oobu24:
ok, I'll give you a hand...are there any Ts?
yes Paul s--ul- ap-l---se t- P-es--e-t -us-!
oobu24:
ok, I'll give you a hand...are there any Ts?
yes Paul s--ul- ap-l---se t- P-es--e-t -us-!
EADG:
EADG:
EADG:
This thread has gone dead. Here's and idea. Let's play "hangman". ---- ------ --------- -- --------- ----!
Ok. I'll give you the first four letters. Paul ---u-- ap-l----- -- P-------- -u--!
Are there any "E"s? Yes. Paul ---u-- ap-l----e -- P-e---e-- -u--!
Nobody is playing, so let me give you another letter: S Paul s--ul- ap-l---se -- P-es--e-- -us-!
SurSteven:
It's like studying a bell curve...what is the most finely tuned and all inclusive perfectly balanced bell curve?...maybe it looks more like a sombrero?
i did a quick search on google last night on the subject of socioeconomic mobility in the US. i found an opinion piece on huffpost on the topic (i won't post the link because i think the guy's analysis is flawed). the guy was writing about a study that studied socioeconomic mobility by looking at fathers' income levels as a predictor of their children's income levels. The study found that in the US there is a 50 correlation between the two, which is the third highest among the countries analyzed. His conclusion was that socioeconomic mobility is very low in the US. The problem with that analysis, of course, is that fathers' and children's income levels mignt be correlated not with each other but with some other variables associated with the children that aren't being measured in the study. The most obvious ones would be intelligence and work ethic. I wonder if anyone has ever studied the ratio of children's income to fathers' income for the lower quartiles/deciles of fathers' income (or parents', generally) and measure the correlation of that ratio with some measure of the children's intelligence and/or tendency to work hard. My guess is that the US would have a pretty high correlation over time, including the present day. Either that, or all those millions of immigrants who have come to the US over the years (including the present day) are delusional.
Let me try that again. I meant to say: ... on lch's other point about earning by doing, do you know if there's been blah blah blah. by the way, i'm not asking a rhetorical question. I really am curious whether i higher or lower gini index correlates with desireable social results. My guess is that it's not correlated one way or the other, across societies and within individual societies over time, but i could be wrong.
peacetrain:
jaipur:
There.. will always be poor among us...there will always be wealthy among us...and there will always be those in the middle... that is how the universe is balanced.
You are talking utter fiction. Wealth and poverty have been increasing and decreasing constantly throughout time, including today. The concentration of wealth today in the US is not the same as it's been at some mythical balance. Wealth is today at it's most contcentrated at the top in many many decades. The measure of inequality used in practically all academic studies, the gini index, constantly goes up and down over time for countries. And what changes them are tangible, social factors, such as the type of government, tax structure, healthcare system, regulation of industry, etc. There is no mythical balancing force, only social forces that can be tied directly to people's fates. I took a look at the google page describing the Gini index. It's very interesting. It doesn't really contradict lch's statement (ie, no society has ever had an index of 1, as far as I can tell). And on lch's other point about earning by Flig, do you know if there's been any research that studies whether societies with higher Gini indecies have higher mean per capita incomes and wealth, higher mean per capita income/wealth for the lower deciles, greater economic growth, greater socioeconomic mobility, etc? Or is the opposite true? Someone must have looked into this. Just asking. Look at any of the academic studies on inequality on Google Scholar for proof you could not be more wrong.
EADG:
EADG:
This thread has gone dead. Here's and idea. Let's play "hangman". ---- ------ --------- -- --------- ----!
Ok. I'll give you the first four letters. Paul ---u-- ap-l----- -- P-------- -u--!
Are there any "E"s? Yes. Paul ---u-- ap-l----e -- P-e---e-- -u--!
EADG:
This thread has gone dead. Here's and idea. Let's play "hangman". ---- ------ --------- -- --------- ----!
Ok. I'll give you the first four letters. Paul ---u-- ap-l----- -- P-------- -u--!
