What to do about Sandy? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What to do about Sandy?


muscogee
10-30-2012, 15:54
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

countrygun
10-30-2012, 15:57
Vote for Romney

cowboy1964
10-30-2012, 15:57
In case you hadn't noticed the debt is being raised just fine without storms.

And don't people have insurance??? I do. I'll be paying for this storm through higher rates, just like all storms.

ChuteTheMall
10-30-2012, 15:58
It's God's fault.

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 16:02
10A applies. State issue, not federal.

Don't subsidize insurance.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 16:04
It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 16:05
It's God's fault.

I assume you are joking, but someone in another thread said that "God is with US", because he thought the storm would be good for Romney.

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 16:08
It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start uop repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

Broken window fallacy.

Natural disasters create jobs, and war create jobs, so why not bomb our own cities? We'll all be rich!!!

countrygun
10-30-2012, 16:16
Broken window fallacy.

Natural disasters create jobs, and war create jobs, so why not bomb our own cities? We'll all be rich!!!

I am living proof, of sorts, that it it isn't a fallacy. Research "The Columbus Day Storm" . My Father and several of his friend drastically increased their buying power by working second jobs in the wake. allowed him to buy property and a new second car for Mom. I did rather well myself, years later under similar conditions.

Don't get me started about bombing some of our own cities, I could put together a list.

And , to save the post I was going to make,

As an atheist myself I am getting rather tired of others throwing a fit everytime someone else mentions "God". If you are secure in your beliefs then it shouldn't bother you. Militiant atheists make me want to go and tithe to a church.

I don't get bent or offended by people mentioning their faith or "God". Get over yourself.

muscogee
10-30-2012, 17:06
It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start uop repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

You think Moderate Mitt will say that or will he shake his Etch-A-Sketch and start singing Santa Claus is Coming to Town? If he tells people they're on their own, it may cost him the election. He can throw the Tea Party overboard or throw the election overboard.

This may cost Mitt the election anyway. The people in NC, VA, PA, OH, MI, and NH may be rethinking their positions on the big bad government.

Do you think Christie will take federal money or not? If he takes it he loses credibility with the Tea Party. If he doesn't he loses his political career.

BTW, insurance is the free market's response to the obvious unworkability of the free market. Everyone's insurance will go up to pay for the damage from Sandy. Free market communism.

Ruble Noon
10-30-2012, 17:11
What did we do about Galveston when it was hit by a hurricane in 1900? There was no FEMA.

ModGlock17
10-30-2012, 17:12
It's God's fault.

Oh yeah!

like Sodom and Gomorrah. Here comes some Googling of that... LOL

Just kidding, ok?

muscogee
10-30-2012, 17:23
What did we do about Galveston when it was hit by a hurricane in 1900? There was no FEMA.

I agree, but it would be political suicide to ignore Sandy today. There's a perfect world and there's the real world.

Jay9928
10-30-2012, 17:28
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/30/romney-relief-event-in-ohio/1668917/

muscogee
10-30-2012, 17:34
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/30/romney-relief-event-in-ohio/1668917/


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/30/cnns-gut-check-for-october-30-2012/?hpt=hp_bn3
Mitt Romney’s most effective surrogate in this campaign, in terms of blunt, stark criticism of President Barack Obama, has changed his tone.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is now heaping praise on the president, one week before Election Day. Why? Sandy.

Make no mistake about it, Christie supports Romney for president, but it is hard not to watch and listen to what he has had to say about Obama over the past 24 hours.

The governor did not just make an off-the-cuff remark thanking the federal government for the focus on his state in this time of crisis – the governor has been downright effusive about Obama’s focus on it.

In a trio of tweets over the past 24 hours, Christie expressed: 1. Confidence in the president; 2. Thanked the president personally; 3. Praised the president for his leadership.

Governor Christie (@GovChristie)
I have confidence that we will have support from the President and federal authorities. #Sandy
October 30 at 4:27am

Governor Christie (@GovChristie)
I want to thank the President personally for all his assistance as w recover from the storm.
October 30 at 1:28am

Governor Christie (@GovChristie)
President Obama then said if I needed anything to call him directly. I appreciated that leadership and I will if/when we do.
October 29 at 11:54am

In several interviews, Christie echoed his praise. On MSNBC’s Morning Joe: “It’s been very good working with the president.” On NBC: “I was on the phone at midnight again last night with the president personally. He has expedited the designation of New Jersey as a major disaster area.” To Politico: “The president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.”

Not exactly what you would expect to hear from the tough-talking New Jersey governor, who defied political odds in 2009 to defeat the deep pocketed incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine in one of the bluest of blue states. It is Christie’s “tell it like it is” demeanor that prompted several wealthy Republicans last year to try and convince the New Jersey governor to run for president. Instead, Christie backed Romney and he has become a favorite of Republican audiences on the campaign trail.

But for now, one of Romney’s top surrogates is sidelined as he focuses on helping his state recover from the devastating storm. Asked on Fox & Friends if Romney will visit New Jersey to see firsthand the damage Sandy wrought, Christie was, well, blunt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In3sApWlY1s

countrygun
10-30-2012, 17:38
You think Moderate Mitt will say that or will he shake his Etch-A-Sketch and start singing Santa Claus is Coming to Town? If he tells people they're on their own, it may cost him the election. He can throw the Tea Party overboard or throw the election overboard.

This may cost Mitt the election anyway. The people in NC, VA, PA, OH, MI, and NH may be rethinking their positions on the big bad government.

Do you think Christie will take federal money or not? If he takes it he loses credibility with the Tea Party. If he doesn't he loses his political career.

BTW, insurance is the free market's response to the obvious unworkability of the free market. Everyone's insurance will go up to pay for the damage from Sandy. Free market communism.



Just exactly what fairy dust do you think a POTUS has that can help/change/improve a situation like that WITHOUT involving private enterprise? Do you think there is an army of government carpenters, electricians etc? There will be private enterprise jobs all over, yes partially paid with insurance and probably a lot with Govt (OUR) money. There will be plenty of opportunity for startup business, As you know, "mean old capitalism" has a habit of seeing a situation and a need and fills in for a nasty profit.

Helping not only the direct victims but helping those involved in the rebuilding, would be a good way to stimulate private enterprise.

Those who can SUCCESSFULLY operate a business may do well and increase employment and tax revenues in the long run.

muscogee
10-30-2012, 17:42
Just exactly what fairy dust do you think a POTUS has that can help/change/improve a situation like that WITHOUT involving private enterprise? Do you think there is an army of government carpenters, electricians etc? There will be private enterprise jobs all over, yes partially paid with insurance and probably a lot with Govt (OUR) money. There will be plenty of opportunity for startup business, As you know, "mean old capitalism" has a habit of seeing a situation and a need and fills in for a nasty profit.

Helping not only the direct victims but helping those involved in the rebuilding, would be a good way to stimulate private enterprise.

Those who can SUCCESSFULLY operate a business may do well and increase employment and tax revenues in the long run.

So do we raise taxes or raise the deficit?

aircarver
10-30-2012, 17:43
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

4. Send you the bill.

.

IvanVic
10-30-2012, 17:48
You think Moderate Mitt will say that or will he shake his Etch-A-Sketch and start singing Santa Claus is Coming to Town? If he tells people they're on their own, it may cost him the election. He can throw the Tea Party overboard or throw the election overboard.

This may cost Mitt the election anyway. The people in NC, VA, PA, OH, MI, and NH may be rethinking their positions on the big bad government.

Do you think Christie will take federal money or not? If he takes it he loses credibility with the Tea Party. If he doesn't he loses his political career.

BTW, insurance is the free market's response to the obvious unworkability of the free market. Everyone's insurance will go up to pay for the damage from Sandy. Free market communism.

Christie was on Fox about 5 minutes ago praising the federal government and the way the admin has provided help to his state.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
10-30-2012, 17:54
Christie was on Fox about 5 minutes ago praising the federal government and the way the admin has provided help to his state.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

And you would expect a Governor to do something else for the people that elected him?:dunno:

countrygun
10-30-2012, 17:58
So do we raise taxes or raise the deficit?

We give out less in entitlements, welfare, and unemployment because jobs will be created.

It makes a perfect reason to CUT Govt spending to offset the difference.

When you consider how much Obama tossed away on the stimulus this will be better for the economy by a long shot.

Cavalry Doc
10-30-2012, 18:02
Broken window fallacy.

Natural disasters create jobs, and war create jobs, so why not bomb our own cities? We'll all be rich!!!

Natural disasters do create jobs. They destroy some too. It's like nature after a forest fire. There is a lot of activity afterward.

Why don't we bomb our own cities? Because that would be a despicable act only a complete idiot would seriously propose. I assume you were being facetious.

muscogee
10-30-2012, 18:06
We give out less in entitlements, welfare, and unemployment because jobs will be created.

It makes a perfect reason to CUT Govt spending to offset the difference.

When you consider how much Obama tossed away on the stimulus this will be better for the economy by a long shot.

Due to the stimulus the economy will be better next year regardless of who is elected.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 18:08
Due to the stimulus the economy will be better next year regardless of who is elected.

Yah the bankruptcy lawyers for the companies Obama invested in are such big spenders:upeyes:

IvanVic
10-30-2012, 18:14
And you would expect a Governor to do something else for the people that elected him?:dunno:

I think putting politics aside during times like this is commendable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

pugman
10-30-2012, 18:24
Natural disasters do create jobs. They destroy some too. It's like nature after a forest fire. There is a lot of activity afterward.

Why don't we bomb our own cities? Because that would be a despicable act only a complete idiot would seriously propose. I assume you were being facetious.

Well give me Detroit....a bombing there would only improve it.

As for Sandy...nothing. At what point are we going to hold people responsible for where they live, what they make, what they do, etc.

Let me put it another way: what about the looming near trillion dollar pension deficit in California...it was $500 billion short in 2010. Depending on who you want to believe today I've read numbers of $550-$778 billion.

Do you want to pay even an extra $100-300 a year in taxes to pay for the pensioners in California..I sure as hell don't. Make the people in California pay for it; they voted it in or at the very least voted in the people who approved it.

ChuteTheMall
10-30-2012, 18:39
New Jersey can have my share of the federal taxes that would have gone to Planned Parenthood, Solyndra, Government Motors, and Michelle's next vacation.

California can have my recyclables, but they will have to come sort them from the trash.

I'd like to thank President Obama in advance for all of the support and assistance he is going to provide, from the taxes we already paid towards FEMA, DOT, HHS, HUD, ETC & if he doesn't, he has just been set up to take the blame for another failure. He's got less than a week to respond or he's fired.
:nutcheck:

ChuteTheMall
10-30-2012, 18:50
Well give me Detriot....a bombing there would only improve it.


Far out man, I remember that old classic cartoon....
The works of Walt Disney are satirized twice. Silhouettes of Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Donald Duck are shown cheering on the United States Air Force as it drops napalm on a black neighborhood during a riot.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068612/
Fritz The Cat (1972) by Ralph Bakshi & R. Crumb
:hippie:

Cavalry Doc
10-30-2012, 18:51
Well give me Detriot....a bombing there would only improve it.

As for Sandy...nothing. At what point are we going to hold people responsible for where they live, what they make, what they do, etc.

Let me put it another way: what about the looming near trillion dollar pension deficit in California...it was $500 billion short in 2010. Depending on who you want to believe today I've read numbers of $550-$778 billion.

Do you want to pay even an extra $100-300 a year in taxes to pay for the pensioners in California..I sure as hell don't. Make the people in California pay for it; they voted it in or at the very least voted in the people who approved it.

Personally, my position is if you don't have private insurance, and you experience a disaster, it should be all on you. If that means you go broke, so be it.

I live in the middle of Texas, I still carried flood insurance during the worst of our recent droughts. Be prepared. Either with insurance, or to suck it up.

ChuteTheMall
10-30-2012, 19:05
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8053/8140093030_ca56de2ac1.jpg

Hurry up, Barack! The fat guy just called you out and if you don't get the Corp of Engineers to rebuild the beach within a week, you're fired. It's your mess now.
:deadhorse:

muscogee
10-30-2012, 21:26
And you would expect a Governor to do something else for the people that elected him?:dunno:

You're talking of of both sides of your mouth. The government can't spend more and spend less.

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 21:29
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

How much are you sending ?

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 21:30
I am living proof, of sorts, that it it isn't a fallacy. Research "The Columbus Day Storm" . My Father and several of his friend drastically increased their buying power by working second jobs in the wake. allowed him to buy property and a new second car for Mom. I did rather well myself, years later under similar conditions.

Don't get me started about bombing some of our own cities, I could put together a list.

And , to save the post I was going to make,

As an atheist myself I am getting rather tired of others throwing a fit everytime someone else mentions "God". If you are secure in your beliefs then it shouldn't bother you. Militiant atheists make me want to go and tithe to a church.

I don't get bent or offended by people mentioning their faith or "God". Get over yourself.

So you don't understand it. Ok. Yes a natural disaster creates jobs, but at the expense of other jobs. The guy who's house is damaged has to pay you to fix it. If the disaster hadn't happened, he'd have a house and the money that he paid you. He would spend that money on something else, and somebody else would get a job providing that good or service. So it's roughly a draw on jobs, but a net loss on stuff/wealth. He could have had a house and a car, but after the disaster has only a house.

Yeah it's the wrong forum on the religious stuff, my bad.

