Good. Spending money on schit we don't need is what drives our economy.

On the topic of the thread, I've said it once and I'll say it again, it's easy to be in favor of socialism (real socialism, not Scandinavia) on a full stomach. Bernie's campaign and his supporters are a reflection of that.

(02-10-2016 06:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You are just so funny...lol. We've got upwards of 700,000 homeless now. But Bernie could be good for the country...if his agenda was ever allowed to go through. We know it won't though.

Quote:Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

The problem is that this economist happens to be the same exact economist who authored Bernie's proposal. Gerald Friedman refers to himself as a "heterodox economist," which means that he doesn't adhere to widely accepted economic beliefs, released a proposal on how to fund a plan that replaced private health insurance with a 100% government managed system. That plan was based off of a hypothetical one year budget. A few years later when Bernie started running for president, Sanders adopted this proposal as "his" plan for healthcare. Friedman then revised the plan to make it a 10 year proposal like a president budgets for submits.

CNN acts almost as though Sanders had his plans thoroughly vetted by an impartial economist, but he clearly didn't. It's not legit. This CNN article is the equivalent of me authoring a "jobs boosting" proposal back in 2013, Rand Paul then adopting it as "his" plan last year, and then when someone questions whether or not the plan would actually work as advertised, I write an essay defending what is now referred to as "Rand's Plan." Is that independent research that should be relied upon as accurate? Even if it were a legit economist, he's only one out of thousands in the US, and one guy doesn't make for a consensus.

(02-10-2016 06:45 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 03:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 02:48 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  How much of that is my tax money?

Good question!

a percentage of what capitalism coupled with wanting to 'save the whales' and class division yields....

welcome to hell on dirt

I'm going to have to use that one sometime.

I suggest 4 wheels before the face = planting + worms devouring process begins

(02-10-2016 07:29 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Good. Spending money on schit we don't need is what drives our economy.

makes perfect 'cents' to dem idiots.....

and it works the other way too....

TV....that's the reason....

however, that guy could become the final nail as the crippler

(02-10-2016 06:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:03 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

If Bernie gets elected there will not be one homeless person in America.







There will be millions.

You are just so funny...lol. We've got upwards of 700,000 homeless now. But Bernie could be good for the country...if his agenda was ever allowed to go through. We know it won't though.

Quote:Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.

Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

Well, with such a hopelessly optimistic outlook like that, I'd imagine there will be a lot of job openings for unicorn tamers and tour guides through the land of lollipop rainbows.

This reads like an Onion article. So CNN hires a professor who is a democratic socialist to do an "analysis" of Bernie's proposals and the results are all rainbows and unicorns but it's a private study so we won't show his work? That's about as intellectually dishonest as it is possible to be.

Eagerly awaiting CNN's follow-up column featuring a capitalist economist to offer a balanced counterpoint to the column devoted to a democratic socialist economist.

That's the thing with economists - they are too often put on pedestals. But each have biases that influence what they consider the right fiscal "path." Paul Krugman wants leftwing Society A, so he'll trumpet what he considers the best means to get there and will paint a rosy picture in the process. Milton Friedman wanted Society B, so he'd recommend steps to getting there. And so forth.

Left wing economists are blatant liars.

(02-10-2016 06:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  So if we have so many homeless why aren't those whimpering, feeling sorry for themselves Liberal children that are crying for their safe spaces do something about them. I know Christian charities try so why not the ones that say that they are for the common man. The reason they don't is that they're so absorbed in their own little world that in reality they couldn't care less about the other guy. It's never about "THOSE" people to them it's always about them.

It's easier to complain than actually do anything.

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

(02-10-2016 06:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  cuts in food stamps and Medicaid

Bro, you don't get moral credit for advocating money being forced out of people's paychecks by the threat of the IRS, their henchmen, and a prison sentence to fund inefficient and mistreated government initiatives. No, that is simply lazy, self-righteous bullying. You cannot force money out of people's paychecks at gunpoint and claim moral superiority.

(02-11-2016 09:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

Nobody I know in pro life movement is an advocate of murder, or of abortion being anything other than what it is, which is an act most of us would find to be a last resort. That said, everybody I know in pro life movement believes a woman has a right to control her own body, up to and including the right not to have a child.

To me, the hypocrisy on this issue is firmly on the side of those who preach limited government out of one side of their mouth while wanting that same government to restrict a woman's right to choose.

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

I don't remember anything from ages 1, 2 or 3 either.....do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

One could also ask what one's favorite memory of being a 1-year-old is as well.

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Nobody I know in pro life movement is an advocate of murder, or of abortion being anything other than what it is, which is an act most of us would find to be a last resort. That said, everybody I know in pro life movement believes a woman has a right to control her own body, up to and including the right not to have a child.

To me, the hypocrisy on this issue is firmly on the side of those who preach limited government out of one side of their mouth while wanting that same government to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Among those with limited government stances, the belief is that the individual rights of the yet-to-be-born child is being violated. So there's no paradox here.

From my personal POV: I'm willingly pro-choice for the first trimester, but even that makes me squeamish when the fetus' brain waves, nervous system and heartbeat start kicking in around weeks 8-9(?).