This thread has gone dead. Here's and idea. Let's play "hangman". ---- ------ --------- -- --------- ----!
Altanon:
"Too much smoke! More mirrors!! QUICK!!!"
Speaking of smoke, did you ever confirm the details on that story you told a while back about how some DEA agents acted like a bunch of idiots at a police convention and got called out by some very rational police officers who disagree with drug laws?
audi:
Among the vast number of absurdities regarding the Tea Party, I find it amazing that no one has called out Sarah "I'm Only In It For The Money" Palin for strategically aligning herself with the movement. She ran as a Republican with John McCain. The same McCain who voted for the first bail-out in the fall of 2008. Under Bush. How is she Tea Party material?
I think she became Tea Party material when Tina Fey made fun of her. Her relationship with McCain was awkward, and when Hollywood went after her she gained instant appeal with a segment of Americans as a Washington/NY/LA outsider. Some of that group went on to form the Tea Party, so it was a pretty easy connection for her.
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
QUESTIONS For Republicans.... Questions: 1. What was the average monthly private sector job growth in 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency, and what has it been so far in 2010? 2. What was the Federal deficit for the last fiscal year of the Bush presidency, and what was it for the first full fiscal year of the Obama presidency? 3. What was the stock market at on the last day of the Bush presidency? What is it at today? 4. Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform? Answers: 1. In 2008, we lost an average of 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we have gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. (Source) That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year. 2. In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. (Source) Yes, that means President Obama has cut the deficit -- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under Bush and the GOP. 3. On Bush's final day in office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. Today, as of 10:15AM Pacific, they are at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively. 4. The Republican Party, whose candidate for speaker, John Boehner, will campaign with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott this weekend. If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause. The moral of the story is this: if you vote Republican, I hope you enjoy Election Day -- because you're not going to like what comes next.
- Here's a graph of the complete employment statistics for the Bush administration and the Obama administration so far, rather than just quoting a single year's (or partial year's) statistics for each. You can decide whether this proves anything about how a Republican congress is likely to effect economic growth. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth 2. I'm not an expert on the federal government, but i think that FY 2009 included spending decisions that both the Bush and the Obama adminstrations made -- many of them in response to the recession. And it was probably an unrealistically/unsustainably high level for that reason. As with most political issues, it's subject to debate but i think you can make a case that deficit spending in a weak economy is acceptable. 3. The buyers and sellers of stocks that make the decisions that result in the levels of market indexes take many, many factors into account in their buying and selling decisions. (Sometimes they act irrationally, in hindsight, as we've all seen in the past.) I can't recall seeing any commentary that indicates that the rallies in the markets over the past two years have been because of investor sentiment that President Obama is doing a great job with the economy. 4.I don't understand the whole hisotical military re-enactment thing, but some people do it as a hobby. Go dig up the details on this one yourself. i won't bother because you are trying to make something out of nothing.
: getting dizzy with the spin here you're making my point for me 1)I'll show the source for my info above: http://www.bls.gov/data/#employment or explained so that MAYBE most can understand . Job losses under bush were so extreme that they continued into the beginning of Obama's administration but did have immediate improvement http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/19/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-jobs-trends 2) of course...deficit spending in this circumstance is necessary...stimulus anyone 3) yep, looks like somebody up there in the investment community likes Obamas/Dem policies.... 4) surprise one of those goners...whatever I've got better things to do today
Honestly, i don't understand how you think that any or your responses to my points are in any way responsive. Go do whatever those better things are and have a good day.
