who are responsible for it. I am not. Yes it is hard because how in the world can you vent your anger at Bush? But that doesn't mean make everyone else suffer. We're innocent.

Yet even more irrational babbling which I didn't bother to read...I've already shown you an illogical fool who doesn't know what he is talking about.......it's incredible how conservatives can go on and on and on without actually saying anything of substance......I guess it's easy to do when one isn't constrained by logic, facts, and reality.

By the way, I believe somewhere up there I saw dispariagement of my institutions of higher learning......my bachelor's degree in Finance came from this little college in Indiana.....you might have heard of it.....PURDUE.....My MS in Finance is from a well regarded hundred some year old private college in Chicago, which I attended because they have a specialized capital markets intensive program. Between the two programs, I am one course short of a Bachelors degree in economics.......or being able to go to work for the US government as an entry level economist.

You should try some of that there book learnin'. I just love when these right wing FUCKS dispariage it........you never know when they might learn something useful like say the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

V V

fwacbar @ 101:

Waggy waggy waggy. You ARE a god damned fool, of the highest order mind you. I am sure you are truly on eof the little people also. You watch too much right wing jibberish on TeeVee.

"division of labor society...everyone contributes...causes lower prices all around...wages rise year after year after year...the poorest...end up living better and better every year...."

What fucking planet are you from may I ask? Every one contributes? Prices get lower? Wages rise year after year? The poorest end up living better? Are you out of your mind? That is not how it works in this country. Are you talking about the Unites States of America? Unemployment and under employment are at all time highs. Gas, food, drugs, medicine, clothes, fishing tackle, printer ink, EVERY FUCKING THING I BUY, has gotten more expensive under dumbya. My wages and I would bet the wages of most have not kept up. Jesus Christ, anyone getting paid a half assed wage will see their job go to China or India real soon. And the rest will get to compete with illegal aliens at $5 per hour. And you think the poorest people in this country are living better and better every year? You are nuts..... Go back to "left turn, left turn, left turn, left turn, left turn, left turn.....". you moron.

The sole reason prices rise in general year after year is because of intellectuals influencing policy (like Vitam in Chicago). The Federal Reserve is printing money FASTER than business can lower prices, that's why things always get more expensive over time. Look up F.A. Hayek, who won a Nobel prize by the way. He talks about this very same process. It is unfortunate that most people cannot see the cause for rising prices, because they end up blaming the innocent and seeking the help of the guilty.

Vitam Vas @ 104:

Actually, I skimmed your shit there, and came across this:

"I hear you, believe me. But you have to focus that anger at those who are responsible for it. I am not. Yes it is hard because how in the world can you vent your anger at Bush? But that doesn’t mean make everyone else suffer. We’re innocent."

It's good that you are disclaiming the Chimperor-you're probably one of these delusional Libertarians. You guys, while delusional, are substantially less of a threat to continued human existence than the neocons.

However, I ASSURE you that you aren't being logical, and you don't know what you are talking about. The science of economics (the stuff spouted by Professors and textbooks) has been developed by following scientific and academic methodologies (this is how TRUTH and REALITY are found) over the last 300 plus years, like as mentioned experiments, observations, etc. I ASSURE you that while just as any crackpot can spout "Alcohol doesn't actually kill germs", the scientific and academic methodology shows him wrong, the things you are spouting, wherever they came from would be similarly dismissed.

I firmly recommend taking at least class in formal logic.....it is generally taught out of Philosophy department. There you will learn that just "sayin some stuff" doesn't refute a logical counterargument. Furthermore, pick up some micro and macroeconomics

V V

Hahahahahahaha....man is this how you make friends? You can "ASSURE" me all day, but your arguments falls on its face. First of all, the fact that you split economics into "micro" and "macro" spheres means you will "fit right in" in Chicago. There should be do split because they are one in the same phenomena. Tell your profs that. See their reaction. Tell them that this intellectual severence is destructive, because we do not live in a vacuum. Everything affects everything else.

