Obama thinks you are dumb! "Professional Politicans" know better than you!! (video)

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Geez.... where to start? You are an articulate writer with an obvious strength in sentence composition, vocabulary etc. I fear that your internal self has confused those gifts for a broader intelligence, specifically in matters of economics.

Medicaid and Medicare is not economics. They are government programs. If you actually need that explained to you, it is odd you would think you know better about economics.

And that is the sum of your uninformed perspective on the issue.

Idealogical definitions in place of objective economic analysis that non-idealougues and non-politicians employ.

Not much to discuss in that context that I couldn't learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by jibeho

 

Yeah, and professional mechanics know more about fixing an engine than some random guy off the street.

Maybe some of you really are dumb. Ever consider that? I know I damn sure wouldn't entrust the economic future of a pet store to any of you, much less an entire nation.

I just love hearing this asinine comparison.
Seeing that most Mechanics can actually fix an engine and almost every politician and economist can't fix the economy, I think it is high time that the mechanic got a shot at it.
Don't really see the mechanic making it worse, then what the professional elected idiot and his compatriots have brought us to.

Originally posted by Harro

There are just too many sophomoric people that opine on forums like these. A bit of modesty would go a long way. Just continue to read and listen... always listen... that's all I'll say.

edit on 13-7-2011 by Harro because: (no reason given)

Ever notice that statues of Bhudda have enormous ears? That is the source of his wisdom,

reply to post by Harro

It shows us that he is smart enough to understand those very basic principles that you espouse, that he is capable of deep learning. A Harvard Law Degree gives you more than information on the law and it shows us the effort that went into learning at such a high level - a level that is required to get into Harvard. He can work with his team on developing in-depth strategies to tackle the complex problem at hand.

President Obama demonstrably does not have a clue as to the very basic principles I espouse. Obama continued the Bush policy of embracing moral hazard while I am espousing that such an action is predictably destined to fail.

Economies are not complex, they adhere to very simple laws and principles. Complexity arises when governments attempt to tinker with those economies.

I know with the advent of the internet (and with it Wikipedia and Google) a lot of young people have tremendous breadth of knowledge (and, by comparison to generations past, they probably do) but they often mistake this for depth. Whilst I agree those terms are easily understood I disagree that this is a "very simple" matter. To this degree, I am skeptical as to your proposed analyses and solutions.

Instead, you would rather place blind faith in the "professionals" who are wrecking the economy.

Agree - but it is the validity, not the right, of the opinion that we are discussing.

It is the validity of your opinion that I am questioning.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

I know with the advent of the internet (and with it Wikipedia and Google) a lot of young people have tremendous breadth of knowledge (and, by comparison to generations past, they probably do) but they often mistake this for depth. Whilst I agree those terms are easily understood I disagree that this is a "very simple" matter. To this degree, I am skeptical as to your proposed analyses and solutions.

Instead, you would rather place blind faith in the "professionals" who are wrecking the economy.

It's not blind faith - we've been down this path. I'm not sure if that is a serious question but yes, over you, I trust them.

It is the validity of your opinion that I am questioning.

Perfectly fine... I do too. I'm not sure you question your own though.

I don't think this should be a suprise. come on people.

reply to post by Indigo5

And that is the sum of your uninformed perspective on the issue.

This is your reply to my assertion that government programs are not economics. Of course, the tax schemes used to fund these programs greatly affect an economy, but even that is not economics.

In its simplest terms, economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The more intrusive a government becomes in the marketplace that handles production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, the more economists are compelled to consider these actions in regards to their effect on economy. The less intrusive government is in the market place the less relevance government has to economy.

Given the current state of affairs, it is self evident that government is all to relevant to economy and the current stated of affairs does not bode well for this government relevance.

Not much to discuss in that context that I couldn't learn from listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I have never wasted my time listening to Rush Limbaugh, so I could care less what you believe you can learn from him. Instead, what I have done is seek out knowledge. This required reading and reading more than just that which I agree with, because how the hell would I know what I agree with until I read it? Thus, I put actual effort into reading more than just one analysis or summary of economics and instead embraced the plethora of information out there in order to make my own determination as to what is correct or incorrect. This effort is what you think is non objective, while you further entrench yourself in your own subjectivity.

reply to post by Harro

Perfectly fine... I do too. I'm not sure you question your own though.

I question all opinions, including my own, and am more concerned with the facts in a hope to better derive at the truth. That is the difference between you, and most others in this site. Most are doing the same as I. You, on the other hand, are advocating ignorance and expecting everyone else to defer to your assessment of a President based upon your admitted ignorance.