mustangsally10:
QUESTIONS For Republicans.... Questions: 1. What was the average monthly private sector job growth in 2008, the final year of the Bush presidency, and what has it been so far in 2010? 2. What was the Federal deficit for the last fiscal year of the Bush presidency, and what was it for the first full fiscal year of the Obama presidency? 3. What was the stock market at on the last day of the Bush presidency? What is it at today? 4. Which party's candidate for speaker will campaign this weekend with a Nazi reenactor who dressed up in a SS uniform? Answers: 1. In 2008, we lost an average of 317,250 private sector jobs per month. In 2010, we have gained an average of 95,888 private sector jobs per month. (Source) That's a difference of nearly five million jobs between Bush's last year in office and President Obama's second year. 2. In FY2009, which began on September 1, 2008 and represents the Bush Administration's final budget, the budget deficit was $1.416 trillion. In FY2010, the first budget of the Obama Administration, the budget deficit was $1.291 trillion, a decline of $125 billion. (Source) Yes, that means President Obama has cut the deficit -- there's a long way to go, but we're in better shape now than we were under Bush and the GOP. 3. On Bush's final day in office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 closed at 7,949, 1,440, and 805, respectively. Today, as of 10:15AM Pacific, they are at 11,108, 2,512, and 1,183. That means since President Obama took office, the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 have increased 40%, 74%, and 47%, respectively. 4. The Republican Party, whose candidate for speaker, John Boehner, will campaign with Nazi re-enactor Rich Iott this weekend. If you need an explanation why this is offensive, you are a lost cause. The moral of the story is this: if you vote Republican, I hope you enjoy Election Day -- because you're not going to like what comes next.
George Bush's memoirs are being released on November 9. Maybe someone should send a copy to Paul McCartney.
keithmestl:
Bruce M.:
The Washington Post, "not known for any pro-Republican bias"? In what parallel universe??? Their editorial page has been screechingly right-wing for years...
You must be thinking of the Washington Times, not the Washington Post. By the way, Rich N, that was a great story you told! Maybe the fact that your friends aren't speaking to you indicates they know you are right but they're too small to admit it - yet.
What do you say, Bruce M.? Were you mistaken?
mustangsally10:
mustangsally10:
mustangsally10:
Here is the former Spending Cheerleader in Chief Bush. setting the stage for the era of predatory lending and laying the groundwork for the current mortgage fraud debacle ....don't you just miss this guy
EnjoyHere is an explanation of the mortgage fraud debacle:
Serious folks, this is a mess as it could affect not just homes in foreclosure but most home loans taken out in the US within the last 10 years or so. Not that they will come to foreclose on your home if you are in good standing but that there may not be a clear note on the property. You can ask your bank to see your note using this new website: http://action.seiu.org/page/speakout/wheresthenote
i think it's kind of interesting that a labor union has expanded their self-defined mission to include this sort of activity.
Bruce M.:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Not all politicians are corrupt...there are many who are real public servants and make careful votes and decisions to benefit their constituents . It's easy to find the corrupt ones ...just follow the money. Case in point... except for wealthy CEOs american people have not benefited from the outsourcing of our manufacturing sector. So when a bill comes up in congress (as it did recently) to reduce the outsourcing of american jobs just look who voted against it and why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html these senators voted against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242 why did they vote against it? Because these people gave money to support their reelection ...it was funneled through the US Chamber of Commerce and notice most contributors are from India http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/ and where does the US export many of their jobs : India of course I think you can correctly assume that the senators who voted against Americans economic interest at this challenging time are corrupt crooks. Easy wasn't that...now notice that the crooks are mostly republicans and bingo you've got it . The republicans are the party of big business and big business doesn't really care about the American people. For the most part big business only does the right thing when they are regulated and made to do so.
So you completely ignore that there are some perfectly valid arguments that can be made against this bill (which according to The Washington Post, not known for any pro-Republican bias, as having been cobbled together by Democrats at the last minute to pander for votes in the congressional election). And therefore, anyone who voted against must have done so because they were bribed by foreign agents and are per se corrupt. and Republicans are evil. All i can say to that is that your simplistic views must be an enormous hinderance to your understanding most of what is going on in the world.
The Washington Post, "not known for any pro-Republican bias"? In what parallel universe??? Their editorial page has been screechingly right-wing for years, to the point that even moderate-conservative commentators like Andrew Sullivan have complained about it.
