| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Things that make you go WTF (part 4) Posted by: sarge33rd - [4609710] Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 13:49 Thought this one, warranted the start of the 4th iteration on this, since part 3 has over 1200 posts in it: FL bans everything that connects to the internet The ban defines illegal slot machines as any "system or network of devices" that may be used in a game of chance. Now you tell me, what connects to the internet and MAY be used in a game of chance? Can you wager on FREE CELL? Yep...BUSTED | |||||||
| 29 | biliruben ID: 81382416 Thu, Feb 26, 2015, 10:42 |
The answers are not hard to find with rudimentary google skills. You can even find them from non-political sites. Who knows, you may learn something. | ||||||
| 30 | weykool ID: 43146920 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 00:31 |
I know how to find the true numbers. I want to see what crackpot site Sarge is using to make his claims. | ||||||
| 31 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 00:47 |
lmao WK. The answer to all 4 questions, is (D) anything else, and you need to shut off FOX and learn to find real information. | ||||||
| 32 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 01:12 |
link much can be garnered here WK, if you can accept the truth. National debt 1981: $994.83 billion (The debt level inherited by R Reagan) National debt 1989: $2,867.8 billion (the national debt left BY Reagan. Not precisely 3 times, but close enough for conversational purposes) Deficit 1981: $78.97 billion Deficit 1989: $152.64 billion Deficit 1993: $255.06 billions Deficit 1999: $-125.61 billion (a double negative is a positive. OK, techincally the debt didnt fall, because the interest on the debt exceeded the budgetary surplus. So you get me on a technicality n that score. I should have said the only President to inherit an annual deficit, and leave an annual surplus) National Debt 2001: $5,769.89 National Debt: 2009: $11,875.85 Again, not precisely doubled, but yes, close enough to call it that. So 3.5 points for my answer, for questions 1, 2 and 3. Question 4: Without intending to, Bruce Bartlett COMPLETELY solidifies Nuttings assignment of the 2009 budget primarily to Pres bush: I just want to note that the president has very little control over the budget one way or another; the vast bulk of spending is baked in the cake the day he takes office and changes can only be made incrementally and over time. Since the 2009 budget was established a full month before Obama was elected, and 3+ months before he was inaugurated, and the spending was "baked in the cake" already; viola! 2009, is Bush's. link So, 3.5 points for my answers of (D), and I'll give you 1/2 point for the technicality in nr 3. These are the facts WK. You can not with honesty, argue them. The numbers are a matter of historic record. The ONLY way to argue them, is to deny that words, numbers and letters, mean what they do. | ||||||
| 33 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 04:48 |
It's not even worth the debate. Sarge is not comparing apples and apples. It doesn't take into account that Dems ran the house and had control of the purse strings and thus the overspending for the large majority of those years. Clinton shouldn't get credit for the peace dividend Reagan handed him. Reagan should get credited for the peace dividend he provided America for the last 25 years...all of them. What does that add up to? Clinton inherited the Reagan recovery, the greatest recovery and bull run in America's history. And Reagan was handed an America with run-away inflation and a miasma in which the previous president told us to forever give up on the American dream and learn to live with less. Clinton had a running start. Tip O'Neil should get the blame for half Reagan's debt. Newt should get the credit for savings the House bought for America. Not Clinton. Liberals who gave us a president and a House of Rep who increased the national debt like Obama has have no business ever again crowing about fiscal responsibility. EVER. Spare us the spinning about percent to GDP. Spare us the facile slight-of-hand between debt and deficit. Here is the exponentially growing debt. What can't keep going on forever won't.  That only attempted moment of fiscal sanity obvious on that graph was Newt Gingrich's 'Debt Ceiling'. The Dem Party and the Dem Party organ known as the MSM made sure we never got another whiff of fiscal sanity. All other attempts at a debt ceiling fiscal sanity have met with vicious DEM/MSM opposition. The rest of the graph is an outrage brought about because in our entire lifetime we have never had a conservative president and a conservative House of Representatives both at the same time. And we've only ever had a conservative Speaker of the House once in our lifetime. | ||||||
| 34 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 06:40 |
| ||||||
| 35 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 07:16 |
And even if you misleadingly insist on looking at debt without the essential context of the gdp, the projection your graph used looks horribly out of date. From the CBO: 
| ||||||
| 36 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:04 |
Odd thing Boldwin, under every Dem administration since approx 1920...UNDER EVERY SINGLE ONE, the second derivative (rate of growth of the debt) was slowed. Under every GOP admin with the exception of Eisenhower, the second derivative grew. EVERY SINGLE TIME, with one exception..Eisenhower. | ||||||
| 37 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:09 | Obama got the CBO to use Gruber's numbers to rig the CBO's projections on Obamacare and it looks like they are still playing garbage-in/garbage-out over there. | ||||||
| 38 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:13 |
Sarge Ever notice that whichever party wins the presidency, it seems the other party wins congress?  There you go forgetting who controls the purse strings again. | ||||||