You tell me to take formal logic? I have. That's why I always win against you. You keep saying "I have no idea what I am talking about". I do. Trust me. If I know anything in this world, it is that the truth shall set you free. You my friend are the one who is just "saying stuff", because for every thing you said, I showed your errors. You cannot just say I "assure" you, etc and claim that is any sort of logic. I dare you, tell me EXACTLY where I have made an error in logic. You have to say where before you claim I did. What you are trying to convince yourself of is that you don't want to accept the fact that your education is actually worthless. I am trying to show you it is. Yes it is hard to swallow, but truth trumps pride any day of the week in my books. THAT is what makes you an intellectual, NOT the school you went to, and certainly NOT how you are approaching this particular argument.

The fundamental error you are making is that you are equating me with the philosophy you think underlies the Neo-Cons and Bush, who yes, spout untruths everyday. But I am not doing this. I am not out to control your life so there is absolutely no incentive for me to have no logic or to just rant with no substantive arguments. I have already demolished your "multiplier effect" nonsense, you never replied to it. I also demolished your ignorance of the politics of economies. You will not concede to me, that's fine, you don't have to. But there is no reason you can't learn the errors of your ways and continue on with your life having this new knowledge. Nobody will know, trust me. Nobody will know you learned actual truth on a blog. You can say you went to Purdue, which will impress a lot of people, and then you can tell them what I told you. That's fine. I encourage you to do so. For MY incentive is for truth to get out, not to show people how smart I am, especially on an anonymous blog of all places. There is no reason to tell me your education, that's why I think you are trying to convince yourself and not me.

And we're back to meaningless babbling......so go right ahead....keep on typing.

V V

Here is a lesson in logic for right wingers I wrote a while back.....for purposes of educating the fucktard:

Let's try and do something constructive here, a lesson in logic. Take my made up example earlier.

Me: Acid rain is killing those trees.

This is a point in an argument, which is held forth as a factual statement. Now in order to effectively REFUTE my factual statement, it is necessary to dispute what I have held forth as a FACT.

Example of effectively refuting what is held forth as a factual statement:

Acid rain is not killing those trees. We do not have acid rain here. Here is a link to a scientific report about the PH count in the local rainwater, which indicates that the rain is not acidic.

OR

Acid rain is not killing those trees. Those trees are being killed by a communicable disease. Here is a news report by a reputable unbiased source investiating the matter, which indicates as such.

Conversely, this is basically what you (note: applies to the fucktard) are doing:

Acid rain is not killing those trees. You liberals think you know everything. You think that we don't care about conservation. We care more about conservation than you do. We conservatives love the woods, which we use for hunting and fishing. Boy I bet that you weenie liberals would starve to death if your precious baby killing "civilization" collapsed. You would be eating bugs (I have actually had a Michigan militia type *beep* say this to me...I wonder if he knew the McVeigh boys?). Boy, I can't believe that you would accuse US of not caring about nature. You are so stupid and illogical. But you love to hug trees, don't you? So go right on ahead and hug on those trees boy. Damn hippies. They ruin their brains with that dope and L...S...D....and go off worrying about hugging trees and killing cute little fuzzy things in the woods. -Acid Rain- my ass. Bet you want one of those clean air scrubber things installed at the factory. Don't you understand that if we don't let old man Johnson make every little red cent he can out of that factory, he is going to close up shop and we will all be out of the job. How am I going to feed my kids without that job? You only car about little fuzzy things in the woods, but not MY kids........

Do you see my point? You can go on and on and on, even mentioning things that kind of SOUND like they refute an opposing point of view, but in actuality don't. "

V V

fwacbar @ 108:

Vitam Vas - This waggy guy is goofy. This little bit of insight into his personality,

"You will not concede to me...learn the errors of your ways...MY incentive is...not to show people how smart I am..."