I see a lot more comments about the Post having a liberal bias than having a pro-Repbulican bias. I think you probably do too, whether you agree with them or not. There's also this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Not all politicians are corrupt...there are many who are real public servants and make careful votes and decisions to benefit their constituents . It's easy to find the corrupt ones ...just follow the money. Case in point... except for wealthy CEOs american people have not benefited from the outsourcing of our manufacturing sector. So when a bill comes up in congress (as it did recently) to reduce the outsourcing of american jobs just look who voted against it and why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html these senators voted against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242 You strike me as an extremely judgemental person who has a hard time accepting the fact that there are many people in the world who are far different from you and who have different interests. The world's not your morality play. why did they vote against it? Because these people gave money to support their reelection ...it was funneled through the US Chamber of Commerce and notice most contributors are from India http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/ and where does the US export many of their jobs : India of course I think you can correctly assume that the senators who voted against Americans economic interest at this challenging time are corrupt crooks. Easy wasn't that...now notice that the crooks are mostly republicans and bingo you've got it . The republicans are the party of big business and big business doesn't really care about the American people. For the most part big business only does the right thing when they are regulated and made to do so.
So you completely ignore that there are some perfectly valid arguments that can be made against this bill (which according to The Washington Post, not known for any pro-Republican bias, as having been cobbled together by Democrats at the last minute to pander for votes in the congressional election). And therefore, anyone who voted against must have done so because they were bribed by foreign agents and are per se corrupt. and Republicans are evil. All i can say to that is that your simplistic views must be an enormous hinderance to your understanding most of what is going on in the world.
There was an opportunity to help the American worker at a critical time and the republicans(+5 Dems) chose not to do so. It's apparent that they had to deliver their votes or lose their financial backing from their big business backers whether domestic or foreign. What's been going on in the world is pretty obvious...just look at the carnage from the global financial crisis. It's corruption and greed of big business whether bankers, those in the oil industry or now the mortgage fraud debacle. They are the financial base of the republican party because they know that the repubs will make sure that there will be no constraints on their activity. Yes, the republicans are evil incarnate and there's more : http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120667-us-chamber-comes-out-against-senate-outsourcing-bill The republicans listened to their corporate backers and every single one voted to continue outsourcing jobs. I think you're closing your eyes to reality
You seem to be an extremely judgmental person who has a hard time accepting the fact that there are many people in the world who look at things in different ways than you do. The world's not your morality play.
Amazing you dismiss everything that has happened because of republican policies . Stunning intellectual and emotional disconnect
] No i'm not. i'm just suggesting that you have an enormous blind spot in your understanding of many other people becauee you seem to need feel morally superior to large groups of people who you don't even know. (e.g., "the republicans are evil incarnate"). Seriously, i dont know anyone over the age of about 14 who makes statements like that.
mustangsally10:
EADG:
mustangsally10:
Not all politicians are corrupt...there are many who are real public servants and make careful votes and decisions to benefit their constituents . It's easy to find the corrupt ones ...just follow the money. Case in point... except for wealthy CEOs american people have not benefited from the outsourcing of our manufacturing sector. So when a bill comes up in congress (as it did recently) to reduce the outsourcing of american jobs just look who voted against it and why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html these senators voted against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242 You strike me as an extremely judgemental person who has a hard time accepting the fact that there are many people in the world who are far different from you and who have different interests. The world's not your morality play. why did they vote against it? Because these people gave money to support their reelection ...it was funneled through the US Chamber of Commerce and notice most contributors are from India http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/ and where does the US export many of their jobs : India of course I think you can correctly assume that the senators who voted against Americans economic interest at this challenging time are corrupt crooks. Easy wasn't that...now notice that the crooks are mostly republicans and bingo you've got it . The republicans are the party of big business and big business doesn't really care about the American people. For the most part big business only does the right thing when they are regulated and made to do so.