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 21:34
It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start uop repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

:rofl::rofl::rofl: No wonder this country is bankrupt! There are people who actually think like this? :rofl:

This makes about as much sense as when Nancy Pelosi claimed that every dollar of unemployment benes paid resulted in many more dollars to the economy.

QNman
10-30-2012, 21:34
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

4. Stop spending money on things like research to determine how to grow food on Mars and the mating rituals of cockroaches.

5. Wish we had the $800B back from spendulus.

6. Sell the government stock in GM and rake in the "profits".

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 21:39
So do we raise taxes or raise the deficit?

Neither.

If you must, cut spending elsewhere.

Obama has blown enough on solar companies to rebuild from this entire storm.

QNman
10-30-2012, 21:39
Due to the stimulus the economy will be better next year regardless of who is elected.

Ah yes... Solyndra and GM were on a FIVE year plan...

Save some of whatever you're smoking. You'll need it on Nov 7.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 21:40
You're talking of of both sides of your mouth. The government can't spend more and spend less.

Ah ignorance and deception in one post, you're multitasking again.

lets put what I said in context to see the deception


Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanVic

"Christie was on Fox about 5 minutes ago praising the federal government and the way the admin has provided help to his state. "

and my response

"And you would expect a Governor to do something else for the people that elected him?"



Rather obvious I was responding to Chrisite's actions and words.

It has nothing to do with whatever point your imagination tells you that you are making.


BTW

Apparently you are either very desperate or your successful business experience is lacking. It is entirely possible to spend more money in one area by spending less in another. It's called "budgeting" most good businessmen do it.

Just keep that bit of information handy, you might find it important someday.

QNman
10-30-2012, 21:40
I think putting politics aside during times like this is commendable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

It is.

QNman
10-30-2012, 21:42
Neither.

If you must, cut spending elsewhere.

Obama has blown enough on solar companies to rebuild from this entire storm.

Yup...

countrygun
10-30-2012, 21:45
:rofl::rofl::rofl: No wonder this country is bankrupt! There are people who actually think like this? :rofl:

This makes about as much sense as when Nancy Pelosi claimed that every dollar of unemployment benes paid resulted in many more dollars to the economy.

You are comparing people having jobs as the same as Pelosi's plan to spend more paying people not to work?

You don't know the difference between a job and welfare. I think we are getting to the root of your problem.:therapy:

QNman
10-30-2012, 21:47
You are comparing people having jobs as the same as Pelosi's plan to spend more paying people not to work?

You don't know the difference between a job and welfare. I think we are getting to the root of your problem.:therapy:

CF is right on this. There is no upside here. Money will change hands, and some will profit, but Uncle Sugar is picking up the tab. Any taxes paid on money that originated from the govt doesn't fill the coffers.

Sorry, my friend.

nursetim
10-30-2012, 21:52
As the Stars and Stripes lt. Said in FMJ "It a giant crap sandwich, and we're all gonna have to a bite."

I hope the Chinese sees this as a sign that we are indeed not good for our debt and TRIES to reposes their collateral. This won't happen, I'm just tired of waiting for the other shoe to drop.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 21:54
So you don't understand it. Ok. Yes a natural disaster creates jobs, but at the expense of other jobs. The guy who's house is damaged has to pay you to fix it. If the disaster hadn't happened, he'd have a house and the money that he paid you. He would spend that money on something else, and somebody else would get a job providing that good or service. So it's roughly a draw on jobs, but a net loss on stuff/wealth. He could have had a house and a car, but after the disaster has only a house.

Yeah it's the wrong forum on the religious stuff, my bad.

Quite a few companies have started in the wake of disasters, and I think you are being rather carreless about casually concluding that "it's a draw" without any facts to back it.

You are also missing my point about a difference between Obama and Romney in a first year. just exactly where were all of Obama's "shovel ready jobs"? Where was his great employment surge, where was anything out of him successful on that topic? His biggest success was doubling down on the deficit and putting it on our credit card.

A program from Romney helping people create jobs out of this disaster would be a heck of a lot better financially, and for the morale of the Country than anything Obama has done.

Syclone538
10-30-2012, 22:03
Quite a few companies have started in the wake of disasters, and I think you are being rather carreless about casually concluding that "it's a draw" without any facts to back it.
...

But you do understand that he has to pay for something he already had, and now can not pay for something he would have been able to?

Anyway if you are interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

...
You are also missing my point about a difference between Obama and Romney in a first year.
...

I'm not missing it, I'm ignoring it, because the difference between them is small enough that I don't really care.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 22:04
CF is right on this. There is no upside here. Money will change hands, and some will profit, but Uncle Sugar is picking up the tab. Any taxes paid on money that originated from the govt doesn't fill the coffers.

Sorry, my friend.

Funny, you didn't have problems with the quote from Romney in the other thread,

"“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction,” Mr. Romney said in response to a question about FEMA. “And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.”…





Wassup wit dat?:dunno:

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:05
You are comparing people having jobs as the same as Pelosi's plan to spend more paying people not to work?

You don't know the difference between a job and welfare. I think we are getting to the root of your problem.:therapy:

What we should do is use tax dollars to pay people to go around and plant money trees.:rofl:

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:08
Quite a few companies have started in the wake of disasters, and I think you are being rather carreless about casually concluding that "it's a draw" without any facts to back it.

You are also missing my point about a difference between Obama and Romney in a first year. just exactly where were all of Obama's "shovel ready jobs"? Where was his great employment surge, where was anything out of him successful on that topic? His biggest success was doubling down on the deficit and putting it on our credit card.

A program from Romney helping people create jobs out of this disaster would be a heck of a lot better financially, and for the morale of the Country than anything Obama has done.

What you are describing is fundamentally the exact same thing as "Cash for Clunkers", where taxpayers paid to destroy and replace billions of dollars of value in used cars so another group of people could profit from it.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 22:16
What you are describing is fundamentally the exact same thing as "Cash for Clunkers", where taxpayers paid to destroy and replace billions of dollars of value in used cars so another group of people could profit from it.

It is not exactly the same at all, you are wayyyyyyy off base. Nature has done the destruction, It was not a deliberate act to create jobs, BUT IT WILL create jobs, and is will be an opportunity for Romney to highlight programs designed to get Government out of the way of people who create businesses.

What is so difficult to uderstand about that:dunno:

RC-RAMIE
10-30-2012, 22:23
.....

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:25
It is not exactly the same at all, you are wayyyyyyy off base. Nature has done the destruction, It was not a deliberate act to create jobs, BUT IT WILL create jobs, and is will be an opportunity for Romney to highlight programs designed to get Government out of the way of people who create businesses.

What is so difficult to uderstand about that:dunno:

It is precisely the same thing. It really doesn't matter who or what did the destroying. All of the wealth and value that was destroyed is gone.

At least two people in this thread who actually understand this are trying to explain it to you. The government isn't getting out of the way of anything. In fact, it is commandeering capital and redirecting it. NET jobs will not be created. The government cannot create NET jobs because it has to take that money from somewhere else.

You're persistence in advocating for an expensive shell game is making you look rather foolish.

Again

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:28
.....

Arsonists are just trying to stimulate the construction industry, don't you know?

countrygun
10-30-2012, 22:37
It is precisely the same thing. It really doesn't matter who or what did the destroying. All of the wealth and value that was destroyed is gone.

At least two people in this thread who actually understand this are trying to explain it to you. The government isn't getting out of the way of anything. In fact, it is commandeering capital and redirecting it. NET jobs will not be created. The government cannot create NET jobs because it has to take that money from somewhere else.

You're persistence in advocating for an expensive shell game is making you look rather foolish.

Again


So then you are advocating abandoning those areas flooded?

I hear people talking about rebuilding them, given some of it is NYC I am ambivalent on that myself, but nonetheless it is going to be rebuilt. There is no way on earth that it isn't going to cost the Country something, so what is wrong with using it to showcase a more business friendly Government?

:dunno:Given that we have such high unemployment as it is, I would like to see some concrete statistics to show that it will just "break even".

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:45
So then you are advocating abandoning those areas flooded?

I hear people talking about rebuilding them, given some of it is NYC I am ambivalent on that myself, but nonetheless it is going to be rebuilt. There is no way on earth that it isn't going to cost the Country something, so what is wrong with using it to showcase a more business friendly Government?

:dunno:Given that we have such high unemployment as it is, I would like to see some concrete statistics to show that it will just "break even".

I haven't taken a position on the rebuilding. I'm just enjoying making fun of your silly notion.

Actually, we'll do much worse than just "break even".

Wealth and value have been destroyed.

Billions of tax dollars will be stolen, wasted and misappropriated.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 22:49
I haven't taken a position on the rebuilding. I'm just enjoying making fun of your silly notion.

Actually, we'll do much worse than just "break even".

Wealth and value have been destroyed.

Billions of tax dollars will be stolen, wasted and misappropriated.

Lets just see how it gets rebuilt without the Federal Govt spending chunks of our money on it. It doesn't matter who is in the WH I just think that Romney will ge able to make a positive out of it. Maybe make Herman Cain the "Disaster recovery Czar" ala' Obama.

certifiedfunds
10-30-2012, 22:58
Lets just see how it gets rebuilt without the Federal Govt spending chunks of our money on it. It doesn't matter who is in the WH I just think that Romney will ge able to make a positive out of it. Maybe make Herman Cain the "Disaster recovery Czar" ala' Obama.

I haven't commented on that. I'm talking about this foolishness:

It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start uop repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 23:13
I haven't commented on that. I'm talking about this foolishness:

In the long run, new companies creating jobs will help reduce the benefits we pay out to the unemployed.

A taxpaying individual costs the government (US) less than an unemployed person.

`It is in our best interest, to pay someone to work rather than pay them not to.

When you consider that private insurance will also be paying for a lot of the work it looks like a win.

Ruble Noon
10-31-2012, 04:54
In the long run, new companies creating jobs will help reduce the benefits we pay out to the unemployed.

A taxpaying individual costs the government (US) less than an unemployed person.

`It is in our best interest, to pay someone to work rather than pay them not to.

When you consider that private insurance will also be paying for a lot of the work it looks like a win.

Wow! You really are dense.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 05:38
In the long run, new companies creating jobs will help reduce the benefits we pay out to the unemployed.

A taxpaying individual costs the government (US) less than an unemployed person.

`It is in our best interest, to pay someone to work rather than pay them not to.

When you consider that private insurance will also be paying for a lot of the work it looks like a win.

Yesssss.......tell me about your perpetual energy machine too.........

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 05:39
Wow! You really are dense.

ya think?

Goaltender66
10-31-2012, 05:55
countrygun, I count you as a friend here so know this is coming from a good place...

I think I kind of get where you're coming from, which seems to be a theory that in a low-employment environment a disaster can create jobs (idle people are suddenly put to work rebuilding boardwalks and such) and that devolving the FedGov to the states or private concerns in rebuilding is great. The problem is, as CF and QNMan mentioned, net/net it isn't the boon that it would seem to be.

Let's look at Atlantic City. Pretty hopping place, lots of casinos and such. Lots of people working the blackjack tables, slot machines (I've always wondered what it is about suburban housewives and slot machines.....must have something to do with pulling a lever....) and so on. Right now AC is closed. Place is washed out, no one is gambling, and people in the area are trying to salvage their lives.

Now while I agree that there are jobs created through rebuilding the place, there are just as many if not more jobs lost because the place is destroyed. No one is making the "yoooge" buffets at Trump's place. No one is dealing cards. No one is cleaning hotel rooms. Instead people are rebuilding.

And then consider the folks who would have gone to AC. They don't go, perhaps waiting for the rebuild (in which case their vacation dollars go unspent) or go elsewhere (in which case boosted economic activity in the substitute place comes at the expense of AC). The same goes for dollars spent rebuilding...those are dollars that could have been spent creating new wealth, not recreating old wealth. The source of those dollars, whether .gov, state agencies, or private insurance is immaterial.

While a natural disaster may be a microeconomic opportunity for a specific firm or industry, on the whole it tends to be a bad thing for the economy.

IvanVic
10-31-2012, 05:57
So then you are advocating abandoning those areas flooded?

It wouldn't surprise me, he told me that if we started to let people die in ER parking lots it would be a step in the right direction to fix healthcare.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 06:03
It wouldn't surprise me, he told me that if we started to let people die in ER parking lots it would be a step in the right direction to fix healthcare.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Of course it would be. It doesn't surprise me that you can't understand why.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 06:05
countrygun, I count you as a friend here so know this is coming from a good place...

I think I kind of get where you're coming from, which seems to be a theory that in a low-employment environment a disaster can create jobs (idle people are suddenly put to work rebuilding boardwalks and such) and that devolving the FedGov to the states or private concerns in rebuilding is great. The problem is, as CF and QNMan mentioned, net/net it isn't the boon that it would seem to be.

Let's look at Atlantic City. Pretty hopping place, lots of casinos and such. Lots of people working the blackjack tables, slot machines (I've always wondered what it is about suburban housewives and slot machines.....must have something to do with pulling a lever....) and so on. Right now AC is closed. Place is washed out, no one is gambling, and people in the area are trying to salvage their lives.

Now while I agree that there are jobs created through rebuilding the place, there are just as many if not more jobs lost because the place is destroyed. No one is making the "yoooge" buffets at Trump's place. No one is dealing cards. No one is cleaning hotel rooms. Instead people are rebuilding.

And then consider the folks who would have gone to AC. They don't go, perhaps waiting for the rebuild (in which case their vacation dollars go unspent) or go elsewhere (in which case boosted economic activity in the substitute place comes at the expense of AC). The same goes for dollars spent rebuilding...those are dollars that could have been spent creating new wealth, not recreating old wealth. The source of those dollars, whether .gov, state agencies, or private insurance is immaterial.