Beyond that, as far as later term abortions, I'd be find with it banned. I honestly don't understand the mindset of anyone who's seen an ultrasound of a second- or third-trimester and conclude that it's as inanimate an object as the keyboard I'm typing on now. When I saw my son in the 20-week, I saw my son. Not a lifeless blob. I'm surprised that those who'd call themselves 'bleeding hearts' wouldn't feel the same. [/mini soapbox]

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 05:56 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Apparently there’s big money for Bernie in appealing to the altruism of the soft-core social justice warrior. Donate a $20, feel good about ignoring the homeless guy on the corner!

Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

Probable the same as your favorite memory of being 2 weeks old.

Quote:That said, everybody I know in pro life movement believes a woman has a right to control her own body, up to and including the right not to have a child.

True, and like mot rights this extends right up until they harm/kill another human.

Quote:To me, the hypocrisy on this issue is firmly on the side of those who preach limited government out of one side of their mouth while wanting that same government to restrict a woman's right to choose.

That's because your too obtuse to see their point of view. I don't know if you are *trying* to be that obtuse or God granted you bliss by making you a person who is actually that ignorant. I'm not sure which.

It's not big government to say "Don't kill another human".

The disagreement is on when something is human..

Women aren't ending their own life. Doing what they want with their own body is fine. Another life isn't their body.

(02-11-2016 09:58 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

I don't remember anything from ages 1, 2 or 3 either.....do you really want to go down that slippery slope?

Yeah, that logic boggles the mind. I guess not remembering something is reason enough to just kill someone off. Asinine.

(02-11-2016 10:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:35 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:33 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(02-10-2016 06:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Kind of like some of the pro-lifers ignoring homeless children and the hungry across the world?

They do much more than ANYONE ELSE.

Hypocrite.

It is weird thinking, isn't it. In order to prevent homeless children and famine, let's just murder them before they have a chance to become homeless and hungry.

Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

Probable the same as your favorite memory of being 2 weeks old.

Quote:That said, everybody I know in pro life movement believes a woman has a right to control her own body, up to and including the right not to have a child.

True, and like mot rights this extends right up until they harm/kill another human.

Quote:To me, the hypocrisy on this issue is firmly on the side of those who preach limited government out of one side of their mouth while wanting that same government to restrict a woman's right to choose.

That's because your too obtuse to see their point of view. I don't know if you are *trying* to be that obtuse or God granted you bliss by making you a person who is actually that ignorant. I'm not sure which.

It's not big government to say "Don't kill another human".

The disagreement is on when something is human..

Ah, nice.

Do you believe all human life is sacred? If so, can/do you support war? What about the death penalty? What about the right to die? When does someone's life become "not sacred" for you? When it's poor and needs help feeding itself? When it worships a different religion? Holds different views about politics? Illegally enters the country? Commits a crime? Goes to jail?

No accusations there, simple questions.

Government is a series of choices. Always has been, always will be. I just happen to think those who preach that we should choose greater individual liberty and smaller government should not want to limit a woman's right to control her own body and force her to have a child she may not be physically, mentally or financially capable of caring for. Ultimately, I believe it's a woman's choice. If that's obtuse and ignorant in your obviously superior eyes, then so be it.

(02-11-2016 10:01 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Just curious what your favorite memory of being in the womb is.

One could also ask what one's favorite memory of being a 1-year-old is as well.

(02-11-2016 09:53 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Nobody I know in pro life movement is an advocate of murder, or of abortion being anything other than what it is, which is an act most of us would find to be a last resort. That said, everybody I know in pro life movement believes a woman has a right to control her own body, up to and including the right not to have a child.

To me, the hypocrisy on this issue is firmly on the side of those who preach limited government out of one side of their mouth while wanting that same government to restrict a woman's right to choose.

Among those with limited government stances, the belief is that the individual rights of the yet-to-be-born child is being violated. So there's no paradox here.

From my personal POV: I'm willingly pro-choice for the first trimester, but even that makes me squeamish when the fetus' brain waves, nervous system and heartbeat start kicking in around weeks 8-9(?).

Beyond that, as far as later term abortions, I'd be find with it banned. I honestly don't understand the mindset of anyone who's seen an ultrasound of a second- or third-trimester and conclude that it's as inanimate an object as the keyboard I'm typing on now. When I saw my son in the 20-week, I saw my son. Not a lifeless blob. I'm surprised that those who'd call themselves 'bleeding hearts' wouldn't feel the same. [/mini soapbox]

the entire topic is an emotional issue due to the nature of life that has the largest brain and how it behaves in a specific environment

however it gets chopped up (pardon the pun), there are only two things to consider from a logical perspective....

1. qty of humans relative to the dirt mechanism that supports it...what is that ceiling?

2. the economic structure to effectively maintain the whole....what is best method?

IMO, the neatest thing about studying humanity is how the control mechanisms have developed over time....

just like the bibble being written in various ways....it's just another sequence of life attempting to survive....

logic is the one those in control have always feared....it gets funererererer watching those that believe they can continue to control as we breathe today's air....