DJ Premier

You can always justify complicated things that are destroying the economy if you dumb it down and use examples that show your side of it. What if I sell 15000 TVs at $700 when you had to pay more than $1000 to stock a single unit in your store. Then I tell the TV manufacturer that because sales are so high the value of their TV has actually dropped and if he wants to make a sale of 15,000 units he will have to sell them to me at $500 per unit. Now the TV manufacturer isn't making the same profit margin and stops making TVs and makes something else and you, the small businessman, who counted on that manufacturer to make your TV can't get stock and what's worse is that now you are also also stuck with the ones you have and are forced to sell at a loss and now your business goes under.

 

Conjecture is fun why make it so simple that a liberal can understand all of the ramifications? lol

The scenario you described is just business. That's how it works, that's how it will always work, and that's how it should work. You as a business person should never have sold the units for that low if you couldn't get them at a price that made you a profit. You took on that risk and now you're faced with a loss. Tough. Don't do it again. The manufacturer also has a choice, they can buckle under the sales pressure and drop the price to $500 and take a loss that risks their plant. That's a decision the manufacturer has to make based on business conditions and if he makes the wrong choice then tough...that's business. Business is all about how much you can sell your goods vs how much you can get your goods. It's a very simple concept and it has worked this way since the dawn of bartering. If I tell you I'm going to give you 100 corn for your 10 deer and then I take your deer and then can't come up with the corn, well...I'm in a bad position. Tough, that's business.

Conjecture? Hardly. It's simply business.

Regulation is not the short term answer and neither is drilling for more oil. These are both narrow views.

 

1) What would regulation really do? Force our car manufacturers to make more efficient cars? That'll take 6-7 years to take effect. Consumer demand drives what companies produce. If you're all willing to buy the hummers of the world, then manufacturers should continue to build them.

 

I disagree. Don't regulate consumers, don't regulate corporations. Regulate our futures market. Force buyer's to take possession of contract. Force sellers to have oil to deliver. Or force oil to trade on a totally different market with different rules.

 

How many of you have played an MMORPG with a player market? Eve? Conan? What if I could buy and sell items without taking possession? What if I could sell an item before I bought it? What if I had no interest in the items, but just wanted to make money off of trading them? I'm sure we will both agree that players would not be paying the true market value.

Easier said than done. Global trading is done in a way where possession isn't required and shouldn't be required. At the micro level, should I not be able to sell you a TV for $1000 and then once sold, go buy it for $700 and deliver it to you as long as its within a reasonable sales time frame? Happens all the time.

Suggestions based on pragmatism welcome. Lip service only makes you look uninformed. I can easily make a similar statement as yours. Shut down the military! That will reduce it to balanced levels. No more raising the debt level.

 

Will it happen? No. Does it help the argument? No. Is it just noise in an already noisy debate? Yes.

agreed, which is what prompted my abortion comment.

reply wasnt meant for you. sry. unable to quote from mobile.

Suggestions based on pragmatism welcome. Lip service only makes you look uninformed. I can easily make a similar statement as yours. Shut down the military! That will reduce it to balanced levels. No more raising the debt level.

Will it happen? No. Does it help the argument? No. Is it just noise in an already noisy debate? Yes.

Oh someone made a comment about Obama printing money to pay debt. Also a very narrow and uninformed view. Do you have any idea what would happen if the debt ceiling wasn't raised? What that would do to the entire country? Obviously not if you're thinking that not raising it is an option. No politician nor informed person believes that should be an option, regardless of affiliation. Does it mean we shouldn't try and trim debt? Absolutely not.

Regarding debt, this statement is across the board. Everyone loves to talk about lowering our deficit/budget. But when it comes down to it, no one wants to give up the services that directly affect them. This is true of republicans and democrats.

Gas prices are what they are because of speculation in the markets, tensions rising in our sources (middle east) and an exponentially growing china and india.

Regulation is not the short term answer and neither is drilling for more oil. These are both narrow views.

1) What would regulation really do? Force our car manufacturers to make more efficient cars? That'll take 6-7 years to take effect. Consumer demand drives what companies produce. If you're all willing to buy the hummers of the world, then manufacturers should continue to build them.