While a natural disaster may be a microeconomic opportunity for a specific firm or industry, on the whole it tends to be a bad thing for the economy.

Just to add that a good% of the money paying for such work has to be sucked out of the economy elsewhere or pulled forward from future economies.

Ruble Noon
10-31-2012, 06:09
countrygun, I count you as a friend here so know this is coming from a good place...

I think I kind of get where you're coming from, which seems to be a theory that in a low-employment environment a disaster can create jobs (idle people are suddenly put to work rebuilding boardwalks and such) and that devolving the FedGov to the states or private concerns in rebuilding is great. The problem is, as CF and QNMan mentioned, net/net it isn't the boon that it would seem to be.

Let's look at Atlantic City. Pretty hopping place, lots of casinos and such. Lots of people working the blackjack tables, slot machines (I've always wondered what it is about suburban housewives and slot machines.....must have something to do with pulling a lever....) and so on. Right now AC is closed. Place is washed out, no one is gambling, and people in the area are trying to salvage their lives.

Now while I agree that there are jobs created through rebuilding the place, there are just as many if not more jobs lost because the place is destroyed. No one is making the "yoooge" buffets at Trump's place. No one is dealing cards. No one is cleaning hotel rooms. Instead people are rebuilding.

And then consider the folks who would have gone to AC. They don't go, perhaps waiting for the rebuild (in which case their vacation dollars go unspent) or go elsewhere (in which case boosted economic activity in the substitute place comes at the expense of AC). The same goes for dollars spent rebuilding...those are dollars that could have been spent creating new wealth, not recreating old wealth. The source of those dollars, whether .gov, state agencies, or private insurance is immaterial.

While a natural disaster may be a microeconomic opportunity for a specific firm or industry, on the whole it tends to be a bad thing for the economy.

You also have to take into account the fraud that goes along with natural disasters. FEMA is free wheeling with tax dollars and will throw them at any con men, shyster or unethical contractor willing to take them.
A town near me, Greensburg Ks. was wiped off the map by a tornado. FEMA came in and was followed by profiteers. Small time unethical contractors became wealthy on the freely given FEMA dollars.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 06:36
Shovel-ready jobs :whistling:

ModGlock17
10-31-2012, 07:38
countrygun, I count you as a friend here so know this is coming from a good place...

..... The problem is, as CF and QNMan mentioned, net/net it isn't the boon that it would seem to be.

Let's look at Atlantic City. ... Place is washed out, no one is gambling, and people in the area are trying to salvage their lives.

Now while I agree that there are jobs created through rebuilding the place, there are just as many if not more jobs lost because the place is destroyed. ...

... The same goes for dollars spent rebuilding...those are dollars that could have been spent creating new wealth, not recreating old wealth. ...

While a natural disaster may be a microeconomic opportunity for a specific firm or industry, on the whole it tends to be a bad thing for the economy.

+1 on Countrygun.

I think both sides are correct because you are looking at the same thing from different aspects: the time dimension and the psychology involved.

Short-term, you are correct. Job loss. Displacement. A major kink to the rhythm of the local economy.

Long term, Countrygun is correct. A rhetorical case is Japan. Without a major disaster, which caused people to rise up and rebuild, which caused investment pooring in, which caused a re-alignment of economy to meet the changing world, net-resulted is a powerful industrial country that is on top of technical world contributing much to the welfare of people in the world. (I am not advocating Vaporization of cities, merely pointing out how people rise from the ashes).

One psychological thing that has not been mentioned, is the culture change opportunity. It's when you're bounded by culture because you are fed by it, while knowing that a different culture may better feed your children. A Case to consider, my first hand experience, is General Motor. It was paralyzed by the old boy culture so much that it was (may still be IS) the epitome of the "not invented here" syndrome. The good ol boy network wouldn't allow GM to explore new technologies fearing it may destroy current incomes of ol-boy partners. I represented a new technology which GM refused to give a second or minute to, while Toyota gave us a red carpet. Guess who's number 1 in electric vehicles now ?

I said it then and now: GM would only change if it encounters a major disaster (like a bankruptcy). A disaster would remove old guards from the company, allowing younger bloods who sees a different future and make it happen. A disaster would give GM an excuse to re-structure itself, financial and culturally.

I am not advocating disasters. I am pointing out how the best of people would rise from disasters and make themselves far more valuable to humanity than ever before.

Fred Hansen
10-31-2012, 08:08
Libtards could pick up a shovel and a hammer and go out and show us their human compassion for once. You know, instead of jibber-jabbering about how to "fix" stuff with other peoples' money.

:upeyes:

muscogee
10-31-2012, 11:24
So then you are advocating abandoning those areas flooded?

I hear people talking about rebuilding them, given some of it is NYC I am ambivalent on that myself, but nonetheless it is going to be rebuilt. There is no way on earth that it isn't going to cost the Country something, so what is wrong with using it to showcase a more business friendly Government?

:dunno:Given that we have such high unemployment as it is, I would like to see some concrete statistics to show that it will just "break even".

For the third time, what do we do in the short term (by January)? Do we raise the deficit or do we raise taxes. If we raise taxes, then who's taxes do we raise? Why?

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 11:31
For the third time, what do we do in the short term (by January)? Do we raise the deficit or do we raise taxes. If we raise taxes, then who's taxes do we raise? Why?

He won't dare raise taxes. :whistling:

ModGlock17
10-31-2012, 11:45
For the third time, what do we do in the short term (by January)? Do we raise the deficit or do we raise taxes. If we raise taxes, then who's taxes do we raise? Why?

Sell your land to Donald, then move to FL.

LOL

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 11:54
For the third time, what do we do in the short term (by January)? Do we raise the deficit or do we raise taxes. If we raise taxes, then who's taxes do we raise? Why?

Neither. We get the federal government out of the natural disaster relief business. Since when is it the responsibility of the country to rebuild everything after every weather event? This artificial redistribution only keeps encouraging irresponsible behavior.

You build on the Jersey Shore, part of the cost is rebuilding after the hundred year storm. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to make life troublefree.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 11:57
Neither. We get the federal government out of the natural disaster relief business. Since when is it the responsibility of the country to rebuild everything after every weather event? This artificial redistribution only keeps encouraging irresponsible behavior.

You build on the Jersy Shore, part of the cost is rebuilding after the hundred year storm. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to make life troublefree.

Sounds good to me!

ModGlock17
10-31-2012, 11:59
Neither. .... It is not the responsibility of the federal government to make life troublefree.


Nanny is so sweet, isn't she? Until we find out who's feeding her.... We R.

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 12:08
Shovel-ready jobs :whistling:

Gag me with a post-hole digger! :supergrin:

QNman
10-31-2012, 12:13
Funny, you didn't have problems with the quote from Romney in the other thread,

"“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction,” Mr. Romney said in response to a question about FEMA. “And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that's even better.”…

Wassup wit dat?:dunno:

I'm guessing his previous comments mean something different to me than to you. What I took Romney to mean was that the fed.gov should get out of the emergency management business and let the states take care of it.(A position i agree with). I'm not sure how that ties into Sandy, as FEMA will clearly be the ones footing the bill for the cleanup.

QNman
10-31-2012, 12:22
For the third time, what do we do in the short term (by January)? Do we raise the deficit or do we raise taxes. If we raise taxes, then who's taxes do we raise? Why?

For the third time - get the money by cutting other programs. When you run out of beer money before payday, and your credit card is maxed out, what do YOU do? Go ask your boss for beer, or go steal it from your neighbor? Or do you stop buying the luxury items, like soap and toilet paper, so you can buy another couple forties of malt liquor?

SCmasterblaster
10-31-2012, 12:23
I'm guessing his previous comments mean something different to me than to you. What I took Romney to mean was that the fed.gov should get out of the emergency management business and let the states take care of it.(A position i agree with). I'm not sure how that ties into Sandy, as FEMA will clearly be the ones footing the bill for the cleanup.

That is a GOOD idea. Let the hurricane states pay for their own Emergency Management. Let CA pay for its own earthquake damage. Let the northern states pay for their own snowstorm damage. Makes sense to me. Why should Hawaiians have to help pay for a FL hurricane?

QNman
10-31-2012, 12:28
That is a GOOD idea. Let the hurricane states pay for their own Emergency Management. Let CA pay for its own earthquake damage. Let the northern states pay for their own snowstorm damage. Makes sense to me. Why should Hawaiians have to help pay for a FL hurricane?

Yup..

muscogee
10-31-2012, 12:45
Neither. We get the federal government out of the natural disaster relief business. Since when is it the responsibility of the country to rebuild everything after every weather event? This artificial redistribution only keeps encouraging irresponsible behavior.

You build on the Jersey Shore, part of the cost is rebuilding after the hundred year storm. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to make life troublefree.

Do you really think Romney will even hint at that? Not in this life.

engineer151515
10-31-2012, 13:05
Neither. We get the federal government out of the natural disaster relief business. Since when is it the responsibility of the country to rebuild everything after every weather event? This artificial redistribution only keeps encouraging irresponsible behavior.

You build on the Jersey Shore, part of the cost is rebuilding after the hundred year storm. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to make life troublefree.

Very good. I agree. Our State's responsibility is to rebuild infrastructure such as roads, power stations, bridges, etc.

Uninsured private property is a free ride that just came to a grinding halt.


Muscogee would be happy to know that I apply that logic to the "rich" living on seashore beaches under the protection of Federal Flood Insurance (which had to be bailed out after Katrina). If you cannot afford to insure (or self-insure), don't look to the taxpayer to restore your gutted beach condo. (Which is exactly why said structures were "shacks" back in the day. Disposable.)

engineer151515
10-31-2012, 13:07
Do you really think Romney will even hint at that? Not in this life.

When the deficit collapses the national currency, it won't matter.

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 13:18
Do you really think Romney will even hint at that? Not in this life.

Repeat after me...

Enumerated Powers, Enumerated Powers, Enumerated Powers

muscogee
10-31-2012, 13:25
Repeat after me...

Enumerated Powers, Enumerated Powers, Enumerated Powers

Reality check. He won't get elected if he even hints that people are on their own in this. People hate the big bad government until they're wiped out and there's no place left to turn. It could happen to you and you will take the help if it's offered. You will vote against anyone who throws you to the wolves.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 13:30
Very good. I agree. Our State's responsibility is to rebuild infrastructure such as roads, power stations, bridges, etc.

Uninsured private property is a free ride that just came to a grinding halt.


Muscogee would be happy to know that I apply that logic to the "rich" living on seashore beaches under the protection of Federal Flood Insurance (which had to be bailed out after Katrina). If you cannot afford to insure (or self-insure), don't look to the taxpayer to restore your gutted beach condo. (Which is exactly why said structures were "shacks" back in the day. Disposable.)


Imagine my surprise when I move back to the coast and saw these houses had been built. My family has been were well over 100 years and have nevr been flooded out because we don't build or buy homes in places that flood.

The pasture in the foreground has been flooded in my life and in my Father's life time a tsunami threw piles of driftwood into that pasture.

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/100_0145.jpg



NOW imagine my surprise to find that one of those homes was owned and occupied by our area FEMA rep.
Great, the very first person with their hand out when things go bad. I have a lot of faith in that Government agency.

My County and my State are the ones who let them build in such a stupid place, the tax money of someone in Kansas shouldn't be taken to pay for this folly.


ETA: those houses are on the sand at less than 15 feet above sea level

RC-RAMIE
10-31-2012, 13:41
Imagine my surprise when I move back to the coast and saw these houses had been built. My family has been were well over 100 years and have nevr been flooded out because we don't build or buy homes in places that flood.

The pasture in the foreground has been flooded in my life and in my Father's life time a tsunami threw piles of driftwood into that pasture.

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/100_0145.jpg



NOW imagine my surprise to find that one of those homes was owned and occupied by our area FEMA rep.
Great, the very first person with their hand out when things go bad. I have a lot of faith in that Government agency.

My County and my State are the ones who let them build in such a stupid place, the tax money of someone in Kansas shouldn't be taken to pay for this folly.


ETA: those houses are on the sand at less than 15 feet above sea level

Think all of the future economic booms that will bring when they flood.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

countrygun
10-31-2012, 13:44
Think all of the future economic booms that will bring when they flood.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

If they let them rebuild there it will be a big boom to our town of 2,000, you're absolutely right.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 13:47
Very good. I agree. Our State's responsibility is to rebuild infrastructure such as roads, power stations, bridges, etc.

Uninsured private property is a free ride that just came to a grinding halt.


Muscogee would be happy to know that I apply that logic to the "rich" living on seashore beaches under the protection of Federal Flood Insurance (which had to be bailed out after Katrina). If you cannot afford to insure (or self-insure), don't look to the taxpayer to restore your gutted beach condo. (Which is exactly why said structures were "shacks" back in the day. Disposable.)


Exactly

muscogee
10-31-2012, 13:52
Muscogee would be happy to know that I apply that logic to the "rich" living on seashore beaches under the protection of Federal Flood Insurance (which had to be bailed out after Katrina). If you cannot afford to insure (or self-insure), don't look to the taxpayer to restore your gutted beach condo. (Which is exactly why said structures were "shacks" back in the day. Disposable.)

I agree. Let Donald Trump rebuild his own infrastructure. Do you think it will happen or does he own too many politicians?