I bet this guy likes to go to church and preach at others, all day long. I bet he is a real blast at parties, can kill all conversation by simply walking into the room type. I wonder if his children still talk to him much? One thing though, the last 2 point "MY incentive is...not to show people how smart I am..", I will say he is doing a damned fine job at that!

Yea, did you see where he was dispariaging that "book learning" back above?

The integral problem is that the truly most ignorant don't realize how ignorant they are.

An example of this I always us is that I KNOW enough about automotive mechanics to UNDERSTAND that it is beyond my capability to do much more than basic maintenance like changing the sparkplugs.

Conversely, this is the kind of guy who tries to change his alternator or timing belt and ends up with the contents of his engine compartment spread out and rusting on his front lawn and an inert vehicle permanently taking up space in front of his house.

V V

Wag @ 112:

Vitam Vas @ 109:

Here is a lesson in logic for right wingers I wrote a while back.....for purposes of educating the fucktard:

Let's try and do something constructive here, a lesson in logic. Take my made up example earlier.

Me: Acid rain is killing those trees.

This is a point in an argument, which is held forth as a factual statement. Now in order to effectively REFUTE my factual statement, it is necessary to dispute what I have held forth as a FACT.

Example of effectively refuting what is held forth as a factual statement:

Acid rain is not killing those trees. We do not have acid rain here. Here is a link to a scientific report about the PH count in the local rainwater, which indicates that the rain is not acidic.

OR

Acid rain is not killing those trees. Those trees are being killed by a communicable disease. Here is a news report by a reputable unbiased source investiating the matter, which indicates as such.

Conversely, this is basically what you (note: applies to the fucktard) are doing:

Acid rain is not killing those trees. You liberals think you know everything. You think that we don't care about conservation. We care more about conservation than you do. We conservatives love the woods, which we use for hunting and fishing. Boy I bet that you weenie liberals would starve to death if your precious baby killing "civilization" collapsed. You would be eating bugs (I have actually had a Michigan militia type *beep* say this to me...I wonder if he knew the McVeigh boys?). Boy, I can't believe that you would accuse US of not caring about nature. You are so stupid and illogical. But you love to hug trees, don't you? So go right on ahead and hug on those trees boy. Damn hippies. They ruin their brains with that dope and L...S...D....and go off worrying about hugging trees and killing cute little fuzzy things in the woods. -Acid Rain- my ass. Bet you want one of those clean air scrubber things installed at the factory. Don't you understand that if we don't let old man Johnson make every little red cent he can out of that factory, he is going to close up shop and we will all be out of the job. How am I going to feed my kids without that job? You only car about little fuzzy things in the woods, but not MY kids........

Do you see my point? You can go on and on and on, even mentioning things that kind of SOUND like they refute an opposing point of view, but in actuality don't. "

V V

OK, acid rain is the next evasion of keeping with the truth.

You call this a lesson in logic? Hahahahaha...

You can't simply make a statement, and then put the burden of proof on the OTHER party, and if they cannot REFUTE you, then you are ipso facto correct. This is actually one of the first things profs are supposed to teach people in logic class. This is called the fallacy of negative proof.

It goes like this:

X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

That is exactly what you have just done. You have just said that in order to prove your statement, it is up to the listener to show you a refutation. If they don't, then you think you are correct. This whole garbled effort of use of logic is really pathetic Vitam. Seriously, you are now getting desperate.

Vitam Vas @ 111:

fwacbar @ 108:

Vitam Vas - This waggy guy is goofy. This little bit of insight into his personality,

"You will not concede to me...learn the errors of your ways...MY incentive is...not to show people how smart I am..."

I bet this guy likes to go to church and preach at others, all day long. I bet he is a real blast at parties, can kill all conversation by simply walking into the room type. I wonder if his children still talk to him much? One thing though, the last 2 point "MY incentive is...not to show people how smart I am..", I will say he is doing a damned fine job at that!

Yea, did you see where he was dispariaging that "book learning" back above?