| 39 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:19 | Ooh, and looky. The last conservative to not have divided government was...wait for it...Eisenhower. | ||||||
| 40 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:24 |
Ike was a conservative??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ike was pro-union, pro-min wage, pro-education, pro-infrastructure spending, anti-military-industrial establishment. Me thinks, you know far less than you claim. | ||||||
| 41 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 10:31 |
He was also pro-immigration, pro-Soc Sec, pro-social safety nets, pro-progressive tax structure. Ike was a conservative, like you're a middle of the roader. | ||||||
| 42 | biliruben ID: 28420307 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 11:48 |
Let's look at actually policies: Moving backward, we have Bush, who slashed bank regulation and released the wolves and setting the table for them to blow up the world economy, spent a trillion or so to poorly execute a vendetta against someone who looked sideways at his dad, and slashed taxes for the wealthy, piling on another boat-load of debt onto the rest of the tax-payers. Which of those was due to a "democratic congress"? Moving back to Clinton, I'll let the wiki page speak: In proposing a plan to cut the deficit, Clinton submitted a budget that would cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years by reducing $255 billion of spending and raising taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of Americans.[68] It also imposed a new energy tax on all Americans and subjected about a quarter of those receiving Social Security payments to higher taxes on their benefits.[69] Republican Congressional leaders launched an aggressive opposition against the bill, claiming that the tax increase would only make matters worse. Republicans were united in this opposition, as it were, and every Republican in both houses of Congress voted against the proposal. In fact, it took Vice President Gore's tie-breaking vote in the Senate to pass the bill. Clinton's final four budgets were balanced budgets with surpluses, beginning with the 1997 budget. The surplus money was used to pay down the public debt by $452 billion. So, it was all the Republicans, with Bill along for the ride. Wait, no.. Please enlighten us about Bush #1 and Reagan's deficit cutting prowess, running up huge military bills and deregulating the S&Ls, costing tax-payers another boatload of hundreds of billions. It seems like all the republicans can do is transfer tax-payer trillions to the military and slimy, corrupt corporations. At least they are good at something. | ||||||
| 43 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 16:14 | As if all president's budgets aren't pronounced dead on arrival by all congresses which are held by the opposing party. | ||||||
| 44 | biliruben ID: 28420307 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 16:35 |
As my examples show, the budget is often only a very small piece of the impact on the debt. The U.S. budget basically reflects the fact that we are essentially a giant insurance company with a big-ass army. There is only so much you can do unless you abdicate one of those roles. What can really f things up is screwing up your responsibility to adequately tax and regulate the markets. That's where Bush and Reagan cost us, and why their deficits blew up, and saddled Obama with such a disaster. | ||||||
| 45 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 16:50 |
1) Back in the days of Eisenhower and Kennedy, even Kennedy acted and spoke like a Reagan Democrat. 2) Johnson convinced the nation to go bankrupt, head straight to hell with social over-spending. 3) By the time Reagan arrived the idea of smaller government less spending had to be re-invented as far as the two major parties were concerned. So thoroughly had the "Great Society' ideology beaten down the the idea of fiscal responsibility. 4) By the time Reagan got done re-educating America on the concept of smaller government even Bill Clinton and Dem candidates everywhere had to campaign as if they were Reaganites. Even Clinton had to declare the era of big government over. Tho he and his wife OBVIOUSLY wish it weren't. Even RINO Bush had to make a campaign promise, 'Read My Lips, No New Taxes'. Even tho he was at heart as much of a big government fan as the rest of the Bush dynasty. To this day virtually all candidates have to campaign as if they weren't planning on expanding leviathan into an all powerful Big Brother and spending America into oblivion. All thanks to Ronald Reagan. True, there may be a socialist here and there actually honest enuff to admit they believe there are no spending limits. In their mind all government spending just contributing to a glorious Keynesian explosion of prosperity, animal spirits flush with government liquidity. How's that quantitative easing workin' for ya? Not even moving the needle. [How does that line work on the public for you, Fred? Or are you in the closet with your belief of no spending limits?] | ||||||
| 46 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 17:06 |
That's where Bush and Reagan cost us, and why their deficits blew up, and saddled Obama with such a disaster. 1) Obama was an energetic booster of Acorn/government blackmail of the banking system to make sub-prime loans. 2) So then the Community Reinvestment Act leads to an economic debacle... 3) As marxism was designed to operate, you sabotage the free market system and then suggest more marxism is the solution. 4) One very successful political maxim if you are trying to destroy a country. | ||||||
| 47 | biliruben ID: 28420307 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 17:15 |
Yeah, community organizers forced Wall Street to securitize shite. As you say, "roll". | ||||||
| 48 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 17:34 |