Gunnut 45/454
10-31-2012, 14:32
Simple solution- all those in the effected states on Welfare /Unemployment report to the Local offices to get job assignments for clean up and work crews. You don't show up and can't prove your not physically incapable of working your benefits are cut off! Just think of all the money saved. Pay is Min wage. Provide food/ shelter if needed!:supergrin:

barbedwiresmile
10-31-2012, 14:57
Think all of the future economic booms that will bring when they flood.




If they let them rebuild there it will be a big boom to our town of 2,000, you're absolutely right.

Are you guys being sarcastic or serious?

If serious, you are succumbing to what is known as the Broken Window Fallacy of economics.

I would suggest Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for a primer on such matters. Please read it before you vote in any election.

RC-RAMIE
10-31-2012, 15:20
[quote=barbedwiresmile;19575976]Are you guys being sarcastic or serious?



One of us is.

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 15:33
Reality check. He won't get elected if he even hints that people are on their own in this. People hate the big bad government until they're wiped out and there's no place left to turn. It could happen to you and you will take the help if it's offered. You will vote against anyone who throws you to the wolves.

You are probably right that the "47%" won't like it but you're 100% wrong about me. I have planned for catastrophe in my life and insured myself against such loss at my own initiative, with my own (after tax) dollars in contracts with private insurers. In other words, if my property or life gets wiped out by a natural disaster, it won't be fun but my family will have the resources to continue the standard of living they are accustomed to. I plan ahead. I save. I invest and insure my assists.

My other big problem with your Big Brother approach is that we keep bailing out the same people over and over again. Really, it's time to let New Orleans go under. What did we spend rebuilding their levies so they could live right on the ocean below sea level? I think I heard $8 billion just by the Army Corps of Engineers. Frankly, it's time for these people (and others who don't like getting wiped out) to move away from the ocean, the fault lines or whatever other known danger exists. It is common sense.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 15:37
If they let them rebuild there it will be a big boom to our town of 2,000, you're absolutely right.

If we burn and flood enough homes the entire American economy will Explode! It's a brilliant plan! Solves the foreclosure problem too.

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 15:39
Simple solution- all those in the effected states on Welfare /Unemployment report to the Local offices to get job assignments for clean up and work crews. You don't show up and can't prove your not physically incapable of working your benefits are cut off! Just think of all the money saved. Pay is Min wage. Provide food/ shelter if needed!:supergrin:
Superb thought process here. I nominate you for Secretary of HHS in the new administration!

Louisville Glocker
10-31-2012, 15:41
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. As we continue to warm our earth with carbon emissions, we raise the temperature of the water. This increase in energy produces more water in the air and more violent storms. It is also changing jet streams - upper level air flows.

I really don't think the climate change deniers can hang on too much longer. Did anyone notice how big this storm was? And that the storm went east to west? Some computer models are showing that the melting of the arctic ice is going to weaken the normal west to east jet stream and make that more likely.

Insurance companies are noticing. They see more and more severe "natural" disasters, yet we're not acting on it in the US. The cause is obvious to scientists.

So, what to do: rapidly convert from fossil fuel energy sources to clean renewable sources. Sandy is going to come again and again. I'm a scientist, and I'm warning you. This topic is one of my specialties. The global temperature is only up one degree so far. Wait until it is up four or five degrees...

You ain't seen nothing yet......

Enjoy the denial. You will only be able to do it for a few more years, then society will mock you as totally crazy. People will figure it out....we need to stop trashing our planet's atmosphere NOW!

P.S. FEMA should make sure people are rescued and public resources are restored, but private property needs to be insured. No handouts there.

barbedwiresmile
10-31-2012, 15:43
One of us is.

LoL. Gotcha. That's what I suspected. No fallacies for you.
:cheers:

muscogee
10-31-2012, 15:50
You are probably right that the "47%" won't like it but you're 100% wrong about me. I have planned for catastrophe in my life and insured myself against such loss at my own initiative, with my own (after tax) dollars in contracts with private insurers. In other words, if my property or life gets wiped out by a natural disaster, it won't be fun but my family will have the resources to continue the standard of living they are accustomed to. I plan ahead. I save. I invest and insure my assists.

What if your insurance company goes broke? We bailed out AIG.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 15:51
If we burn and flood enough homes the entire American economy will Explode! It's a brilliant plan! Solves the foreclosure problem too.

Just what is your defect?

The storm happened, many of those home are either insured privately or through the Federal government program. I am just talking about making the best out of the situation that is at hand. By highlighting private enterprise. Maybe helping business by getting government out of it's way. Like it or not the FACT is somebody IS going to pay for it.

Is that so threatening that you have to go to ridiculous levels?

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 15:54
What if your insurance company goes broke? We bailed out AIG.

Real insurance companies don't go broke. They print money. AIG decided to get into the Caslno business.

beforeobamabans
10-31-2012, 15:55
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. As we continue to warm our earth with carbon emissions, we raise the temperature of the water. This increase in energy produces more water in the air and more violent storms. It is also changing jet streams - upper level air flows.

I really don't think the climate change deniers can hang on too much longer. Did anyone notice how big this storm was? And that the storm went east to west? Some computer models are showing that the melting of the arctic ice is going to weaken the normal west to east jet stream and make that more likely.

Insurance companies are noticing. They see more and more severe "natural" disasters, yet we're not acting on it in the US. The cause is obvious to scientists.

So, what to do: rapidly convert from fossil fuel energy sources to clean renewable sources. Sandy is going to come again and again. I'm a scientist, and I'm warning you. This topic is one of my specialties. The global temperature is only up one degree so far. Wait until it is up four or five degrees...

You ain't seen nothing yet......

Enjoy the denial. You will only be able to do it for a few more years, then society will mock you as totally crazy. People will figure it out....we need to stop trashing our planet's atmosphere NOW!

P.S. FEMA should make sure people are rescued and public resources are restored, but private property needs to be insured. No handouts there.

Pul-eeeeaaasssse.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 15:56
I really don't think the climate change deniers can hang on too much longer.

I don't think the climate change salesmen can keep peddling their bilge much longer. There is too much evudence that Earths climate has been constantly changing since before man had any effect.

This current storm is just a swing back to the climate phase of the 1950's which was a swing back to an era before that.


Poor, sad little creatures so desperate to believe they have some power over the earth and clinging to Algore to reassure them are getting pathetic.

engineer151515
10-31-2012, 16:21
I agree. Let Donald Trump rebuild his own infrastructure. Do you think it will happen or does he own too many politicians?

If the problem is gov't corruption, then let's fix that too. Starting with Obama's Jobs Council using gov't money to fund overseas expansion. Great place to start.

engineer151515
10-31-2012, 16:27
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. ..........


:yawn:

Hurricanes hit New York occasionally. Always have.

Blizzards hit New York occasionally, Always have.

Hell, half mile high glaciers occasionally hit New York - on an Ice Age basis.

engineer151515
10-31-2012, 16:29
What if your insurance company goes broke? We bailed out AIG.

We shouldn't have.

Same with automobile manufacturers.

Otherwise the market will never correct. They will just rely on gov't (the taxpayer) as the ultimate risk taker.

Just like insurance companies and automobile manufacturers currently do.

Well, at least the "big" ones.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 16:48
Just what is your defect?

The storm happened, many of those home are either insured privately or through the Federal government program. I am just talking about making the best out of the situation that is at hand. By highlighting private enterprise. Maybe helping business by getting government out of it's way. Like it or not the FACT is somebody IS going to pay for it.

Is that so threatening that you have to go to ridiculous levels?

You've retreated quite a bit. I guess you're learning something on this thread.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 16:56
You've retreated quite a bit. I guess you're learning something on this thread.

I haven't retreated bit.

The storm happened. de facto there is going to be rebuilding. This creates the ability for Romney as President after the election to highlight how well the private sector can work and to assist by encouraging business starts both in rebuilding and new business in the areas affected.

I don't see that as a retreat.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 17:18
It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start uop repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

From this to that.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 17:24
From this to that.

And I still stand by that. It makes a showcase for employment opportunities with less government red tape. Which would serve to vindicate Romney's position

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 17:35
And I still stand by that. It makes a showcase for employment opportunities with less government red tape. Which would serve to vindicate Romney's position

You stand by the foolishness in that post about positive evonomic benefits and job creation even though several posters here have illustrated the fallacies of it.

That's funny.

Now your stance evolves and you reword it.

That's funnier.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 17:37
You stand by the foolishness in that post about positive evonomic benefits and job creation even though several posters here have illustrated the fallacies of it.

That's funny.

Now your stance evolves and you reword it.

That's funnier.

Bull,

Tell me how jobs WON'T be created, Show me how nobody will be employed.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 17:48
Bull,

Tell me how jobs WON'T be created, Show me how nobody will be employed.

It's been explained to you several times by several posters. Re-read the thread. Like social security, you want to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong it is.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 18:07
It's been explained to you several times by several posters. Re-read the thread. Like social security, you want to believe what you want to believe no matter how wrong it is.

Well their theories are in conflict with my experience starting a business under adverse natural situations but nonetheless.

take a look at my very first sentence,

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, "



Debate the jobs issue if you like, but that still stands. It is called "capitalizing on circumstances" Successful politicians do it all the time.

To recognize that you would have to have experience with SUCCESSFUL politicians of course.........:whistling:

hatidua
10-31-2012, 18:10
If you build a house near waters edge with the elevation of your foundation being less than 10' like many of the homes pictured in the aftermath photos, you should have known what you were risking - and it ain't my problem you got your vacation stilt house washed away. This happens with regularity on the NC Outer Banks and now NJ got their dose.

I have no doubt everyone will rebuild, right there on the sandbar less than ten paces from high tide....and the insurance rates will be increased on EVERYONE because of the few that don't grasp that this sort of thing can happen.

Ruble Noon
10-31-2012, 18:14
You stand by the foolishness in that post about positive evonomic benefits and job creation even though several posters here have illustrated the fallacies of it.

That's funny.

Now your stance evolves and you reword it.

That's funnier.

I think he's punch drunk.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 18:19
If you build a house near waters edge with the elevation of your foundation being less than 10' like many of the homes pictured in the aftermath photos, you should have known what you were risking - and it ain't my problem you got your vacation stilt house washed away. This happens with regularity on the NC Outer Banks and now NJ got their dose.

I have no doubt everyone will rebuild, right there on the sandbar less than ten paces from high tide....and the insurance rates will be increased on EVERYONE because of the few that don't grasp that this sort of thing can happen.

In an ideal world, since the houses are already covered, the owners should get the option, rebuild on site and the federal government will not insure you nor will it bail out a private insurer who does, or you can build elsewhere. But if you choose to rebuild or build on land scrubbed clean by nature. your on your own.

Doubtful anyone will make the perfect world happen.

QNman
10-31-2012, 19:26
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. As we continue to warm our earth with carbon emissions, we raise the temperature of the water. This increase in energy produces more water in the air and more violent storms. It is also changing jet streams - upper level air flows.

I really don't think the climate change deniers can hang on too much longer. Did anyone notice how big this storm was? And that the storm went east to west? Some computer models are showing that the melting of the arctic ice is going to weaken the normal west to east jet stream and make that more likely.

Insurance companies are noticing. They see more and more severe "natural" disasters, yet we're not acting on it in the US. The cause is obvious to scientists.

So, what to do: rapidly convert from fossil fuel energy sources to clean renewable sources. Sandy is going to come again and again. I'm a scientist, and I'm warning you. This topic is one of my specialties. The global temperature is only up one degree so far. Wait until it is up four or five degrees...

You ain't seen nothing yet......

Enjoy the denial. You will only be able to do it for a few more years, then society will mock you as totally crazy. People will figure it out....we need to stop trashing our planet's atmosphere NOW!

P.S. FEMA should make sure people are rescued and public resources are restored, but private property needs to be insured. No handouts there.

And the fact that this also happened 100 years ago is... what, bad luck? Coincidence? Must be all those carbon emissions from the 1800's.

If you need to blame yourself for natural disasters to motivate yourself to be a better steward to the environment, then have at it. Just don't expect everyone to swallow Algore's "scientific" analysis whole.

Climate change has been happening much longer than we have existed as a species.

countrygun
10-31-2012, 19:40
I think he's punch drunk.

says the guy who expressed a fantasy about watching men oil wrestle, in another thread.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 20:03
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. As we continue to warm our earth with carbon emissions, we raise the temperature of the water. This increase in energy produces more water in the air and more violent storms. It is also changing jet streams - upper level air flows.

I really don't think the climate change deniers can hang on too much longer. Did anyone notice how big this storm was? And that the storm went east to west? Some computer models are showing that the melting of the arctic ice is going to weaken the normal west to east jet stream and make that more likely.

Insurance companies are noticing. They see more and more severe "natural" disasters, yet we're not acting on it in the US. The cause is obvious to scientists.

So, what to do: rapidly convert from fossil fuel energy sources to clean renewable sources. Sandy is going to come again and again. I'm a scientist, and I'm warning you. This topic is one of my specialties. The global temperature is only up one degree so far. Wait until it is up four or five degrees...

You ain't seen nothing yet......

Enjoy the denial. You will only be able to do it for a few more years, then society will mock you as totally crazy. People will figure it out....we need to stop trashing our planet's atmosphere NOW!

P.S. FEMA should make sure people are rescued and public resources are restored, but private property needs to be insured. No handouts there.

Can you refer me to any point in the history of Earth where the earth wasn't either warming or cooling?

Can you refer me to any point in the history of the earth where the jet stream was static?

Aren't you supposed to be a "scientist"?