The integral problem is that the truly most ignorant don't realize how ignorant they are.

An example of this I always us is that I KNOW enough about automotive mechanics to UNDERSTAND that it is beyond my capability to do much more than basic maintenance like changing the sparkplugs.

Conversely, this is the kind of guy who tries to change his alternator or timing belt and ends up with the contents of his engine compartment spread out and rusting on his front lawn and an inert vehicle permanently taking up space in front of his house.

V V

Wagoo - Funny how you think anyone that disagrees with you is angry. You must get a lot of anger directed at you to think that. You think PRICES rise as a result of WAGE increases. You couldn't be more wrong. If what you say is true, prices should be quite a bit higher than they are because if you take the asset value of all americans and split it up evenly, the vast majority of us would come out way ahead. Wealth is not evenly distributed, but prices for the most part are. Poor people don't get to pay less for gas, and the rich don't have to pay more. Just the opposite is true, the poor pay a higher percentage of their wealth for a gallon of gas than someone worth a billion dollars does. You must not get out shopping much eh? You keep throwing them up here, and I will keep hitting them over the left field fence.... Your still an idiot....

fwacbar @ 115:

Wagoo - Funny how you think anyone that disagrees with you is angry. You must get a lot of anger directed at you to think that. You think PRICES rise as a result of WAGE increases. You couldn't be more wrong. If what you say is true, prices should be quite a bit higher than they are because if you take the asset value of all americans and split it up evenly, the vast majority of us would come out way ahead. Wealth is not evenly distributed, but prices for the most part are. Poor people don't get to pay less for gas, and the rich don't have to pay more. Just the opposite is true, the poor pay a higher percentage of their wealth for a gallon of gas than someone worth a billion dollars does. You must not get out shopping much eh? You keep throwing them up here, and I will keep hitting them over the left field fence.... Your still an idiot....

I couldn't be more wrong? Well, it's simple of you just think of how higher costs result in higher prices. Wages are a business cost. If business costs go up, then so do the prices of the goods those wages helped produce.

When you said that if what I said were true, then if we split up all assets then people would come out ahead? I am not sure what you mean exactly, because wages are wages, and assets are assets. Home values and other such assets are determined by both the relative utility of homes, and the quantity of money in circulation. Prices would not be higher because if take assets and "split them up", again not clear what you mean, then we would not be talking abou the same thing anymore. Wages are a cost. If costs go up, so will prices, or else that business goes under. Simple.

Wealth is not evenly distributed? Yes, that's true. But this in itself is not a problem because we all benefit from other people's wealth (if it was made fairly, meaning free trade). But when you say prices are more or less "distributed", this makes no sense because there are goods for sale for a dollar, and goods for sale for billions of dollars. Prices are pretty uneven , which is ok too, because it just reflects the relative utilities of those goods.

Vitam - Like I say, the more I know, the more I know I don't know. Waggy on the other hand seems to think he knows it all, irrefutably! Oh well, he says he don't like being told what to do? Really? He is 'told' what to do every minute of every day. It's like this, pay your cable bill or no cable for you. Pay your car payment or no car for you. Stop at the stop sign or pay a fine. Drive the speed limit or pay a fine. Don't touch the other mans wife or you get beat up. The list is endless. So many rules and every rule is society telling you what to do. Wagga-ding-dong is not too bright. The government having an agency is just MY way of saying, "Don't make drugs that will poison me, and don't paint toys that will poison my kids". The dumb son of a bitch just doesn't get it. And to answer this one, "You only car about little fuzzy things in the woods, but not MY kids…….." Really! I hate bugs, as long as they stay outside we can co-exist. Come into my house and I will kill your squirmy little ass! And as far as your kids go, yes, I will insist that the toys they suck on as infants don't contain lead. If you think caring means letting them suck on lead, I think you can get all the lead they can eat at a bait and tackle store, bon appetite!

fwacbar @ 120:

"Like I say, the more I know, the more I know I don't know."