2) Drilling. What would drilling really do? Does anyone really think that drilling is going to put even a small dent in the amount of oil we import? We could drill half the gulf and still only be a fraction of what we pay OPEC. It doesn't do anything but continue our dependence on oil.

There is nothing short term any president can do to lower gas prices. Republican nor Democrat. The best answer to get off of this addiction. In the meantime, we'll suffer the high prices and slowly but surely, we'll start migrating to more fuel efficient cars, just like ZD is contemplating.

.fx, give it up man. Btw...your link is hilarious!

FX, Jiffy - No one cares about climate change...really. If you had to pick between healthcare and climate change, well...i pick healthcare. Most religions believe that the earth is not heaven, therefore if the earth should crumble due to climate change, its appears to be a fast path to heaven for all believers. Can't be a bad thing from a religious point of view. Either way, we could all perish from a giant meteor hitting the earth. I suppose we should join the right and say its not a problem and cut funding for NASA.

You are confusing Republicans with Conservatives. While Conservatives tend to be in the Republican Party, Republican party does not equal the same thing as Conservative. If anything, this past election cycle should have shown you that. The establishment Republican party fought hard against their own candidates because the established politician got voted out in the primaries. If anything, the Conservative agenda is what put the Republican party back in power this week.

If this is true (which I am uncertain if it is), it may have been a good election result after all. I think time will tell. I think we both agree that government should be small and spending should be pointed and direct but probably where we disagree is where to spend it. I am all for healthcare and education spending.

Social issues were not on the ballot this year. At least not on the larger national scale. What was on the ballot this year was the size of government and the economy.

I agree. I think I'm still recovering from the 8 years prior which seemed purely defined by social issues. I'm actually glad its moved to the back because social issues are divisive and there really is little room for compromise.

You should not make it personal; I do not. I work at a major university and the majority of my colleagues and friends are liberal. My best friend here is actually a big time liberal.

Oh, I was using the proverbial "I", not as in me. lol.

 

A study done a few years ago proves otherwise. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

And every tax season I read stories about how so-and-so liberal gave little of their income to charity while some conservative gave significantly more. I see this every year. What I say is true.

I'm not sure if I agree with that article. Charitable donations also include church offerings. A lot of my christian friends give heartily to their church. I wonder though, are liberals less religious? I tend to think so but don't have data to back it up.

This analogy really doesn't cut it. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. While there isn't any specific "right" to have children, there is no law against having sex.

I think the analogy is fair. You must buy car insurance to protect yourself but also those around you. Having children may not be a right nor a privilege, but, it is a choice one makes and choices have consequences, like....you have to take care of your child.

Fox being slanted to the right also follows poles which show most Americans are also right of center in their beliefs and voting habits.

 

You make more than $250,000 per year, fantastic for you. I'm sure you have worked very hard to get the education needed for this. I have a college degree but only make $35,000+/- a year and live quite well, so no complaints here, but I'm just above the poverty level so guess what'll happen when universal healthcare hits me in my taxes? I'll probably lose an extra $2000+ per year to it according to most predictions. Still above the poverty level but that's almost as much as my car payment was before I paid it off. Heck if it was all being picked up by those making $250k per year why should I complain? I complain because it's stupid to work hard, go to school, get good grades, find a job and become successful only to be penalized with higher taxes just because you are now what is considered wealthy. I believe that there should be no income tax, no property tax, no sales tax on food and medicine. I believe, instead, there should be a flat tax on all purchases.

 

I think people who are socially liberal and above average earners are quite content throwing taxation around on the rest of America but it isn't "fair", nor is it in the spirit of the constitution.

Nice debating with you. Have a great life.

Fox News has mostly conservative commentators. Their news reporting shows are straight down the line though. Watch the 6PM Eastern show if you do not believe me.

 

I will add that I am not a fan of Hannity but he has honest debates/discussions with many liberal colleagues on his radio show and on his TV show and he is good friends with most of them. He doesn't ambush them or crap all over them like liberal radio hosts do. It's hard to see the differences when you hate anything to the right of Hillary Clinton but there are differences; you have to be willing to see them.