Ruble Noon
10-31-2012, 20:25
says the guy who expressed a fantasy about watching men oil wrestle, in another thread.

Hell, you're the one with the vial of Viagra and sporting wood for Christie. You do what you gotta do, and I'll pass on watching.

Bren
10-31-2012, 20:27
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

Give a little less money to the welfare leaches and it will more than cover any disaster relief.

Bren
10-31-2012, 20:31
The real thing to do about Sandy, long term, is to try to prevent more Sandys. (Sandies?)

We do that be realizing that this is a combination man-made/natural diasaster. As we continue to warm our earth with carbon emissions,

Aside from the unsupported guess at the cause, to paraphrase John Keynes, in the long term, I'll be dead.:upeyes:

muscogee
10-31-2012, 20:58
Real insurance companies don't go broke.

I see. It won't happen to me because I am unique. That's what David Elkind calls the personal fable.

Syclone538
10-31-2012, 21:15
If your insurance company goes broke, you chose the wrong insurance company. All their assets should be sold to pay the debt that they can and the company should cease to exist.


Government should not subsidize insurance (or anything else for that matter) and that would prevent people from building in the highest risk places.

certifiedfunds
10-31-2012, 21:29
I bet a lot of people don't know this:

After the National Flood Insurance Program pays out a claim on your house 3 or 4 times, you qualify for a grant that covers the cost to raise your house above base flood elevation.

A company literally jacks your house up and puts stilts under it. The government pays for it.

That is how far government will go to subsidize bad decision making in this arena.

BUT, the government will not give you money to build the house at that elevation in the first place (nor should it).

I personally know people who had fishing camps, not accessible by car, raised at taxpayer expense. We're talking structures worth maybe $15,000.

Ruble Noon
11-01-2012, 05:38
If we burn and flood enough homes the entire American economy will Explode! It's a brilliant plan! Solves the foreclosure problem too.

Some people would agree with that.


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/10-2/sandy%20krugman_1.jpg

Guest Post: The Tremendous Economic Benefits Of Superstorm Sandy



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-31/guest-post-tremendous-economic-benefits-superstorm-sandy

certifiedfunds
11-01-2012, 05:57
Some people would agree with that.


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/10-2/sandy%20krugman_1.jpg

Guest Post: The Tremendous Economic Benefits Of Superstorm Sandy



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-31/guest-post-tremendous-economic-benefits-superstorm-sandy

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You have to be a moron to believe that.

QNman
11-01-2012, 07:18
What if your insurance company goes broke? We bailed out AIG.

What if the federal government goes broke? If we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll all get to find out. Who will bail the US out?

Brucev
11-01-2012, 07:23
Re: Op... What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Those who stupidly built on the beach, etc., will likely have insurance. They will be fine.
2. Those who are cleaning up in areas where no flooding has been the norm should be given help in rebuilding, etc. The cost should be borne by the fed. govt. The expense should be offset by cutting spending at the dod a equal dollar amount. There is plenty of waste and mismanagement to fund the repairs.

barbedwiresmile
11-01-2012, 07:30
Some of the micro debates within this thread illustrate perfectly the problems of state, and specifically those of democracy: individuals gather together into factions, many of whom having little to no economics knowledge whatsoever, in order to battle over the spoils, or plunder, of confiscated wealth.

One faction states clearly: it's not yours. ie: "You didn't build that."

The other gives lip service to the sanctity of private individuals and their fruits of their production.

The question of whether such a system (ie: of forced confiscation and redistribution by political consensus) should exist is no longer even up for debate --- either publicly in the mass media; politically within the party apparatus; or philosophically within the academy.

Nor is the matter then fleshed out to extrapolate what powers the state may assume once it is grown, by default, to the size and scope it occupies today (as a result of that massive influx of privately earned capital, it's voracious appetite for control, the cronyism that results, and the massive borrowing/printing that occurs once the state has grown to a size and trajectory that is no longer controllable).

Ruble Noon
11-01-2012, 15:29
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

You have to be a moron to believe that.


Well it is the argument that Countrygun was making. :whistling:

Check out the zerohedge article as it affirms your position on this.

countrygun
11-01-2012, 15:37
Well it is the argument that Countrygun was making. :whistling:

Check out the zerohedge article as it affirms your position on this.

And yet nobody has been able to show why Romney can't do what I suggested.

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered"

I haven't seen one person say prove that he can't do just that.


And I haven't seen one person prove he can't claim,


"the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."

So show me how my post was wrong.

ChuteTheMall
11-01-2012, 15:42
. The cost should be borne by the fed. govt. The expense should be offset by cutting spending at the dod a equal dollar amount.

It's not the fault of the Department of Defense.

Let's give business a chance, let them find out whether investing in NY, NJ, etc makes economic sense.

Louisville Glocker
11-01-2012, 19:54
If more of you were scientists, I guarantee more of you would share my opinion. We don't claim to know everything, but we know how to analyze data, make an hypothesis, and test it. We are inherently skeptical and we do ask the tough questions.

Are there any trained scientists here who question man-made global warming? My guess is that a lot of the blather that goes on is from people who don't understand how to analyze data. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm just saying that it takes years of hard work to become a scientist, and your average joe may think he knows what sounds right, but just because it sounds right doesn't make it right. Real science is driven by evidence, not what you've heard over and over and thus makes it convincing.

So again, any trained scientists here who disagree?

(I've got a M.S. and PhD , experimental physics, from Purdue) And I'm not saying that makes me right, but when we're discussing scientific matters it is tough to just listen to folks who got their education from talk radio.

Ruble Noon
11-01-2012, 20:02
If more of you were scientists, I guarantee more of you would share my opinion. We don't claim to know everything, but we know how to analyze data, make an hypothesis, and test it. We are inherently skeptical and we do ask the tough questions.

Are there any trained scientists here who question man-made global warming? My guess is that a lot of the blather that goes on is from people who don't understand how to analyze data. I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm just saying that it takes years of hard work to become a scientist, and your average joe may think he knows what sounds right, but just because it sounds right doesn't make it right. Real science is driven by evidence, not what you've heard over and over and thus makes it convincing.

So again, any trained scientists here who disagree?

(I've got a M.S. and PhD , experimental physics, from Purdue) And I'm not saying that makes me right, but when we're discussing scientific matters it is tough to just listen to folks who got their education from talk radio.

And when you analyze falsified data??

QNman
11-01-2012, 20:05
If more of you were scientists, I guarantee more of you would share my opinion. We don't claim to know everything, but we know how to analyze data, make an hypothesis, and test it. We are inherently skeptical and we do ask the tough questions.

And I guarantee you're wrong.

I'm an engineer. A mechanical engineer. I think I'm capable of analyzing data. I know I'm capable of making a hypothesis and testing it utilizing the scientific method. Are you sure that's what you've done?

Are there any trained scientists here who question man-made global warming? My guess is that a lot of the blather that goes on is from people who don't understand how to analyze data. I'm not trying to be an ass

And yet...

...but I'm just saying that it takes years of hard work to become a scientist, and your average joe may think he knows what sounds right, but just because it sounds right doesn't make it right. Real science is driven by evidence, not what you've heard over and over and thus makes it convincing.

So again, any trained scientists here who disagree?

(I've got a M.S. and PhD , experimental physics, from Purdue) And I'm not saying that makes me right, but when we're discussing scientific matters it is tough to just listen to folks who got their education from talk radio.

Congratulations.

Unfortunately, I've met many a PhD who didn't know real science or engineering; only what they'd been sounding off in the echo chamber of academia for the previous decades.

Tell me this... climate change has existed since before recorded history. Climate change is driven by many, many variables; few of which we puny humans have any control or impact over. So why is it that "evidence" shows that climate is changing more dramatically due to human effects?

Since you're a scientist, perhaps you can explain the plain evidence and the scientific method of testing the hypothesis that global climate change (since apparently it isn't just warming)?

I'm being a little facetious, perhaps, but serious also. What appalls me the most about this proclamation is the utter absence of hard scientific data linking carbon emissions to global climate change. It cannot (apparently) be wither quantified nor isolated, so how is this theory put to the test? How does this work in conjunction with the previous ice age, warming of the planet, little ice age, etc.?

Many scientists proclaim what you have. Many also proclaim that we mere mortals must simply take their word for it that they've reviewed the data and found it to be sound. I'm not one to take that lying down. I've faced PhD's in court as an expert witness and won. The degree is only as useful as how it is used.

Ruble Noon
11-01-2012, 20:09
Tell me this... climate change has existed since before recorded history. Climate change is driven by many, many variables; few of which we puny humans have any control or impact over. So why is it that "evidence" shows that climate is changing more dramatically due to human effects?



Global warming didn't exist until the environmentalist movement was hi-jacked by communists.

ETA:
Q, you seem pretty smart for an engineer.

QNman
11-01-2012, 21:11
Global warming didn't exist until the environmentalist movement was hi-jacked by communists.

ETA:
Q, you seem pretty smart for an engineer.

Thanks? :supergrin:

ChuteTheMall
11-01-2012, 21:24
. I'm not trying to be an ass, but ....

You don't have to try.

argumentum ad verecundiam

muscogee
11-02-2012, 04:19
Global warming didn't exist until the environmentalist movement was hi-jacked by communists.

ETA:
Q, you seem pretty smart for an engineer.

Global warming didn't hit the big time until there was government grant money to study it. Many people don't understand what PhD.s do. Their reputation, indeed, their entire raison d'etre depends on getting grant money. If they do, they get tenure, their reputation increases, and if they get enough grant money, they never have to go in a classroom again because they're too valuable to waste on teaching.

Unless you already have a well established reputation, you don't challenge the direction research is going. If you do, you don't get published and you don't get grant money. You get dismissed and ignored. GlockTalk at its most fractious is quite gentle compared to the research environment. In the grand scheme of things, one's reputation on GlockTalk really doesn't matter. In the research environment, it's all that matters.

Syclone538
11-02-2012, 11:07
And yet nobody has been able to show why Romney can't do what I suggested.

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered"

I haven't seen one person say prove that he can't do just that.


And I haven't seen one person prove he can't claim,


"the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."

So show me how my post was wrong.

If you would read this it would help. You don't have to read the whole thing, just the first 1/3 or so. You can stop at "The Keynesians Flirt with Praising Disaster" if you want. Then tell us what you disagree with.

http://www.mises.org/daily/5593/The-BrokenWindow-Fallacy

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 11:15
Global warming didn't hit the big time until there was government grant money to study it. Many people don't understand what PhD.s do. Their reputation, indeed, their entire raison d'etre depends on getting grant money. If they do, they get tenure, their reputation increases, and if they get enough grant money, they never have to go in a classroom again because they're too valuable to waste on teaching.

Unless you already have a well established reputation, you don't challenge the direction research is going. If you do, you don't get published and you don't get grant money. You get dismissed and ignored. GlockTalk at its most fractious is quite gentle compared to the research environment. In the grand scheme of things, one's reputation on GlockTalk really doesn't matter. In the research environment, it's all that matters.

Mark the calendar. I agree with muscogee for the first time evah.

I just sold a quarter mil of instrumentation to a researcher. We'll probably never Uncrate it. But if he didn't spend the money he lost it.

countrygun
11-02-2012, 11:19
If you would read this it would help. You don't have to read the whole thing, just the first 1/3 or so. You can stop at "The Keynesians Flirt with Praising Disaster" if you want. Then tell us what you disagree with.

http://www.mises.org/daily/5593/The-BrokenWindow-Fallacy

Why don't you address the point of my post?

Can Romney use it to show business start ups and government getting out of the way of the private sector or not?

Can Romney make a claim that job increases and emoloyment is an offset to the Government expenditures?

C'mon you can do it, I have made it simple as I can. Hmm maybe those two questions are too simple for an obfuscating pseudo-intellectual. They are just too straight forward most likely.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 11:22
Why don't you address the point of my post?

Can Romney use it to show business start ups and government getting out of the way of the private sector or not?

Can Romney make a claim that job increases and emoloyment is an offset to the Government expenditures?

C'mon you can do it, I have made it simple as I can. Hmm maybe those two questions are too simple for an obfuscating pseudo-intellectual. They are just too straight forward most likely.

1. Yes

2. Yes - but he'd be lying


Still can't get your head around it can you?

Syclone538
11-02-2012, 11:30
Why don't you address the point of my post?

Can Romney use it to show business start ups
...

Some businesses will start up at the expense of others, but it has nothing to do with Romney.

...
and government getting out of the way of the private sector or not?
...

He could, but won't.

...
Can Romney make a claim that job increases and emoloyment is an offset to the Government expenditures?

C'mon you can do it, I have made it simple as I can. Hmm maybe those two questions are too simple for an obfuscating pseudo-intellectual. They are just too straight forward most likely.

Lets destroy all semis and trains and heavy equipment. We could have full employment by having people carry stuff from place to place instead of shipping it, and have people use shovels instead of backhoes. Do you think that would be a good thing to do?

Will you read the article?

QNman
11-02-2012, 11:33
Why don't you address the point of my post?

Can Romney use it to show business start ups and government getting out of the way of the private sector or not?

Can Romney make a claim that job increases and emoloyment is an offset to the Government expenditures?

C'mon you can do it, I have made it simple as I can. Hmm maybe those two questions are too simple for an obfuscating pseudo-intellectual. They are just too straight forward most likely.

When the govt is paying the bill, and then collecting taxes on the money it spent, it isn't "making money". If I spot you a fiver, and you buy a Budweiser with it and bring me the change, I haven't made any money.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 11:33
And all of that capital has to be sucked out of another place in the economy.