Good. I think the same thing too. But this is the mark of personal progress. You have to choose between staying ignorant by choice and be satisfied with one's incorrect or incomplete knowledge, or find the truth, and be satisfied along the way, but never completely satisfied.

"Waggy on the other hand seems to think he knows it all, irrefutably!"

Oh no! I do not think I know it ALL. I only know what I know, I don't know biology, automotive mechanics, poetry, plenty of stuff. But in those cases I STFU. Not so with some people. Some people like to blab about what they think they know, but really they don't. These people know ddep down that there is something wrong with their knowledge, in what they have learned. Everyone who has ever been publicly schooled knows this. I was. I felt incomplete because there was just something that didn't make any sense from what they were teaching. So I tought myself. That's how progress is made anyway. If you only learn what is already known by others, then you will never contribute. You have to base your search on what is the right path.

"Oh well, he says he don't like being told what to do? Really? He is 'told' what to do every minute of every day."

No I'm not.

"It's like this, pay your cable bill or no cable for you."

Don't have cable, so they can't tell me to pay. If I did, then it was my choice to enter into the agreement. They will thus not be "telling" me what to do, they would simply be reminding me of our agreement.

Actually all your examples are the same thing. It's your choice.

Wag @ 121:

Vitam Vas @ 119:

Go on...keep babbling.....oh by the way, your economist up there won HALF the nobel prize.....sharing it with it looks like from quick examination another economist who held opposing views.

Making a CONTRIBUTION (which can be heralded with accolades)does not make one RIGHT. Theoretically speaking, Brittany Spears could come up with a new chord or whatever making a CONTRIBUTION to music..........that she had done so doesn't make her "Whoops I did it again" song into the epitome of music.

V V

You're absolutely right, receiving accolades does NOT make sone right. Hayek was not right because he won, he was right because he was realized the truth. Al Gore, one of the latest recipients of an award (Nobel), clearly shows that awards really, for sure, without question, do not make one right.

And what's this going on about Brittany Spears(?) and you're calling ME a babbler? So if I talk about "Brittany" too then I will not be a babbler?

So.....Hayek was right because he was (paraphrased)" right."..........circular reasoning.....logical fallacy.....WRONG.

V V

You know, it doesn't actually matter (I'm only antagonizing this irrational idiot for amusement purposes)....these crackpots are never going to get power, so they can sit around and masturbate to their kooky theories all that they want. It's a free country. The American people however LIKE their interventionalist government. Ask Newt Gingrich how it went over when he shut it down in the mid nineties. They won't get (via Ron Paul) the rethuglican nomination as somewhere in the viscinity of half their party is pissing their pants about "Islamofascism"......and even if they did by some bizarre abberation, manage to get the nomination and win the general election, Paul would still have opposition from the entire congress...........the SANE right wing in the Democratic Party, and corrupt scumbags in the rethuglican who don't want their candy store taken away. I actually hope that Ron Paul fails to get the nomination so he runs as a Libertarian....splitting the right wing vote.......actually, if they destroy the abberational monolith that is the gop. the lack of opposition could actually empower the left wing to pull it's support for the democrats and run a viable try at getting power in a new party. So you nutty Libertarians just go right on ahead......

V V

Vitam Vas @ 126:

You know, it doesn't actually matter (I'm only antagonizing this irrational idiot for amusement purposes)....these crackpots are never going to get power, so they can sit around and masturbate to their kooky theories all that they want. It's a free country. The American people however LIKE their interventionalist government. Ask Newt Gingrich how it went over when he shut it down in the mid nineties. They won't get (via Ron Paul) the rethuglican nomination as somewhere in the viscinity of half their party is pissing their pants about "Islamofascism"......and even if they did by some bizarre abberation, manage to get the nomination and win the general election, Paul would still have opposition from the entire congress...........the SANE right wing in the Democratic Party, and corrupt scumbags in the rethuglican who don't want their candy store taken away. I actually hope that Ron Paul fails to get the nomination so he runs as a Libertarian....splitting the right wing vote.......actually, if they destroy the abberational monolith that is the gop. the lack of opposition could actually empower the left wing to pull it's support for the democrats and run a viable try at getting power in a new party. So you nutty Libertarians just go right on ahead......