Of course, you can now reply and lecture me on how this has nothing to do with the thread, and you can ignore the data I offer based upon my own effort to find the facts, as "opinion", and all the while keep digging that hole. Or, you could actually take the time to consider that maybe...just maybe...making an effort to understand simple principles and laws of economy has some value.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

Perfectly fine... I do too. I'm not sure you question your own though.

I question all opinions, including my own, and am more concerned with the facts in a hope to better derive at the truth. That is the difference between you, and most others in this site. Most are doing the same as I. You, on the other hand, are advocating ignorance and expecting everyone else to defer to your assessment of a President based upon your admitted ignorance.

Of course, you can now reply and lecture me on how this has nothing to do with the thread, and you can ignore the data I offer based upon my own effort to find the facts, as "opinion", and all the while keep digging that hole. Or, you could actually take the time to consider that maybe...just maybe...making an effort to understand simple principles and laws of economy has some value.

Alright... we're covering old territory now. You misrepresent me instead of modifying or reiterating your own opinion - that is the crux of the first paragraph. The second - I saw no data (sorry) but I did see your very simple analyses of what economics entails and how the economy works. I disagree that that is all there is to the matter - it is more complex based on my readings, hence why I feel I am unprepared to render an opinion at the moment.

I hope you honestly don't think I'm lecturing you (this is just a discussion so we can both just relax). *I am very glad to hear you are reading*. That is not something I expected, but it warms my heart... I really hope you continue to do this til you die - stick at it!

reply to post by Harro

I hope you honestly don't think I'm lecturing you (this is just a discussion so we can both just relax). *I am very glad to hear you are reading*. That is not something I expected, but it warms my heart... I really hope you continue to do this til you die - stick at it!

It is, arguably something you did not expect, because you're not paying attention. Critical thought requires far more than just reading. It requires analyzing that which you read and making an informed decision. When you dismiss others of whom you know nothing about, you are not thinking critically, you are certainly not making an informed decision, you are merely operating under your own personal bias. This is why you began in this thread by calling other people "small" and "narrow minded". It is your bias, admittedly based on ignorance.

If you "honestly" think you're not lecturing me, perhaps you might consider sparing me your advocacy of credentialism. Given the vast amount of fraud and damages caused by credentialed people, it doesn't even take a critical thinker to understand having a credential doesn't protect those reliant upon that credentialed "professional" from fraud or other damages.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Second paragraph - one swallow does not make a spring (this goes both ways). I'm sorry you feel like I'm lecturing you.

First paragraph - *I am very happy to hear you read, AND read *critically**. I was not expecting that either. Keep it up! Regarding the rest of the paragraph which I quickly glossed over - I fear I must quote what I have already said:

"Alright... we're covering old territory now. You misrepresent me instead of modifying or reiterating your own opinion"

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

And that is the sum of your uninformed perspective on the issue.

This is your reply to my assertion that government programs are not economics. Of course, the tax schemes used to fund these programs greatly affect an economy, but even that is not economics.

In its simplest terms, economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

It is not a question of whether or not "government programs are economics". It is a question of whether or not government programs and the specific taxes which fund them impact the economy enough to be examined in a macroeconomic context. Does Social Security impact the deficiet? Consumer spending? Productivity? On a macroeconomic scale?

But I suspect you knew that already.

You said you enjoy reading?

Perhaps google "Macroeconomics Effects of Social Security"? You will get data, analysis, papers and proposed solutions ranging from the Heritage Foundation to Think Progress, but to simply claim "government programs are not economics" is uninformed at best.

Here I will use your own definition...
the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

You don't strike me as lacking intelligence. Can you tell me how Social Security fits into that definition? How the retirement age might effect production? How Social Security taxes might effect hiring? How consumption might be effected?

This is where a less humble man would retort with an emotional idealogical argument and discount the logic.

reply to post by Indigo5


Campaign re-election economics is all "professional" politicians are "professional" at... Obama already "scrounged" together 82 million for his own 2012 bid (I scrounge for change for the coke machine), but the best he can do about our national debt is to play to the fearful who depend on their SS benefits...and tell them he may not be able to give them their own money if we dont cave and bail the out of control USG out one more time...

Like Max Keiser said - They are all arsonists, and they are asking for more matches...

reply to post by Indigo5

You don't strike me as lacking intelligence. Can you tell me how Social Security fits into that definition? How the retirement age might effect production? How Social Security taxes might effect hiring? How consumption might be effected?

This is where a less humble man would retort with an emotional idealogical argument and discount the logic.

It is always a clear sign of arrogance when someone follows their ideological argument with an implication they are humble and hope to dismiss any rebuttal as being "less humble". Humility has nothing at all to do with economics, anymore than retirement has anything at all to do with production. Of course, if your a Marxist who adheres to the ideology that it is the "worker" who is the basis of production, then I suppose - if you're ignoring all kinds of macroeconomic factors - that you could argue a person's retirement as a "worker" will affect production. You would have to pretend his, or her, replacement is not up to par, or even more foolishly pretend there is no replacement.