QNman
11-02-2012, 11:35
And all of that capital has to be sucked out of another place in the economy.

In my example, I would first have to steal 10 dollars from a worker before spotting the five, but didn't want to confuse the point. :)

countrygun
11-02-2012, 11:40
1. Yes

2. Yes - but he'd be lying


Still can't get your head around it can you?

No you just finally agreed with me. I had my head around that the whole time. I was dealing in the political reality, you were spinning off with your economic theories.

But I do disagree that it would be a complete lie however. there will be an offset, to what degree nobody knows, but it can be proven, in the world of politics, to exist. It will certainly be more tangible than "The Stimulus", if played correctly.

Played right in the theater of American Politics there is an opportunity there, jobs can happen and business can start and be put in the spotlight if successful. That was all I was saying. That the opportunity to do so was there for Romney.

FFR Spyder GT
11-02-2012, 11:43
For the third time - get the money by cutting other programs. When you run out of beer money before payday, and your credit card is maxed out, what do YOU do? Go ask your boss for beer, or go steal it from your neighbor? Or do you stop buying the luxury items, like soap and toilet paper, so you can buy another couple forties of malt liquor?

Or you can do what I do for more beer money.........

Pick up cans on the side of the road until you have enough to buy another 40. :supergrin:

Chesafreak
11-02-2012, 11:46
What does the country do about Sandy?

1. Raise taxes and help those affected rebuild.

2. Raise the debt and help those affected rebuild.

3. Tell them they're on their own. They should have known better than to live there.

Chris Christie is a fiscal conservative when someone elses ox is getting gored. Will he stay true to for or turn hypocrite?

I vote for #3, although thats easy for me to say because I have never had my home wiped out by fire, flooding, or winds. I have lived though many a direct hit from hurricanes in my lifetime without major catastrophe, but maybe thats because I used some common sense and research when picking a place to live.

If the government stopped rescuing people who live in flood zones then maybe people would stop building there, but of course thats one of the dangers of being dependent on government. Sometimes I think that we should go back to a system of survival of the fittest because our system of welfare rewards those who cant take care of themselves and encourages them to multiply.

ModGlock17
11-02-2012, 11:48
If more of you were scientists..... I am, in EE.

Real science is driven by evidence....
Sir, I beg to differ a bit here (but I do know what you mean). Science from the Universities are driven by GRANTs. Many made conclusions BEFORE the experiment, then perform the experiment to get GRANTs (or to get attention in a Journal publication to list in resumes). Very few organizations will fund aimless research. So "real science" is realistically driven by evidence THAT YOU SEEK, this means you ignore evidence that you can't explain. Including evidences that you can't explain in your report will make it less likely that you would get grants. Grants-Givers are somewhat political. They, too, will only pay for researches that fits their agenda... like global warming. To proclaim that all real science is based on evidence is more in line with heresy.

So again, any trained scientists here who disagree?
Many scientists (like me) are sometimes educated beyond their intelligence. Kind of an elitist, "I know better than you..."

....got a M.S. and PhD , experimental physics,..
Say, did you hear that joke about degrees ?
When people ask you questions you don't know,
if you have a BS, you should say "I don't know."
if you have an MS, you should say "WE don't know."
if you have a PhD., you should say "IT'S not known."


.

Responses in bold font

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 11:49
No you just finally agreed with me. I had my head around that the whole time. I was dealing in the political reality, you were spinning off with your economic theories.

But I do disagree that it would be a complete lie however. there will be an offset, to what degree nobody knows, but it can be proven, in the world of politics, to exist. It will certainly be more tangible than "The Stimulus", if played correctly.

Played right in the theater of American Politics there is an opportunity there, jobs can happen and business can start and be put in the spotlight if successful. That was all I was saying. That the opportunity to do so was there for Romney.


No. You're still wrong. Several posters here have shown you why. But you made yet another uninformed statement and you think it somehow gets more informed the more times you state it. It doesn't. You look foolish to those of us who understand these things.

You've been given info to the contrary. It's time for you to show your math or simply admit your assertion was foolish shallow thinking.

Ruble Noon
11-02-2012, 11:54
No you just finally agreed with me. I had my head around that the whole time. I was dealing in the political reality, you were spinning off with your economic theories.

But I do disagree that it would be a complete lie however. there will be an offset, to what degree nobody knows, but it can be proven, in the world of politics, to exist. It will certainly be more tangible than "The Stimulus", if played correctly.

Played right in the theater of American Politics there is an opportunity there, jobs can happen and business can start and be put in the spotlight if successful. That was all I was saying. That the opportunity to do so was there for Romney.

Read Bastiat's parable in this link

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-31/guest-post-tremendous-economic-benefits-superstorm-sandy

It's only 4 paragraphs

countrygun
11-02-2012, 12:00
No. You're still wrong. Several posters here have shown you why. But you made yet another uninformed statement and you think it somehow gets more informed the more times you state it. It doesn't. You look foolish to those of us who understand these things.

You've been given info to the contrary. It's time for you to show your math or simply admit your assertion was foolish shallow thinking.

You are once again proving that you are just arguing to argue. Your answers in your last post proved the only point I was making. You cannot argue that the opportunity for Romney to do exactly what I said is there.

You are just trying to keep the ball in the air to cover the fact that you blew a simple statement out of proportion and read far more into it than it required.

There was nothing foolish about the assertation I put forth in my original post.

To quote you

"1. Yes

2. Yes - but he'd be lying"

You have agreed with my premise.

It was really simple. The fact that you read more into it, than was there, doesn't concern me.

countrygun
11-02-2012, 12:24
When the govt is paying the bill, and then collecting taxes on the money it spent, it isn't "making money". If I spot you a fiver, and you buy a Budweiser with it and bring me the change, I haven't made any money.

You do realize that the money is going to be spent regardless?

We have obligations because of the existence of FEMA and we can't say "Ha, fooled you, we (the government/people/society) are reniging on that."

So what is the problem with using that money to help companies get a start? Certainly not to keep them going but to get them started. Other existing companies and businesses can benefit from getting Government out of the way, even though Government is footing the bill, (they/we will be anyway) just make a little lemonade out of the bucket of lemons that Mother Nature handed us.

I would love to see people told that "The Government and your fellow Americans are no longer going to protect you if you chose to rebuild in the same spot. Take this opportunity to rebuild in a better location where you can afford your own private insurance".

To some the glass may be half empty, but I see it as half full of opportunity to make a little political capital out of it by focusing on private enterprise. We are going to pay for it, might as well get some good out of it.

QNman
11-02-2012, 12:29
Or you can do what I do for more beer money.........

Pick up cans on the side of the road until you have enough to buy another 40. :supergrin:

:rofl:

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 12:31
You are once again proving that you are just arguing to argue. Your answers in your last post proved the only point I was making. You cannot argue that the opportunity for Romney to do exactly what I said is there.

You are just trying to keep the ball in the air to cover the fact that you blew a simple statement out of proportion and read far more into it than it required.

There was nothing foolish about the assertation I put forth in my original post.

To quote you

"1. Yes

2. Yes - but he'd be lying"

You have agreed with my premise.

It was really simple. The fact that you read more into it, than was there, doesn't concern me.

To refresh your memory from several pages back. This was the foolish assertion you made. The topic that several posters, including myself, attempted to correct you on is in blue:

It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend.

You can't create net taxpaying jobs, with tax money. This amounts to nothing more than a spending or jobs program, ala Obama. Actually, its worse because billions of dollars of value had to vanish for it to occur.

You are essentially using tax money to dig ditches and then refill them.



We give out less in entitlements, welfare, and unemployment because jobs will be created.





Net jobs will not be created. You're essentially arguing that the government creates jobs. It doesn't. It merely takes jobs (in the form of taxes/capital) from one place and moves them to another place and does so very inefficiently.


It is not exactly the same at all, you are wayyyyyyy off base. Nature has done the destruction, It was not a deliberate act to create jobs, BUT IT WILL create jobs, and is will be an opportunity for Romney to highlight programs designed to get Government out of the way of people who create businesses.

What is so difficult to uderstand about that:dunno:

It will not create net jobs. The government cannot suddenly create net jobs because a disaster occurred. You have to find a way to wrap your mind around what a net job is. Confiscating money from one man, skimming off the top, and giving it to another man to build another house after a house was destroyed is not creating net jobs. The money he is being paid came from another productive area of the economy.

In the long run, new companies creating jobs will help reduce the benefits we pay out to the unemployed.

A taxpaying individual costs the government (US) less than an unemployed person.

`It is in our best interest, to pay someone to work rather than pay them not to.

When you consider that private insurance will also be paying for a lot of the work it looks like a win.

Companies will be created. They will employ people. They will not create net jobs. Their workers will not pay net taxes because their salaries will be paid with tax dollars.

Private insurance money is not free. Insurance rates will be increased to recoup the losses. That money comes from somewhere.


This really is basic stuff that you should be able to understand. If you can't, several posters have offered you reading suggestions. You'd be well-served to take their advice.

Net jobs are created when an economy expands. Government and insurance spending will offer some folks the opportunity to fill their pockets but you can't grow an economy by destroying wealth and replacing it.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 12:35
You do realize that the money is going to be spent regardless?

We have obligations because of the existence of FEMA and we can't say "Ha, fooled you, we (the government/people/society) are reniging on that."

So what is the problem with using that money to help companies get a start? Certainly not to keep them going but to get them started. Other existing companies and businesses can benefit from getting Government out of the way, even though Government is footing the bill, (they/we will be anyway) just make a little lemonade out of the bucket of lemons that Mother Nature handed us.

I would love to see people told that "The Government and your fellow Americans are no longer going to protect you if you chose to rebuild in the same spot. Take this opportunity to rebuild in a better location where you can afford your own private insurance".

To some the glass may be half empty, but I see it as half full of opportunity to make a little political capital out of it by focusing on private enterprise. We are going to pay for it, might as well get some good out of it.

You sound exactly like a democrat. Seriously. This is how Keynsian democrats think.

QNman
11-02-2012, 12:35
You do realize that the money is going to be spent regardless?

We have obligations because of the existence of FEMA and we can't say "Ha, fooled you, we (the government/people/society) are reniging on that."

So what is the problem with using that money to help companies get a start? Certainly not to keep them going but to get them started. Other existing companies and businesses can benefit from getting Government out of the way, even though Government is footing the bill, (they/we will be anyway) just make a little lemonade out of the bucket of lemons that Mother Nature handed us.

I would love to see people told that "The Government and your fellow Americans are no longer going to protect you if you chose to rebuild in the same spot. Take this opportunity to rebuild in a better location where you can afford your own private insurance".

To some the glass may be half empty, but I see it as half full of opportunity to make a little political capital out of it by focusing on private enterprise. We are going to pay for it, might as well get some good out of it.

Understood. And some eager entrepreneurial folks will certainly make money on this.

However, our point of disagreement is not that some may profit, nor that the government is or is not going to spend the money anyway. Your original premise, at least as far as I understood it, was that this may increase federal revenue by virtue of new upstart and/or profitable companies. My point was and remains that there is a new loss, not gain, over this. In the big picture, there is no "upside".

muscogee
11-02-2012, 12:36
Responses in bold font

If you have a PhD. you write a 25 page paper saying absolutely nothing but saying it very well.

QNman
11-02-2012, 12:37
To refresh your memory from several pages back. This was the foolish assertion you made. The topic that several posters, including myself, attempted to correct you on is in blue:

You can't create net taxpaying jobs, with tax money. This amounts to nothing more than a spending or jobs program, ala Obama. Actually, its worse because billions of dollars of value had to vanish for it to occur.

You are essentially using tax money to dig ditches and then refill them.

Net jobs will not be created. You're essentially arguing that the government creates jobs. It doesn't. It merely takes jobs (in the form of taxes/capital) from one place and moves them to another place and does so very inefficiently.

It will not create net jobs. The government cannot suddenly create net jobs because a disaster occurred. You have to find a way to wrap your mind around what a net job is. Confiscating money from one man, skimming off the top, and giving it to another man to build another house after a house was destroyed is not creating net jobs. The money he is being paid came from another productive area of the economy.

Companies will be created. They will employ people. They will not create net jobs. Their workers will not pay net taxes because their salaries will be paid with tax dollars.

Private insurance money is not free. Insurance rates will be increased to recoup the losses. That money comes from somewhere.

....

Net jobs are created when an economy expands. Government and insurance spending will offer some folks the opportunity to fill their pockets but you can't grow an economy by destroying wealth and replacing it.

He's right.

QNman
11-02-2012, 12:38
If you have a PhD. you write a 25 page paper saying absolutely nothing but saying it very well.

Dang, dude. That's two posts in a row that I completely agree with you.

countrygun
11-02-2012, 12:52
Understood. And some eager entrepreneurial folks will certainly make money on this.

However, our point of disagreement is not that some may profit, nor that the government is or is not going to spend the money anyway. Your original premise, at least as far as I understood it, was that this may increase federal revenue by virtue of new upstart and/or profitable companies. My point was and remains that there is a new loss, not gain, over this. In the big picture, there is no "upside".

Here is my post that started the S**T storm,

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."


Now tell me Romney can't use the situation and make those claims. NOTE I say "Make those claims"

I have also stated that both my Father and I WERE the beneficiaries, from a business boost due to natural disasters so I KNOW there are success stories that can be pointed out, and guess what???? That is what politicians do, if they are smart. Obama took the stimulus and blew it and doesn't have anything to point at as a sign of success. Romney can take these circumstances handed to him, and create the opportunity to have a positive to point at when reelection comes around.