V V

Oh so now you are only talking in order to amuse yourself? Wow...there are definitely plenty of better ways for amusement than antagonizing anonymous people. But hey, to each his own. I am not one to say what you should do.

You are saying that the American people LIKE interventionist government? That may be true, but that doesn't mean it has to be healthy. Besides, Ron Paul is now 3rd in campaign financing overall. That means that he is just behind two people (Clinton and Obama), both of which have large corporations giving them money. Ron Paul has not been given money by these people. That means that Ron Paul in all likelihood (not for sure but definitely possible) represents the average American more than any other candidate!

If true, this means that the average American does NOT like interventionist government. In fact, if you were to go around the country and ask people if they like being spied on without their consent, what do you think they will say?

And for your comment for the "nutty" liberatarians to "just go ahead". That's what democracy is all about isn't it? If libertarians win, this country will be saved. If anybody else is elected, we are finished for sure.

Vitam Vas @ 129:

Are you SURE that Ron Paul isn't getting corporate sponsorship? I don't definitively know that he isn't, but the scumbag corporations would like it quite a bit if they were to get in.....basically that would be like the crooks backing a mayor who is going to get rid of the police department...think that there would be an interest there?

I also don't definitively know that it isn't true, but would be extremely surprised to find out that what you are saying is in fact correct.

And all other analysis aside (such as the 25% or so of the country-likely republican voters- who are pissing themselves about "Islamofascism"), even if he were to win, he wouldn't be able to, as mentioned, implement any of your goofy ideas without congress going along. He would however, as Commander in Chief be able to withdraw our forces out of the Middle East....which is fine by me as it will stop the bleeding from the treasury.....then, four years of deadlock......unless the Democrats have a 2/3rds majority and are able to override his veto to put in place some much needed tax increases on the upper class.

V V

V V

No, I'm not certain 100%. But from what he has said, from his background (like never voting to increase taxes, never voting to give business subsidies, never voting to take money out of social security, the list goes on and on), he has been "Dr. No" for 10 terms in office, from all of these facts it is very likely in fact probable that he doesn't receive any money from them. He even refused to be given Congressional pension, or federal school funding for his kids. He made them work for it.

Of course me as an average American citizen, I can never be 100% certain of what goes on in Washington. But this guy is just so honest when he is in the debates, on the internet going from city to city, TV, papers, you name it. He says that he never expected to have his campaign be as big as it has become, and he says its the message that is most important, not his personal success. How can you NOT vote for someone who doesn't want to win simply for power?

And he wants to abolish all taxes, and he is going to start with the personal income tax. He already introduced a bill that would abolish taxes placed on waitress's tips. He says it shouldn't be taxed at all. Hopefully that will fly. As President, he would have the authority to make that decision. He has friends on the other side of the aisle. He is friends with Kucinich. They both have similar ideals, but I personally like Paul more because Kucinich isn't all about small government, when Paul is. But if it's both of them as frontrunners, I would have very little to complain about.

The only thing I want is for the next President to stop wasting money, get rid of the Federal Reserve and IRS, encourage education, family, peace and prosperity and not feed off the fears of people, then I'll be fine.

Vitam @ 131:

"Here’s the thing. The corporations (pretty much a proxy for the aristocrasy) have intelligent sophisticated people working for them, working out ways some legitimate, or semi-legitimate, others not at all, to pad out the corporation’s bottom line."

That's true, but if there were no government agency to bribe, then they would be forced to satisfy the consumer of they wanted money.

[Deleted. Brevity-Sitemonitor]