Wow, you HAVE changed. You agreeing that Fox is biased to the right is a huge step. I'm sure we can dig up countless debates where you denied this repeatedly. Anyone who states that Fox is not biased towards the right is too far gone to have a healthy debate. Fox is to the right, the NYTimes is to the left. In general, news coverage is down the middle in most respectable publications. NPR being the most in the middle. But, its hard to tell these days given news and opinion is often merged making credibility of journalism very much tainted. I decided I'd get my news from Jon Stewart. He's left leaning but he's funny as hell and isn't blinded by is own leftish views like most of the "yell at the screen" conservative opinionators.

Sounds like a basic disagreement on the following:

I believe there is a problem with healthcare

You believe there is not

Not in totality but in general speak.

We disagree on this matter and we'll likely not convince each other regardless of argument. The difference between you and me is that I believe healthcare is something that should be provided to all citizens of our country. I don't think it should be voted upon, it should be a right. Again, We disagree on this matter and we'll likely not convince each other regardless of argument. Debate is fruitless and we should move on. I am interested to hear ZD's response though.

Regarding your points:

- Yes, you can be denied coverage due to an existing illness. It's happened to my brother.

- Yes, there are free clinics throughout the country. Have you tried using one? I have and so has my extended family. You can be denied based on a variety of factors.

- Yes, there are state and city run insurance programs that are low cost, but they are primarily based on income. So if you are below the poverty line, you will likely qualify but if not, e.g., you are middle class yet don't have insurance, you can't use these programs without paying a hefty price

- Universal healthcare works. After Obama passed the recent heathcare bill, we join modern society in taking care of our citizens.

- How do we pay for it? Good question. For one, I make more than $250,000 a year. My taxes will likely go up once the Bush era tax cuts expire. I don't mind. Maybe you do, but I don't. I agree it may not cover it all. We should cut other things since I also believe in fiscal responsibility. Defense? Maybe some. Don't touch education. Redoing the tax code is probably in order. Regardless, human well being and being able to take care of ourselves as people trumps many things in my opinion. Maybe not build that bridge to nowhere. Maybe let the prescription drug bill lapse. Old people are generally well off and can afford it and for those who can't...well, thats where universal healthcare comes in (but old folks vote intensely so that won't ever happen).

- Oh yeah, Yes, you can go to an emergency room and not be denied coverage. Have you tried it? I have. I had to discard my wallet and any form of ID, lied about who I was. They set my broken arm and sent me on my way. I'm very grateful. I took the cast off myself when it felt right to do so. Oh btw, this is how the illegals get coverage. They just go to our emergency rooms so maybe this is the answer to universal coverage? Just go to the emergency room. I guess it could work.

And lastly, the healthcare bill is far from flawless. There is stuff in there that is just plain dumb. But its a start. I commend Obama for having the balls to push it through. It hurt him in the polls and cost a lot of people their jobs but in the end, having something to start with is better than waiting another 80 years to make it perfect. I suspect many aspects of the bill will be altered. That's the point through. We now have a base to start from. Obama is far from perfect but he understands that when given a choice between endless debate vs making some progress, however small, he'll choose progress every time. It's an admirable quality.

Well ZD, you are right. I don't visit often. Maybe twice a year or so but I do stop by this particular forum to see if anything interesting is being discussed. But its usually the same. Jiffy vs ZD. Same arguments, same stances, etc. It's like a never ending cycle, its like a mirror of our current political environment.

Regarding your statement that the conservatives want small government, that is really untrue. I mean, I know conservatives want to believe it and it sounds good and all but Conservatives want big government just like the left, except they want a big government serving conservative ideas. Of course there is a lot of talk about small government but its a lot of hot air. We can look at the past couple of decades as prime examples. There hasn't been true conservatism in quite some time. If there were, I'd be a conservative. I too also believe in small government but it can't happen.

Conservatives these days are defined by social issues. Same with the left. Both sides are so busy trying to force the other to live like their side, everything else becomes moot. Yes, I am socially liberal. I define conservatives with the socially conservative (since I concluded conservatives really don't want small government). Social views are highly divisive. I don't like social conservatives. And down and down the rabbit hole we go.

The right is against large government. Conservatives and those on the right do actually care which is why donations and giving to charities to help the sick are overwhelmingly supported by Conservatives versus the left. What the government fails at doing as an overwhelming bureaucracy, local churches and charities do better without the fraud, corruption, and cost.