At best, the effect a retiree has on the economy is in terms of consumption, not production, and particularly in regards to the paltry amount doled out to the retiree from Social Security. That is, of course, assuming the Social Security checks are the sole source of income during retirement, and there is no "nest egg" as a foundation for that paltry monthly amount. Under these conditions, that retiree will no doubt affect - to a minor degree - consumption as they will be forced to consume less.

That was simple math, not "ideology". You are not working so hard as dismissing my explanations of economics as "ideology" because you are humble. It is arguable a humble man would not assume that falaciousness is an effective tool in undermining an opponents argument.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You don't strike me as lacking intelligence. Can you tell me how Social Security fits into that definition? How the retirement age might effect production? How Social Security taxes might effect hiring? How consumption might be effected?

This is where a less humble man would retort with an emotional idealogical argument and discount the logic.

At best, the effect a retiree has on the economy is in terms of consumption, not production, and particularly in regards to the paltry amount doled out to the retiree from Social Security.

I will skip the "Marxist" and Humility bits.

As far as the above....you do enjoy reading and educating yourself?

There are three major ways countries can change pension systems to reduce costs:

• Raise the retirement age: Lifetime benefits paid to retirees are reduced. This encourages workers to remain in the labor force longer, which means they earn more over their lifetime. The increase in lifetime income could lead workers to save less and consume more during their working years. In addition, the increased fiscal savings from reduced pension payments will have long-term positive effects on GDP growth by lowering the cost of capital and encouraging investment.

• Reduce pension benefits: To avoid a sharp reduction in income and consumption in retirement, workers would likely boost savings. Consumption would fall in the short to medium term, but investment would increase over the long term.

• Increase workers’ contribution rates: Because higher rates reduce income, households might be less motivated to work, which could depress economic activity in both the short and long term.

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/06/pdf/karam.pdf

Very adult Mr President.

Stamp your feet and scream "You're Stupid!!" to your parents when they won't give you more allowance after you spent it all on candy to give to your friends.

How can I not respect someone like that.

reply to post by Indigo5

I will skip the "Marxist" and Humility bits.

As far as the above....you do enjoy reading and educating yourself?

Given that it was you brought the issue of humility into this thread, and given it turned around and bit you in the ass, it would behoove you to drop it.

As to your question, it is an odd one, and seems to have no bearing on this thread.

As to the link you provided, and given you couldn't be bothered to follow it up with your own reasoning as to why you quoted what you did, this forces me to assume you did so to support your erroneous contention that retirement affects production. Yet, what you posted speaks to cost, earnings, and consumption. It doesn't speak to production at all. In fact, what you quoted only supported what I all ready explained to you in my previous post.

Did you bother to read that which you quoted?

Originally posted by macman
I just love hearing this asinine comparison.
Seeing that most Mechanics can actually fix an engine and almost every politician and economist can't fix the economy, I think it is high time that the mechanic got a shot at it.
Don't really see the mechanic making it worse, then what the professional elected idiot and his compatriots have brought us to.

edit on 13-7-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Who is the professional mechanic in your imaginary scenario? Is that anyone and everyone in the country or are there specific people you have in mind?

I felt the comments were very condescending.

As being in a position of management . I am faced with budgetary constraints. Balancing materials labor cost warranty of work expansion capitol improvements quality of work and customer satisfaction and the bottom line all are balanced with the overall cost of the job or the other products we sell .

For a company the cash flow is the life blood of the company the same is true for the government.

You need a constant supply of cash to survive !

When a company is in the negative cash flow there are 2 ways out get a loan or lay off and cut costs . Now the get a loan program only works for a short period of time cash flow must increase or another loan needs to be taken out this downward spiral can continue till the company has more loan debts than it can ever pay back . This leads to insolvency your going broke . Most banks will judge the loans by the prospective of the company getting back in the black or being over come with debt .

As i see it the government is really no different than a company or corporation . But the government is in control over the bank which it gets loans from . It does not have the banker saying cant loan any more your debt to liquidity ratio is to high . The problem is a cash flow problem.

To solve a cash flow problem there is a few ways for a government to do so raise taxes and cut spending and encourage economic growth. Trade imbalances with other countries and high personal and corporate taxes make economic growth a very slim prospect.

Simply raising the debt ceiling is taking on more loan obligation that we can never pay back.

Its not rocket science it is condescending to say average American don't know or needs to know just to professional politicians need to worry about it .

That is how we got in to this mess Professional politicians

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


Too many "businessmen" seem to think that running a business and running the government are alike. I have to assume the purpose of your business is to turn a profit. That is not the purpose of our government. That is the purpose of a monarchy.