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

I hate Obama, I'm glad his statement looks so elitist and I hope it somehow hurts him in 2012.

However, he actually has a point. Everyone who said "we live in a democracy" is WRONG. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. We do not have a DIRECT VOTE BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC on every policy issue! The average person DOESN'T understand the finer points of the issue, and public opinion polls are not and should not be in control of policy!

The point of a constitutional representative republic is for the masses to choose people to represent them, and then those people run things and make decisions. That's actually how it's supposed to work.

And with all of that said, it's obviously not working.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Or we can sit down and rationally plan a way out of the debt.

Your first suggestion was rational enough, what followed after this sentence has value and is worth discussing, but the first suggestion you made, that you imply is an irrational one, is the better choice.

edit on 12-7-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: I misread the latter part of your post, and called it lunacy for no good reason other than I didn't stop long enough to read it carefully. All apologies.

My first suggestion would involve retirement homes all over the country immediately shutting down and evicting their elderly occupants. Roll them out to the curb in a wheel chair and lock the doors. Some would be taken in by families, others have no family. It would also involve the immediate ending of all medicare and medicaid payments. It would cost tens of millions of lives and gut the moral fiber of this nation for generations. I do not consider that rational.

reply to post by Harro

I am in the same camp as them regarding ignorance on the economy. My action to them differs to them in that I keep quiet on this issue.

If this were true, we wouldn't have heard a peep from you in this thread, instead of the loud and clear ignorant opinion you offered. That opinion was a total advocacy of the Presidents remark, calling those statements "correct" that he knew more about the economy, and that you "willingly yield" to those "more informed". Before you know it, we'll be reading your posts lecturing us all on how this is a democracy and the majority rules, and how the ignorant masses have decided that we should all yield to "those more informed."

I am different to them based on my action.

Uh-huh. You're different from the people who actually understand economics but are not "them" of those people you "willingly yield" to and the people you call "small narrow minded" are so because their actions are not like yours which is ignorance and surrender.

I've taken the opportunity to do one of two things - reiterate my opinion or modify my opinion. I have chosen the former. When I say something like "I hope that clears things up" next time you should put it in context - I am merely doing one of those two mentioned things... don't simply throw it back in my face.

Oh, I've put it into context, you just don't like the context I put it into.

On your second point, I disagree with your Randian analysis of the issue. That might be a discussion for another time/thread.

Of course, that second point was that all people everywhere should act in their own self interest. This is the point you disagree with, and in your infinite ignorance have deigned a topic not worthy of this thread, even though the only reason the topic came up was because you brought it up. All people, in your infinitely open minded ignorance, should "willingly yield" to government, because the ignorant masses have spoken. Sigh.

Originally posted by CranialSponge

You can't keep putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. Eventually the continuous bleeding is going to kill you.

THAT is basic Finance 101.

Agreed. We need to fix the problem. No question about it. What you are suggesting is letting the patient bleed-out. That is a solution, but involves the death of the patient. What I am suggesting is to once again use the band-aid while at the same time implenting a plan for full recovery where band-aids will no longer be required.

One thing Obama is better at than anyone is raising money for his political campaign.

So far he has raised $86 MILLION for his 2012 run.

Too bad our professional politicians can't focus that kind of effort into resolving the nation's financial and economic crises.

reply to post by Indigo5

My first suggestion would involve retirement homes all over the country immediately shutting down and evicting their elderly occupants. Roll them out to the curb in a wheel chair and lock the doors. Some would be taken in by families, others have no family. It would also involve the immediate ending of all medicare and medicaid payments. It would cost tens of millions of lives and gut the moral fiber of this nation for generations. I do not consider that rational.

Sure, because it was entirely rational for people to place all of their faith in government when it came to their own retirement. Even though, in the back of peoples heads somewhere, they understood the system of taxation used to "fund" this oh so very rational ponzi scheme, this so called "medicaid" and "medicare" was nothing more than legal plunder, and couldn't possibly survive in perpetuity, he what the hell, right? These so called "rational" plunderers have their entitlements and all the people who have no hopes of ever getting the same chance to plunder must pay into that system that will completely fail them so old people today can keep up their plundering. Yep. Got it. You consider that "rational".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

I am in the same camp as them regarding ignorance on the economy. My action to them differs to them in that I keep quiet on this issue.

If this were true, we wouldn't have heard a peep from you in this thread, instead of the loud and clear ignorant opinion you offered. That opinion was a total advocacy of the Presidents remark, calling those statements "correct" that he knew more about the economy, and that you "willingly yield" to those "more informed". Before you know it, we'll be reading your posts lecturing us all on how this is a democracy and the majority rules, and how the ignorant masses have decided that we should all yield to "those more informed."