So you completely ignore that there are some perfectly valid arguments that can be made against this bill (which according to The Washington Post, not known for any pro-Republican bias, as having been cobbled together by Democrats at the last minute to pander for votes in the congressional election). And therefore, anyone who voted against must have done so because they were bribed by foreign agents and are per se corrupt. and Republicans are evil. All i can say to that is that your simplistic views must be an enormous hinderance to your understanding most of what is going on in the world.
There was an opportunity to help the American worker at a critical time and the republicans(+5 Dems) chose not to do so. It's apparent that they had to deliver their votes or lose their financial backing from their big business backers whether domestic or foreign. What's been going on in the world is pretty obvious...just look at the carnage from the global financial crisis. It's corruption and greed of big business whether bankers, those in the oil industry or now the mortgage fraud debacle. They are the financial base of the republican party because they know that the repubs will make sure that there will be no constraints on their activity. Yes, the republicans are evil incarnate and there's more : http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120667-us-chamber-comes-out-against-senate-outsourcing-bill The republicans listened to their corporate backers and every single one voted to continue outsourcing jobs. I think you're closing your eyes to reality
You seem to be an extremely judgmental person who has a hard time accepting the fact that there are many people in the world who look at things in different ways than you do. The world's not your morality play.
mustangsally10:
Not all politicians are corrupt...there are many who are real public servants and make careful votes and decisions to benefit their constituents . It's easy to find the corrupt ones ...just follow the money. Case in point... except for wealthy CEOs american people have not benefited from the outsourcing of our manufacturing sector. So when a bill comes up in congress (as it did recently) to reduce the outsourcing of american jobs just look who voted against it and why. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092802768.html these senators voted against it: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00242 why did they vote against it? Because these people gave money to support their reelection ...it was funneled through the US Chamber of Commerce and notice most contributors are from India http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/ and where does the US export many of their jobs : India of course I think you can correctly assume that the senators who voted against Americans economic interest at this challenging time are corrupt crooks. Easy wasn't that...now notice that the crooks are mostly republicans and bingo you've got it . The republicans are the party of big business and big business doesn't really care about the American people. For the most part big business only does the right thing when they are regulated and made to do so.
So you completely ignore that there are some perfectly valid arguments that can be made against this bill (which according to The Washington Post, not known for any pro-Republican bias, as having been cobbled together by Democrats at the last minute to pander for votes in the congressional election). And therefore, anyone who voted against must have done so because they were bribed by foreign agents and are per se corrupt. and Republicans are evil. All i can say to that is that your simplistic views must be an enormous hinderance to your understanding most of what is going on in the world.
Altanon:
My friend said it better than I can:
RachelMorgan:
You gotta realize that the system is broken. Congress is owned by the corporations. Both parties. Wanna know how I know? * every year is an election year whether or not it is. * for a successful bid, you've got to raise $200,000/mo for four months in the off year. * then you need more money for the election year. * so you don't do anything to piss off the financially well off part of your constituency (the three or four people who can get these corporations to donate) * corporations are now a person for campaign contributions. But note that unions are not. The supreme court's ruling was very narrow and limited only to corporations. * corporate interests come first. The fascists have gotten smart. They realized after WWII that dictatorships don't really work. You've got to give an appearance of a democratic republic of some sort. Hence "democratic fascism". Why do I say this? The first thing necessary for a fascist state to succeed is to bust up unions and other labor organizations. They've been substantially weakened. And now are pretty powerless. That happened during the 1980s, and they've gotten weaker and weaker as people are convinced by the corporate propaganda machine over the airwaves to vote against their own interests. They are told that Goldman Sachs are the good guys. That BP is the good guys (Rush is saying the explosion was sabotage by left wingers). How government is bad, except when the corporatists want more government. Fascism is a full cooperation between the corporation and the state. The state exists for the benefit of the corporation. How well is that working out for us? * hence there will be no effective financial reform. not now. not in the immediate future. * there is no both sides of the media. there is only one side. they create the illusion that there are more than one side.
You're kidding, right? That's all you've got as your basis for your simplistic outlook on society? By the way i'm still waiting for the details on that true story you reported a few weeks about about the polcie convention in Cincy.