Is that just too complicated, or too simple for folks to see?

or do folks just want to argue?

__________________

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 12:59
Here is my post that started the S**T storm,

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."


Now tell me Romney can't use the situation and make those claims. NOTE I say "Make those claims"

I have also stated that both my Father and I WERE the beneficiaries, from a business boost due to natural disasters so I KNOW there are success stories that can be pointed out, and guess what???? That is what politicians do, if they are smart. Obama took the stimulus and blew it and doesn't have anything to point at as a sign of success. Romney can take these circumstances handed to him, and create the opportunity to have a positive to point at when reelection comes around.

Is that just too complicated, or too simple for folks to see?

or do folks just want to argue?

__________________



There is no **** storm. We're just trying to smarten you up

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 13:00
He's right.

Who??

QNman
11-02-2012, 13:11
Who??

You.. Sorry, replied to you to reiterate.

QNman
11-02-2012, 13:13
Here is my post that started the S**T storm,

"It will give Romney an excellent chance to start his Presidency by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered, the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."


Now tell me Romney can't use the situation and make those claims. NOTE I say "Make those claims"

I have also stated that both my Father and I WERE the beneficiaries, from a business boost due to natural disasters so I KNOW there are success stories that can be pointed out, and guess what???? That is what politicians do, if they are smart. Obama took the stimulus and blew it and doesn't have anything to point at as a sign of success. Romney can take these circumstances handed to him, and create the opportunity to have a positive to point at when reelection comes around.

Is that just too complicated, or too simple for folks to see?

or do folks just want to argue?

__________________

Well, I DO like arguing. :)

Yes, he could make that claim, but honestly it's probably not worth much to make. Most people have seen disasters before and know some will profit.

IvanVic
11-02-2012, 13:13
Dang, do I actually agree with certifiedfunds for once? :)

QNman
11-02-2012, 13:14
Dang, do I actually agree with certifiedfunds for once? :)

Dang... You with CF, me with Muscogee... It must be the fifth sign of the apocalypse!

countrygun
11-02-2012, 13:18
Well, I DO like arguing. :)

Yes, he could make that claim, but honestly it's probably not worth much to make. Most people have seen disasters before and know some will profit.

Have you actually heard Romney's "5 points"?

One of them is getting Government out of the way of business.

Here is an opportunity out of the gate to do it.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 13:21
Dang, do I actually agree with certifiedfunds for once? :)

Even a blind dog finds a bone eventually

ModGlock17
11-02-2012, 13:42
Dang, do I actually agree with certifiedfunds for once? :)

Dang... You with CF, me with Muscogee... It must be the fifth sign of the apocalypse!

Oh Stop it. This Kumba Ya stuff.

What do you want? Group hugs now ??? :rofl:

'Let me clear', Sandy is Obama's Katrina and the end of Michael Bloomberg in NYcity.

Bloomberg will drift into the background like NewOrleans' former mayor Ray Nagin.

muscogee
11-02-2012, 13:59
Dang, dude. That's two posts in a row that I completely agree with you.

I keep telling you I'm not a liberal.

muscogee
11-02-2012, 14:01
'Let me clear', Sandy is Obama's Katrina

It may be like FDR's WWII.

FFR Spyder GT
11-02-2012, 15:00
And yet nobody has been able to show why Romney can't do what I suggested.

"It will give OBAMA an excellent chance to start his 2nd term as POTUS by clearing the way for business to start up repairing the damage for those with insurance and for the damage not covered"

I haven't seen one person say prove that he can't do just that.


And I haven't seen one person prove he can't claim,


"the higher employment from the jobs created will reduce the need for unemployment and other benefits so it will offset what the Government has to spend."

So show me how my post was wrong.

With a small change in your post I agree 100%!!!:wavey:

Spyder

countrygun
11-02-2012, 15:10
With a small change in your post I agree 100%!!!:wavey:

Spyder

Obama, get government out of the way????


Put the bong down

Goaltender66
11-02-2012, 15:29
Obama, get government out of the way????


Put the bong down

Obama is only interested in hardship that photographs well. He sure split fast out of the area when it came time to start delivering on his promises, didn't he?

He's a show horse, not a work horse.

JFrame
11-02-2012, 15:41
Obama, get government out of the way????


Put the bong down

Yeah... :rofl:

We're talking about the guy who is talking about creating a "Department of Business" -- adding yet ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy that private industry will need to overcome.


.

Goaltender66
11-02-2012, 16:30
Yeah... :rofl:

We're talking about the guy who is talking about creating a "Department of Business" -- adding yet ANOTHER layer of bureaucracy that private industry will need to overcome.


.

I would be in favor of Obama putting a Secretary of Business in the Cabinet if only to find out who he'd name as his SOB.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 16:37
I would be in favor of Obama putting a Secretary of Business in the Cabinet if only to find out who he'd name as his SOB.

Richard Tumka

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 16:38
I keep telling you I'm not a liberal.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

JFrame
11-02-2012, 16:46
I would be in favor of Obama putting a Secretary of Business in the Cabinet if only to find out who he'd name as his SOB.


My Magic 8-ball says "Jeffrey Immelt"... :whistling:


.

FFR Spyder GT
11-02-2012, 17:04
Obama, get government out of the way????


Put the bong down

1987.......Reagan's Gov't. 5,910,xxx FTE's.

US pop. 242,288,918 (7-1-87)

Equals 1 FTE per 40.99 people living in the USA.

2012 ...... Obama's Gov't......

4,356,178 FTEs

US pop. 314,697,682 (today)

Equals 1 FTE per 72.24 people living in the USA.

Reagan 1:40.99

Obama 1:72.24

I'm not the one that needs to put down the bong.

Oh, wait............ Your Mom won't let you smoke in the basement, uh, I mean your "Command Post". :rofl:

countrygun
11-02-2012, 17:12
1987.......Reagan's Gov't. 5,910,xxx FTE's.

US pop. 242,288,918 (7-1-87)

Equals 1 FTE per 40.99 people living in the USA.

2012 ...... Obama's Gov't......

4,356,178 FTEs

US pop. 314,697,682 (today)

Equals 1 FTE per 72.24 people living in the USA.

Reagan 1:40.99

Obama 1:72.24

I'm not the one that needs to put down the bong.

Oh, wait............ Your Mom won't let you smoke in the basement, uh, I mean your "Command Post". :rofl:

what's the margin of error in your statistice there, +or - 4.5?


So you are sayimg that one job per 72 people is better than one job per 40 people?

Is that really what I am reading????

Holy Jesus are you dumb.

certifiedfunds
11-02-2012, 17:13
1987.......Reagan's Gov't. 5,910,xxx FTE's.

US pop. 242,288,918 (7-1-87)

Equals 1 FTE per 40.99 people living in the USA.

2012 ...... Obama's Gov't......

4,356,178 FTEs

US pop. 314,697,682 (today)

Equals 1 FTE per 72.24 people living in the USA.

Reagan 1:40.99

Obama 1:72.24

I'm not the one that needs to put down the bong.

Oh, wait............ Your Mom won't let you smoke in the basement, uh, I mean your "Command Post". :rofl:

Not even sure if your numbers are correct or if they count military, but, REGULATION is what puts government "in the way". People are only a component of that.

Goaltender66
11-02-2012, 17:22
Oh, wait............ Your Mom won't let you smoke in the basement, uh, I mean your "Command Post". :rofl:

You seem very fond of throwing that slur around.

Just wondering...is your objection based merely upon someone living in the same house as his parents? I'm trying to get a sense of what specific proximity you have an issue with...

countrygun
11-02-2012, 17:32
You seem very fond of throwing that slur around.

Just wondering...is your objection based merely upon someone living in the same house as his parents? I'm trying to get a sense of what specific proximity you have an issue with...

Considering I have made no secret about,

owning my own home and several rental properties

I am 53

and both of my parents are dead

I think we can write his obsession off as projection

QNman
11-02-2012, 18:53
I keep telling you I'm not a liberal.

Really?

It may be like FDR's WWII.

That's more like it... the world is slipping back to normal.

Not enough time for this to do any good... frankly, there's not enough time to do any harm either (at least politically). I just hope the proximity to election day keeps him more alert to Sandy victims than he was for Stevens.

QNman
11-02-2012, 19:05
1987.......Reagan's Gov't. 5,910,xxx FTE's.

US pop. 242,288,918 (7-1-87)

Equals 1 FTE per 40.99 people living in the USA.

2012 ...... Obama's Gov't......

4,356,178 FTEs

US pop. 314,697,682 (today)

Equals 1 FTE per 72.24 people living in the USA.

Reagan 1:40.99

Obama 1:72.24

I'm not the one that needs to put down the bong.

Oh, wait............ Your Mom won't let you smoke in the basement, uh, I mean your "Command Post". :rofl:

Nice completely un-cited statistics. I guess we'll just take your word for it then... And we'll just guess what was counted as a FTE, since there's no data to inspect...

Even so, what was the trend? The statement wasn't that Obama had the most FTE's in the federal government, but that he wouldn't shrink it - only grow it.

How many IRS agents were hired just to enforce Obamacare again?

Considering I have made no secret about,

owning my own home and several rental properties

I am 53

and both of my parents are dead

I think we can write his obsession off as projection

Ignore this trolling. I don't need to convince anyone what my position is in life. I moved out of my mothers (well, kicked out...) when I was 18 and never looked back. In fact, helped support her for a short period before I had kids (though she didn't live with me). I'm secure in who I am and where I've come from. S/he can proclaim whatever helps him/her sleep better at night. All his/her proclamations do is make him.her look petty and childish.

muscogee
11-02-2012, 21:59
Really?



That's more like it... the world is slipping back to normal.

Not enough time for this to do any good... frankly, there's not enough time to do any harm either (at least politically). I just hope the proximity to election day keeps him more alert to Sandy victims than he was for Stevens.

Speculating and stating a position are not the same thing. Before the last election I speculated that Obama might be another Carter. The hard cold fact is, I was wrong.

QNman
11-02-2012, 22:13
Speculating and stating a position are not the same thing. Before the last election I speculated that Obama might be another Carter. The hard cold fact is, I was wrong.

In what way?

countrygun
11-02-2012, 22:14
Speculating and stating a position are not the same thing. Before the last election I speculated that Obama might be another Carter. The hard cold fact is, I was wrong.

OK he was worse than Carter, but don't be so hard on yourself, he was actually just "More Carter than Carter"

barbedwiresmile
11-03-2012, 04:26
Obama is only interested in hardship that photographs well. He sure split fast out of the area when it came time to start delivering on his promises, didn't he?

He's a show horse, not a work horse.

I would like to object, sir, to your comparison of our president with a horse.

A horse is a lovely and noble animal, and I will not have this animal besmirched in this fashion.

Brucev
11-03-2012, 06:58
It's not the fault of the Department of Defense.

Let's give business a chance, let them find out whether investing in NY, NJ, etc makes economic sense.

Fault? Irrelevant. Take the money from the dod. They have plenty. They don't need it. They only blow it on roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, power plants, sewage treatment and water treatment plants, etc. in iraq, afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 07:13
Fault? Irrelevant. Take the money from the dod. They have plenty. They don't need it. They only blow it on roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, power plants, sewage treatment and water treatment plants, etc. in iraq, afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

Lots of people are paying social security and medicare taxes with no benefit to themselves. Take the money back and use it for something else.

engineer151515
11-03-2012, 07:56
Fault? Irrelevant. Take the money from the dod. They have plenty. They don't need it. They only blow it on roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, power plants, sewage treatment and water treatment plants, etc. in iraq, afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

They "blow it" under directive from the President.

Indeed, the whole notion of "take it from the other guy, he's rich" makes me wonder if you're taking the Obama "pay your fair share" prerogative very seriously.

The other guy is rich is the poorest of rationalizations.

muscogee
11-03-2012, 10:09
In what way?

Compare Carter's response to the Iranian hostage crisis to Obama's response to the war in Afghanistan and the killing of bin Laden. Carter was helpless. I became a Conservative at 9:00 a.m. April 26, 1980 after hearing about the miserable failure of Operation Eagle Claw.

During the last campaign, Obama said that he would go into Pakistan if he needed to because that was where the war was. He was condemned by most Republicans for that because Pakistan was out ally. UBL would be alive to day and still taunting us if Bush, McCain, or any other Republican was President. UBL would still be alive if the Republicans were in charge.

Republican mismanagement of the economy under Bush, their timidity about admitting that Pakistan was not our ally, and their refusal to face or admit the error of their ways have me leaning strongly the other direction.

muscogee
11-03-2012, 10:11
OK he was worse than Carter, but don't be so hard on yourself, he was actually just "More Carter than Carter"

No, he is not worse than Carter. He has shown exceptional leadership and courage in a series of impossible situations.

JFrame
11-03-2012, 10:13
I became a Conservative at 9:00 a.m. April 26, 1980

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sure you did... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/biggrin.gif


.

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 10:41
Compare Carter's response to the Iranian hostage crisis to Obama's response to the war in Afghanistan and the killing of bin Laden. Carter was helpless. I became a Conservative at 9:00 a.m. April 26, 1980 after hearing about the miserable failure of Operation Eagle Claw.

During the last campaign, Obama said that he would go into Pakistan if he needed to because that was where the war was. He was condemned by most Republicans for that because Pakistan was out ally. UBL would be alive to day and still taunting us if Bush, McCain, or any other Republican was President. UBL would still be alive if the Republicans were in charge.