I don't think I've spoken on the economy once. A degree of humility in the face of more learned people wouldn't go astray in these parts. I fully agree with Obama's statement (it wasn't on the economy).

Your second response - try putting a comma somewhere.

Third response - Another insult.

Fourth response - did not read due to the above.

(Anyone watching Bernanke testify before Congress right now?)

reply to post by Harro

I don't think I've spoken on the economy once. A degree of humility in the face of more learned people wouldn't go astray in these parts. I fully agree with Obama's statement (it wasn't on the economy).

That's it keep embracing obtuseness as if it is a virtue. However, far from showing "humility" in the face of more learned people, you've deigned to enter this thread and lecture them, castigating them for having the wherewithal to discuss that economy you are so proudly ignorant of.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

I don't think I've spoken on the economy once. A degree of humility in the face of more learned people wouldn't go astray in these parts. I fully agree with Obama's statement (it wasn't on the economy).

That's it keep embracing obtuseness as if it is a virtue. However, far from showing "humility" in the face of more learned people, you've deigned to enter this thread and lecture them, castigating them for having the wherewithal to discuss that economy you are so proudly ignorant of.

At least you're responding to what I actually said. To reiterate - I don't think this is a discussion on the economy. It is a discussion on who knows more, the validity of certain opinions over others and the respect that needs to be shown to people have worked in the area longer than others. You seem to think there is an inconsistency in my admission of knowing little on the subject matter and me criticising those criticising others that are, more probably than not, less informed on the subject matter - I see no such inconsistency, but you may see one (feel free to modify or reiterate your own opinion).

And stop saying "deigned" lol.

(Link to the live feed of Bernanke for everyone - blogs.reuters.com...)

reply to post by Harro

At least you're responding to what I actually said. To reiterate - I don't think this is a discussion on the economy. It is a discussion on who knows more, the validity of certain opinions over others and the respect that needs to be shown to people have worked in the area longer than others.

How would you know which opinions were valid or not? You are admittedly ignorant of it. This is what makes your pretentious claim of "humility" all the more arrogant.

And stop saying "deigned" lol.

Then stop deigning. How about this, instead of wasting your time lecturing people who clearly know more about the economy than you do, why don't you put that time to better use, and actually learn something about the economy. That way, the next time you deign to lecture people, you can actually do so coming from an informed perspective, rather than one of ignorance. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Indigo5

 

My first suggestion would involve retirement homes all over the country immediately shutting down and evicting their elderly occupants. Roll them out to the curb in a wheel chair and lock the doors. Some would be taken in by families, others have no family. It would also involve the immediate ending of all medicare and medicaid payments. It would cost tens of millions of lives and gut the moral fiber of this nation for generations. I do not consider that rational.

Sure, because it was entirely rational for people to place all of their faith in government when it came to their own retirement. Even though, in the back of peoples heads somewhere, they understood the system of taxation used to "fund" this oh so very rational ponzi scheme, this so called "medicaid" and "medicare" was nothing more than legal plunder, and couldn't possibly survive in perpetuity, he what the hell, right?

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.

People did not place "their faith in government", they deposited their actual money with government.

Social Security is not a "Ponzi Scheme" even by the most liberal of definitions.

Social Security has 2.7 Trillion in cash reserves right now and is conservatively estimated to be solvent until 2037.

The problem is not that Social Security is insolvent, it runs at a surplus. The problem is that the US Gov. sticks it's hand in the cookie jar.

Those funds that are collected are not placed in a sacred trust, but rather collected as general funds and available and naturally spent by the US Gov. and what is deposited is US Treasury Notes or IOUs.

The conservatives in Washington would like to not have to pay back those IOUs after spending a great deal bailing out Wall Street, fighting two wars, giving subsideis to oil companies and tax breaks for the rich. Their solution is to simply privatize Social Security and keep the money. That is "legal plunder."

Appreciate your writing style, but still waiting for informed discussion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

At least you're responding to what I actually said. To reiterate - I don't think this is a discussion on the economy. It is a discussion on who knows more, the validity of certain opinions over others and the respect that needs to be shown to people have worked in the area longer than others.

How would you know which opinions were valid or not? You are admittedly ignorant of it. This is what makes your pretentious claim of "humility" all the more arrogant.

Being aware of the time they've involved in the field, the forum in which they are speaking, the people to whom they are responding etc. I'm not distinguishing between the opinions shared on here. I am distinguishing between the opinions shared on here and those shared in the real world by professionals - similar to what Obama was saying (we seem to keep moving away from the actual topic in that regard).

The above explanation should render your third sentence irrelevant if it wasn't already (being a mere insult).