The community organizer in chief is in bed with Wall Street. Have you not heard of 'crony' capitalism? Are you the last person in America to catch Obama with Warren Buffett and Jeff Immelt and Tom Steyer kissing in the bushes? Does it not occur to you how very very appropriate Obama's nickname president Goldman Sachs is? Are you aware of who he picks for Treasury Secretary? | ||||||
| 49 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 17:40 | And yes, Acorn and it's community organizer activists picketing bankers at their homes to make bad loans, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac leadership buying up the shoddiest loans they could find and Wallstreet brokerage houses desperate for subprime loans to deal into the deck were an iron triangle building a Frankenstein monster during that time period. | ||||||
| 50 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 21:35 | Oh gawd, ACORN may replace HITLER references in Internet Law. | ||||||
| 51 | weykool ID: 43146920 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 12:02 |
This whole argument of assigning deficits to presidents is for the most part pointless. As Boldwin has masterfully argued there are many other factors that we should be using to track the irresponsible spending. Maybe this will help those of you who lack the required understanding: I'm Just a Bill | ||||||
| 52 | Bean ID: 14147911 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 12:40 |
As long as we are teaching the kids. Spending can be divided into three parts: 1) Guns - Republicans 2) Butter - Democrats 3) Pork - Both #1 and #2 are good, #3 is bad. Both Guns and Butter can be viewed by Democrats and Republicans respectively as Pork. The truth is yet another thing. Generally it's the power of the veto that causes us to attach budget success to presidents no matter who controls congress. The economy is in the hands of the President through the Federal Reserve, more than it is in the hands of any one entity, though activity of key industries can overwhelm the feds ability to react. Any discussion of the success or failure of an administration is not solely that of any one player. Politics is why we lay blame. Pork is why we play the game. Your homework assignment is read chapter 3 and 4 and answer the questions at the ends of both chapters. No whining. [Bell Rings] | ||||||
| 53 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 13:00 |
The President has control of the treasury. The Fed is an independent entity. At least it is unless the nutcase Rand Paul has his way. Go back to School House Rock. | ||||||
| 54 | Bean ID: 14147911 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 14:24 |
From Wikipedia: As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years only.[6] Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy opinions.[citation needed] The nominees for chair and vice-chair may be chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation.[7] By law, the chair reports twice a year to Congress on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives. He or she also testifies before Congress on numerous other issues and meets periodically with the Treasury Secretary. Kinda like Supreme Court Justices. Their loyalty goes with the guy who appoints them. Most fans of Reaganomics give a tip of the hat to Greenspan. | ||||||
| 55 | Seattle Zen ID: 1610533022 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 14:42 |
Bean, you are fired as a teacher. I can imagine that living in CO Springs has conditioned you into thinking that military spending is "good" and supported by Republicans, but it is not and the Republicans have only recently thought so. I'm sure you have stumbled across this recently... Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. Yes, Dwight D. Eisenhower I posit that the notion that military spending is "good" while labeling domestic spending - schools, interstates, bridges, foundations - "pork" is immoral as measured by any ethical system. | ||||||
| 56 | Bean ID: 14147911 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 14:46 | As I said S Z, Guns is good, butter is good, pork is bad. Its up to the reader to decide whether a particular program is "pork or guns" or "pork or butter". I offer no decoder ring to help you in this decyphering. | ||||||
| 57 | Bean ID: 14147911 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 15:16 |
<55>Bean, you are fired as a teacher. Talk to my Union Steward. ;) | ||||||
| 58 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 17:55 |
Government is actually in the business of protection. The rest of the spending...umm...not so much. Here, give me your money and I'll buy you a house. No thanks. Give me your money and I'll educate your kids. No thanks. That's why I have a computer. Give me your money and I'll do research. No thanks. Private enterprise is entirely capable of doing that if you get out of their back pocket and quit regulating them to death. Give me your money and I'll declare all the wildness off limits. No thanks. Give me your money and I'll make sure no one drills for offshore oil. No thanks. We need that stuff. Etc ad infinitum There are very few legitimate roles for government. Very few things they can do efficiently. Very few times they can resist the opportunities for graft corruption and their own advancement at the public's expense, along the way to spending your money. Very very little that the free market can't do better. | ||||||
| 59 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sat, Feb 28, 2015, 19:45 |