Republican mismanagement of the economy under Bush, their timidity about admitting that Pakistan was not our ally, and their refusal to face or admit the error of their ways have me leaning strongly the other direction.

The government does not manage the economy. Nonetheless, it was the flawed policies of democratic politicians that brought us the collapse of 08.

Conservative my ass

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 10:41
No, he is not worse than Carter. He has shown exceptional leadership and courage in a series of impossible situations.

Exceptional leadership?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

JFrame
11-03-2012, 10:44
Exceptional leadership?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Musco has clearly gotten to the "my-credibility-is-totally-shot-so-I-might-as-well-try-to-pawn-off-all-the-bull-spit-I-possibly-can" stage... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gif


.

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 10:46
Right. A leader blames ATM machines and airport kiosks for a failed economy.:rofl::rofl:

But he takes credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden when he had nothing to do with it.

Ruble Noon
11-03-2012, 10:47
Right. A leader blames ATM machines and airport kiosks for a failed economy.:rofl::rofl:

But he takes credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden when he had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, Valerie Jarrett made that call.

series1811
11-03-2012, 12:53
You seem very fond of throwing that slur around.

Just wondering...is your objection based merely upon someone living in the same house as his parents? I'm trying to get a sense of what specific proximity you have an issue with...

I don't think you are the first one to read "command post in mom's basement" for the tenth time, without thinking that there is some projection going on. :supergrin:

Hef
11-03-2012, 13:09
Tell them to call their insurance companies.

countrygun
11-03-2012, 13:11
No, he is not worse than Carter. He has shown exceptional leadership and courage in a series of impossible situations.



The senior boxboy at our local grocery store has shown more leadership ability. and he's got more hours on the job, come to think of it, he's got a real job. Another year and he'll have more work experience than Obama.

:rofl::rofl:



Originally Posted by muscogee

"I keep telling you I'm not a liberal."


Not even the liberals will claim you anymore.

muscogee
11-03-2012, 14:23
Originally Posted by muscogee

"I keep telling you I'm not a liberal."


Not even the liberals will claim you anymore.

When I worked at a university I was considered an archconservative. They, like many people here, can't see anything between the extremes. Why must one be one or the other? Most people are between the extremes. Even though the extremists try to take credit for the outcome of the elections, they're not the ones who elect the President or Congress. It's those of us in the middle who aren't blind to the excesses of extremists.

countrygun
11-03-2012, 14:37
When I worked at a university I was considered an archconservative. They, like many people here, can't see anything between the extremes. Why must one be one or the other? Most people are between the extremes. Even though the extremists try to take credit for the outcome of the elections, they're not the ones who elect the President or Congress. It's those of us in the middle who aren't blind to the excesses of extremists.

Hahahahahaha "A University"??????

Hahahahahaha

The most liberal places in the United States and they convinced you that you were an "Archconsrvative"

Hahahaha

Those are the same places that teach that Socialism is the norm.

You were BS'ed as bad as the students.

They convinced you that you were "in the middle" as part of the great swing to the left.

What a puppet.

It takes a real tool to think that Obama has shown great leadership. They worked you over good

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 14:59
When I worked at a university I was considered an archconservative. They, like many people here, can't see anything between the extremes. Why must one be one or the other? Most people are between the extremes. Even though the extremists try to take credit for the outcome of the elections, they're not the ones who elect the President or Congress. It's those of us in the middle who aren't blind to the excesses of extremists.


The janitorial staff at universities are commonly known as bastions of socialism.

muscogee
11-03-2012, 15:12
Hahahahahaha "A University"??????

Hahahahahaha

The most liberal places in the United States and they convinced you that you were an "Archconsrvative"

Hahahaha

Those are the same places that teach that Socialism is the norm.

You were BS'ed as bad as the students.

They convinced you that you were "in the middle" as part of the great swing to the left.

What a puppet.

It takes a real tool to think that Obama has shown great leadership. They worked you over good

I'm not the puppet. I knew it was bs just like I know you're bs. They were as far to the left as you are to the right and you both make the same type of personal attack arguments when you don't have facts or logic on your side. As I said, most people are neither extreme liberals or extreme conservatives. They're somewhere in between. When you alienate them you lose the elections. The extreme Left alienated a lot of people in the middle when Carter was president. The extreme Right has alienated a lot of people in the middle since the last election. I know nothing is going to change your vote. Do you think personal attacks are going to change mine? If it does, it will be in the opposite direction you want it to change. The Tea Party types drove me from the Republican party. I don't like Democrats but right now I like Republicans less thanks to people like you. I have voted against people more than I have voted for them. This selection will be no different. Whoever wins will read much more into it than the lesser of two evils. They always do. That's why they don't understand when they lose the next election.

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 15:14
I'm not the puppet. I knew it was bs just like I know you're bs. They were as far to the left as you are to the right and you both make the same type of personal attack arguments when you don't have facts or logic on your side. As I said, most people are neither extreme liberals or extreme conservatives. They're somewhere in between. When you alienate them you lose the elections. The extreme Left alienated a lot of people in the middle when Carter was president. The extreme Right has alienated a lot of people in the middle since the last election. I know nothing is going to change your vote. Do you think personal attacks are going to change mine? If it does, it will be in the opposite direction you want it to change. The Tea Party types drove me from the Republican party. I don't like Democrats but right now I like Republicans less thanks to people like you. I have voted against people more than I have voted for them. This selection will be no different. Whoever wins will read much more into it than the lesser of two evils. They always do. That's why they don't understand when they lose the next election.

As long as you're looking for someone else to pay for your existence, calling you a puppet is being modest

countrygun
11-03-2012, 15:22
I'm not the puppet. I knew it was bs just like I know you're bs. They were as far to the left as you are to the right and you both make the same type of personal attack arguments when you don't have facts or logic on your side. As I said, most people are neither extreme liberals or extreme conservatives. They're somewhere in between. When you alienate them you lose the elections. The extreme Left alienated a lot of people in the middle when Carter was president. The extreme Right has alienated a lot of people in the middle since the last election. I know nothing is going to change your vote. Do you think personal attacks are going to change mine? If it does, it will be in the opposite direction you want it to change. The Tea Party types drove me from the Republican party. I don't like Democrats but right now I like Republicans less thanks to people like you. I have voted against people more than I have voted for them. This selection will be no different. Whoever wins will read much more into it than the lesser of two evils. They always do. That's why they don't understand when they lose the next election.

You put YOUR personal experience out there as if it were some "Holy Writ" and irrefuteable proof of your statements. Well I refuted it. Being told you are "conservative" of any degree at a University is hardly a proof of concept.

If Tea Party Types drove you from the republican Party you weren't much of a Republican at all. But I suspect you have a hard time sticking with much of anything and you like to feel sorry for yourself and blame everyone else.

Your business failed, it was the President's fault.

You once claimed you were "driven out of your church" by "those people"

You were "Driven out" of the Republican Party by the Tea Party Types.

You are alwys being schat upon by someone else aren't you?

See a pattern?

certifiedfunds
11-03-2012, 15:49
You put YOUR personal experience out there as if it were some "Holy Writ" and irrefuteable proof of your statements. Well I refuted it. Being told you are "conservative" of any degree at a University is hardly a proof of concept.

If Tea Party Types drove you from the republican Party you weren't much of a Republican at all. But I suspect you have a hard time sticking with much of anything and you like to feel sorry for yourself and blame everyone else.

Your business failed, it was the President's fault.

You once claimed you were "driven out of your church" by "those people"

You were "Driven out" of the Republican Party by the Tea Party Types.

You are alwys being schat upon by someone else aren't you?

See a pattern?

One thing you learn about these socialist losers is that it is easier to blame others for their failure.


They ALWAYS blame others.

QNman
11-03-2012, 19:31
Compare Carter's response to the Iranian hostage crisis to Obama's response to the war in Afghanistan and the killing of bin Laden. Carter was helpless. I became a Conservative at 9:00 a.m. April 26, 1980 after hearing about the miserable failure of Operation Eagle Claw.

During the last campaign, Obama said that he would go into Pakistan if he needed to because that was where the war was. He was condemned by most Republicans for that because Pakistan was out ally. UBL would be alive to day and still taunting us if Bush, McCain, or any other Republican was President. UBL would still be alive if the Republicans were in charge.

Republican mismanagement of the economy under Bush, their timidity about admitting that Pakistan was not our ally, and their refusal to face or admit the error of their ways have me leaning strongly the other direction.

And you wonder why we question your claims to conservatism? :upeyes:

Judging Obama - or any other President - by a single good or bad act is lazy and foolish. However, I see your point (kind of).

As to your assessment as to whether or not OBL would still be breathing if "ANY Republican" were in office... well, I guess your crystal ball works better than mine. Me, I think any President; even Carter; would have pulled the trigger on that one. Even if he had parked himself in the center of any of our other allies countries. Of course, the Republicans and the rest weren't complaining about Obama stating he would go into Pakistan to kill Osama - he wanted to take the war to Pakistan; turn an ally into an enemy.

By the way - opposing the worst of the left is a far cry from making you "conservative".

series1811
11-04-2012, 06:08
I'm not the puppet. I knew it was bs just like I know you're bs. They were as far to the left as you are to the right and you both make the same type of personal attack arguments when you don't have facts or logic on your side. As I said, most people are neither extreme liberals or extreme conservatives. They're somewhere in between. When you alienate them you lose the elections. The extreme Left alienated a lot of people in the middle when Carter was president. The extreme Right has alienated a lot of people in the middle since the last election. I know nothing is going to change your vote. Do you think personal attacks are going to change mine? If it does, it will be in the opposite direction you want it to change. The Tea Party types drove me from the Republican party. I don't like Democrats but right now I like Republicans less thanks to people like you. I have voted against people more than I have voted for them. This selection will be no different. Whoever wins will read much more into it than the lesser of two evils. They always do. That's why they don't understand when they lose the next election.

You should consider seeing a doctor and telling him you may be suffering from depression. And, I'm not trying to be cute or funny. I was there myself one time, and your writing has a familiar sound to it. It happens.

muscogee
11-04-2012, 06:54
You put YOUR personal experience out there as if it were some "Holy Writ" and irrefuteable proof of your statements. Well I refuted it. Being told you are "conservative" of any degree at a University is hardly a proof of concept. I'm a moderate. One more time, it's the moderates who decide the elections. Not the wingnuts.

If Tea Party Types drove you from the republican Party you weren't much of a Republican at all. What gives you the right to determine who is a Republican.

Your business failed, it was the President's fault. OK, so lets place a 75% windfall profit on your business but not on international businesses doing the same thing. See how long you last paying an additional 75% on your profits. Libya, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. didn't' pay windfall profits tax. Just domestic producers. Most of the people in my position went broke. I didn't. I just realized the oilfield was not going anywhere but down. I worked three part time jobs, went to night school, got a PhD, and sold out. Do you think you could do that? You're obviously poorly educated so you haven't. Your anti intellectual attacks on education are telling. You don't have one but you're an authority on it, just like Ted Kennedy was an authority on poverty. I don't owe you an apology.

You once claimed you were "driven out of your church" by "those people" I lost patience with chronic rampant hypocrisy. I lost patience with people like you telling me up was down and down was up and then resorting to meaningless personal attacks if I questioned them or pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Why do insist that I owe you an apology for that?

You were "Driven out" of the Republican Party by the Tea Party Types.
I paid a higher percentage in taxes my last year in business than Ross Perot. I'm retired and still paid a higher percentage of my income than Mitt Romney did. That's a stacked deck and the Tea Party is on board with that. That has to change. Don't give me their propaganda any more. I've heard it and see through it.

You are alwys being schat upon by someone else aren't you?

I'm not the only one. Look around.

Learn to spell. Your lack of education is showing. I'm not wasting any time responding to your personal attacks. They're too shallow and stupid.

certifiedfunds
11-04-2012, 07:17
I'm a moderate. One more time, it's the moderates who decide the elections. Not the wingnuts.

What gives you the right to determine who is a Republican.



You're a moderate? In a similar thread some time back you came out and said you favor DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM as a form of government for the U.S.

You're a thief by proxy.

I paid a higher percentage in taxes my last year in business than Ross Perot. I'm retired and still paid a higher percentage of my income than Mitt Romney did. That's a stacked deck and the Tea Party is on board with that. That has to change. Don't give me their propaganda any more. I've heard it and see through it.

.....and a liar. Ross Perot primarily invests in tax free munis. You can too. either way Perot and Romney pay more in taxes each year than you earned in your lifetime.

muscogee
11-04-2012, 07:39
You should consider seeing a doctor and telling him you may be suffering from depression. And, I'm not trying to be cute or funny. I was there myself one time, and your writing has a familiar sound to it. It happens.

I'm depressed with the self righteous, sanctimonious condescending, stupid I have to put up with in the form. Watch, some fool is going to write, "Wha on't chu quit". Why don't I run hide? I think not.

People in their little extreme right wing fantasy world cluster up here and sanctify their beliefs. They refuse to see anything else. As I have written before, the Republican party has been taken over by fascists and theocrats. Pardon the cliche, but "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." It's here. Most people in here don't find it strange how well those two things fit together. They have no concept of fascism, socialism, or anything else but the propaganda they've been fed. They accept it and never question it. Those who disagree with them are sub-human, and sub-humans can be destroyed at the will of the humans. That thinking is dangerous and will march us right back to the middle ages where a few Plutocrats own everything and the rest of us are serfs. No thanks.