And stop saying "deigned" lol.

Then stop deigning. How about this, instead of wasting your time lecturing people who clearly know more about the economy than you do, why don't you put that time to better use, and actually learn something about the economy. That way, the next time you deign to lecture people, you can actually do so coming from an informed perspective, rather than one of ignorance. Just a thought.



I do learn about it - every day. As you've seen I'm watching Bernanke and listening to him live right now. Perhaps in a few years when I feel I have sufficiently learnt enough on the topic I will profer an opinion - but not before (and that's the difference).

He is just like the rest of our "leaders." He thinks we are all just a bunch of cattle.

reply to post by Harro

Being aware of the time they've involved in the field, the forum in which they are speaking, the people to whom they are responding etc. I'm not distinguishing between the opinions shared on here. I am distinguishing between the opinions shared on here and those shared in the real world by professionals - similar to what Obama was saying (we seem to keep moving away from the actual topic in that regard).

Moving away from the topic of some ignoramus of a Senator from Illinois who never owned a business of his own, but now that he's President presumes he "knows" more about economy than the public he thinks is beneath him? That topic?

You are proudly embracing ignorance in a site whose motto is "deny ignorance" and have the audacity to lecture those who are undeniably more informed than you that your ignorance is what makes the Presidents statement valid. You then arrogantly presume that those here in this site that endeavor to defeat ignorance have no validity in their assessment because as far as your ignorant view point can gather, the President - given his own similar ignorance on economy - is more important than all the members in this site of whom you disagree with.

And, of course, sensing that you're just digging a hole that goes deeper and deeper down into nowhere, you now want to police the thread you didn't start, and pretend the O.P. would rather have your admitted ignorance on economy control the direction of this thread, rather than have an honest debate about what should be done in terms of economy. Yet, there is not much, given your ignorance, that you can offer in that regard, is there?

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.

People did not place "their faith in government", they deposited their actual money with government.

Paying taxes is not "depositing their actual money with government". Taxes are something you owe. Government is not a bank, nor is it their responsibility to act as one. People most assuredly did place their faith in government programs that are predictably unsustainable. Of course, you would have to know something about economy in order to see that.

Social Security is not a "Ponzi Scheme" even by the most liberal of definitions.

Really? Let's test that, shall we? Why don't we look at what one of the most liberal of organizations has to say about it; The SEC

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity.

In a thread highlighting the threat that Social Security checks may not go out in August due to a debt ceiling, you have the audacity to say what you say. If the Social Security scheme is not a Ponzi scheme, then why would this threat be made?

Social Security has 2.7 Trillion in cash reserves right now and is conservatively estimated to be solvent until 2037.

Pay close attention to what you wrote above, and compare that statement to what you followed with below:

The problem is not that Social Security is insolvent, it runs at a surplus. The problem is that the US Gov. sticks it's hand in the cookie jar.

Do you actually need it explained to you that a surplus constitutes the actual thing that is in surplus and is not the thing that was raided and now isn't there anymore. That is not a surplus.

Appreciate your writing style, but still waiting for informed discussion.

No you're not. You're pretending that fallacy will resemble dazzling brilliance and work as a deflection from the fact that you advocate Ponzi schemes as a form of governance and call that "rational".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Harro

 

Being aware of the time they've involved in the field, the forum in which they are speaking, the people to whom they are responding etc. I'm not distinguishing between the opinions shared on here. I am distinguishing between the opinions shared on here and those shared in the real world by professionals - similar to what Obama was saying (we seem to keep moving away from the actual topic in that regard).

Moving away from the topic of some ignoramus of a Senator from Illinois who never owned a business of his own, but now that he's President presumes he "knows" more about economy than the public he thinks is beneath him? That topic?

It isn't the moment that he becomes President that makes him suddenly know more about the economy than the average American - it is all that came before it, including his Harvard Law School education. That aside, I believe he has a team of aides that assist and advise him.

You are proudly embracing ignorance in a site whose motto is "deny ignorance" and have the audacity to lecture those who are undeniably more informed than you that your ignorance is what makes the Presidents statement valid. You then arrogantly presume that those here in this site that endeavor to defeat ignorance have no validity in their assessment because as far as your ignorant view point can gather, the President - given his own similar ignorance on economy - is more important than all the members in this site of whom you disagree with.

I have no disagreement with anyone on this site regarding the economy - after all, I know what I do not know, so how could I?

This is not a wilful ignorance we're discussing (and I believe you know this and are just being facetious) but merely knowing what you do know and knowing what you don't know and, further still, admitting it rather than launching into a diatribe on the issue.