I was just chatting with an industrial gas vendor. He tells me 5 months after they had moved into their new facility, they took down the stupendously stupid black plastic barrier the county made them erect around their property. The facility is surrounded on all sides by undeveloped weed fields. The tyrannical county official comes by and forces them to rebuild the barrier and FINES them FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS for taking it down. They ask him what's the point. He actually has the effrontery to tell them, "That is to keep your dirt from blowing over to their dirt." Now you tell me WTF good is that kind of government? The only thing most government does is to provide power and riches to the corrupt and machiavellian class of people who weasel their way into some fiefdom of entirely undeserved and unwarranted power. Enjoy your six figure yearly retirement, you arrogant dirtbag. Or did you manage to weasel three retirement streams from the people? Yeah, government is just some happy thing we do together. Sure. And you wonder why there will always be poor people. When you go blowing $5K's of the people's money all over the place for entirely no good reason and every excuse you can dream up in your greedy 'good intentioned' peabrains. | ||||||
| 60 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 02:37 |
re 51...masterfully argued? BS...the fact remains, regardless of who controlled the House and when, since 1920..EVERY Dem has seen better domestic metric performance in every category, and the GOP has with the exception of Ike, seen worse performance, in every category. This has been studied by people with real degrees in the field, and it is the Administration that matters, NOT the House. | ||||||
| 61 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 02:41 |
Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration | ||||||
| 62 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 03:19 |
No thanks. That's why I have a computer. You do know right, that the computers main means of communications, the internet, grew out of DARPA, ie, the govt. Oh the irony. | ||||||
| 63 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 11:07 | And the only reason it was a success was because the government kept their hands off it. | ||||||
| 64 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 11:13 | B? The govt BUILT it. | ||||||
| 65 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 11:42 | And now the government is fixing to destroy it. | ||||||
| 66 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 11:58 |
Furthermore:Robert Taylor, who ran the ARPA program in the 1960s, sent an email to fellow technologists in 2004 setting the record straight: "The creation of the Arpanet was not motivated by considerations of war. The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks." | ||||||
| 67 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 12:14 | W/O the original intranet, the internet would have lagged by decades from when it was. Its called, building upon a foundation. A complex concept, that often evades the simple minded and easily misled. | ||||||
| 68 | Boldwin ID: 11242516 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 12:19 |
Sarge, the guy you claim invented the internet disagrees with you. Give up. | ||||||
| 69 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 12:29 | link | ||||||
| 70 | biliruben ID: 81382416 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 12:29 | Though the first browser, which allowed broad access to the internet, was created at UofI and became Mosiac. I still remember nude Captain Janeway coming through pixel by pixel on my 1200 baud modem in 1993 when they started distributing it to students. | ||||||
| 71 | Bean ID: 14147911 Sun, Mar 01, 2015, 13:32 |
<70> I think most would agree that during the early days of home computing (late 80s to mid 90s), AOL was the driver of the internet, and its browser dominated internet access. The .edu network was probably getting more use than the .mil network in those days even though the protools were born in the DoD. Prior to AOL, home computer users used dial up access to bulletin boards while most people used the capabilities of TCP/IP and associated protocols for printer sharing and little more. Internetworking was challenging due to a number of competing, mostly proprietary, protocols on mostly coaxial LANs. In the US military, the AUTODIN system was adapted to support TCP/IP, but it wasn't until longhaul bandwidth became more affordable, and blacker technology was readily available, that it became a widely used protocol suite. Most of what I worked with in the early 90s was ADCCP, a point to point protocol, because COTS internet technology wasn't mature enough for major system investment. NIPRNET and SIPRNET entered our vocabulary in the late 90s where we were pushing Netscape as a "standard" for our mostly UNIX client/server based mission systems. Our administrative systems naturally opted for the more affordable Microsoft products. | ||||||
| 72 | Tree ID: 161036918 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 21:18 | man, i totally remember using Mosaic. | ||||||
| 73 | Bean ID: 14147911 Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 23:07 | You have memories, I lived it | ||||||
| 74 | Boldwin ID: 112382716 Sun, Apr 12, 2015, 21:25 | Experience | ||||||
| 75 | Boldwin ID: 112382716 Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 06:52 | Most of you know me as a long time proponent of lasting marriage, but taking a prolonged look at the sad and sorry extremes a 'marriage-from-hell' drove Bruce Jenner to, really gives me pause. I have to be honest and admit that. | ||||||
| 76 | Boldwin ID: 112382716 Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 22:18 | Liberal heads explode | ||||||
| 77 | Boldwin ID: 112382716 Sun, Apr 26, 2015, 22:25 | Diane Sawyer actually wondered if his transition was just a mercenary pretext for a reality TV show. Full on cognitive dissonance. | ||||||
| 78 | Boldwin ID: 49572022 Sun, Aug 09, 2015, 11:37 |
More proof It's actually 1984: Boy George is making a 'reality' TV show with the producer for the Kardasians. Culture is upstream of politics. The definition of words is upstream from culture. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: Things that make you go WTF (part 4) | ||||||||