And, of course, sensing that you're just digging a hole that goes deeper and deeper down into nowhere, you now want to police the thread you didn't start, and pretend the O.P. would rather have your admitted ignorance on economy control the direction of this thread, rather than have an honest debate about what should be done in terms of economy. Yet, there is not much, given your ignorance, that you can offer in that regard, is there?

Of course, sensing that you are up to your neck in it you mention the "digging of holes" like any other forumite on the internet. But please... ignore the topic and press on with what you want to really discuss (the topic you know so very well)... the economy... I'll sit back and take notes in fact... just let me grab my pen.

reply to post by Harro

It isn't the moment that he becomes President that makes him suddenly know more about the economy than the average American - it is all that came before it, including his Harvard Law School education. That aside, I believe he has a team of aides that assist and advise him.

Right, because everybody knows that if you want to know anything about the economy, you should first obtain a Harvard Law Degree, then surround yourself with a team of aides to assist and advise you on an economy you all ready know everything there is to know about because, after all...you have Harvard Law Degree.

I have no disagreement with anyone on this site regarding the economy - after all, I know what I do not know, so how could I?

Well, good. Maybe then you can learn something. Like the fact that all economies, often times in spite of the so called "professionals handling the economy", are subject to market forces, and market forces will act as they do based upon a natural reaction to buyers and sellers, regardless of the "handlers" involvement.

Understanding that, perhaps then you might learn that buyers and sellers will, and do, react to the "handlers" policies. Thus, when the so called "professional handlers" create a policy rooted in moral hazard and justify this moral hazard by declaring those who clearly failed; "too big to fail", in spite of anti-trust statutes that mandate the "handlers" prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail" to begin with, buyers and sellers - at least those who understand economy - lose trust in the current market environment and stop investing because of easily predictable volatility in that market place.

Of course, you don't need a Harvard Law Degree to know that anti trust laws exist. You don't need a degree in economics to know what moral hazard means, and you certainly don't need a degree at all to know when it is a really bad idea to invest in fiat currency destined to fail. Maybe you could learn this, or you can keep pretending that it is you who is actually contributing valuable information to this thread, which is that people should just shut up and let the people with Harvard Law Degrees tell them how stupid they are, and that those with Harvard Law Degrees know better what is good for them than they know themselves.

Of course, sensing that you are up to your neck in it you mention the "digging of holes" like any other forumite on the internet. But please... ignore the topic and press on with what you want to really discuss (the topic you know so very well)... the economy... I'll sit back and take notes in fact... just let me grab my pen.

If you can't understand that I am offering you a ladder to climb out of the hole you insist on digging, then keep shoveling and stop arguing with me about the ladder.

Economies function best when there is as little government intrusion as possible. Economies, while in the aggregate sense can be complex, follow simple easy to understand laws or principles. Further, the easy to understand law of entropy advises us to avoid closing up a market system so as to avoid an entropic economy. This is really very simple data that doesn't require any collegiate degree at all. So, when someone proudly announces they know nothing at all about theses simple laws and principles but believes that they know that government intrusion and policies that embrace moral hazard are perfectly acceptable because...well, because it is government doing it, after all, and government is good...the bigger the better...and feels compelled to complain about people who have overcome their ignorance, it should be taken for what it is.

The ignorant have just as much right to their opinion as the informed do. It is folly to believe the informed would ever defer to the ignorant.

Right, because everybody knows that if you want to know anything about the economy, you should first obtain a Harvard Law Degree, then surround yourself with a team of aides to assist and advise you on an economy you all ready know everything there is to know about because, after all...you have Harvard Law Degree.

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.

Of course, you don't need a Harvard Law Degree to know that anti trust laws exist. You don't need a degree in economics to know what moral hazard means, and you certainly don't need a degree at all to know when it is a really bad idea to invest in fiat currency destined to fail.

Economies function best when there is as little government intrusion as possible. Economies, while in the aggregate sense can be complex, follow simple easy to understand laws or principles. Further, the easy to understand law of entropy advises us to avoid closing up a market system so as to avoid an entropic economy. This is really very simple data that doesn't require any collegiate degree at all.

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.

The ignorant have just as much right to their opinion as the informed do. It is folly to believe the informed would ever defer to the ignorant.

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

I'll just quickly throw in a quote from a protester here in Australia that is in line with what I am saying:

"All you hear are people who are ignorant, who know nothing about the package, who know nothing about climate change, spouting their views and putting them on other people"

This is in the face of other protesters.

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.

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.

Perfect example. Thank you.

I was going to use chess earlier -

Novice - "why would you make that move?!" (proceeds to make move)
Grandmaster - (makes move that shatters the world of the novice) "that's why"

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.