On paper, it sounds good. Rely on local and national charities and churches to solve the massive health care problem. But, isn't that what we've been doing for 200 years? It's not working. Millions of folks don't have healthcare, people are being dropped because they have some strange condition and/or after some coverage people get dropped because they've spent too much money. Maybe it should be "survival of the fittest". If you get sick, you should just die. I'm not kidding. That way, the next generation is stronger. I mean, its kinda like capitalism right? "I worked very hard to be this healthy person. Why should I have to spend money for those who weren't as healthy as I was? We all had our opportunities to eat and be healthy. They didn't follow through like I did. So I don't want to be made to suffer for their indiscretions. Round them up and let them die". Sounds callous right? But you know a part of you thinks it. After all, its analogous to capitalism and I know you're a capitalist.

Regarding your statement that donations are charities are overwhelmingly supported by those on the right vs the left. That is false. Both sides give to charity and both sides help with non-profits to help society. And..it's not working. Time for something new.

Let me ask you. You're required to get auto-insurance when you buy a car. I say, you're required to get health care insurance, when you have a kid. If you can't afford to take care of your kids, don't have kids.

Let me state why those on the left hate those on the right. I'm not saying I agree, but what I see and hear is as follows.

The left believe the following:

- Christians rule the right.

- The right want to make us to be a theocracy like Iran or Jordan or Israel, except a christian nation vs a Jewish or Muslim nation. There is little room for Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and Hindus in the USA. And well, they can live here but under Christian rules.

- Christianity and all world religions believe in caring for they neighbor, yet, the Right vote overwhelmingly against programs like heath care for kids and the easily sick. Yet, the Right is overwhelmingly Christian. Urk?

- The Right is not concerned about making sure everyone is helped when sick, yet are very much in the business of wanted to dictate what happens in our own bedrooms. In fact, they want to make laws about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home harming no one.

Please don't ask for links. I have none to offer. I'm sure a similar list like the one above exists for the left. But let me get to the real point of the matter. I've seen these forums for over 10 years and reading the posts from ZeroDamage over the course of those 10 years has shown that he has not budged once in his views. Not in the slightest. So whats the debates all about? No one in this country is winning over the other side. No one is budging. ZD is a good sample case for this. In fact, this country has gotten so polarized that half the country absolutely hates the other. I mean LOATHES each other. No on is willing to compromise or find middle ground. I don't see this changing any time. These forums are a prime case of that fact. In fact, it is likely to only get worse until our country declines into non-achieving bickerers who let China become the world power and we become the new "British" within the next 10 years.

I'm not hear to plea for compromise or middle ground. Quite the opposite. I think its impossible. This country's decline is inevitable, just like all world powers before it.

are you asking a question or making a statement? regardless, i'd love to help you, but i use imap. which works. well.

 

why are you bent on using pop (especially when imap works)?

POP3 is for nubs

There's nothing wrong with investing during times of war. Now, if they conducted insider trading...well, they should go to prison.

Well I think ABC decided to put the questions to the candidates that have been floating around the press (both dem and fox news) Clinton and Obama have had a crapload of debates on the main issues and have both made separate speaches explaining their views on policies such as health care, the war and the economy. That was Obama's first debate where he had to answer questions regarding his actual character. If you watch the other debates Obama was the one getting the free ride while Clinton was put on the ropes, who cares if the table turned for one out of 50 freakin debates. The only real difference is that people actually watched that one lol.

These questions would have only been relevant if they occurred the day before the debate. The problem is that each of those questions have been answered 5-6-7 times during the course of the weeks before the debate. I'm not talking just vs Obama but also Clinton. It just basically made ABC look very unprofessional. I think the debate made the democratic party look foolish. But maybe that was in the intent?

Obama and Clinton are both running on a platform guaranteed to pulverize us with tax increases.

 

or it could be rephrased "restore our current tax system to pre-bush levels"....

and if I remember correctly under that system, we had a surplus of cash the last year or so of the clinton era to start paying down our massive debt....

 

regardless of how you feel about taxes.... I believe we can both agree that in order to start helping out with our debt we need to get rid of tons of government programs..

That's incorrect. If Clinton had 6 more months to his term, he no longer would have had a surplus. It's just a matter of timing. Now, Bush made things much much much worse than it should have ever been, but lets not get all rosy about clinton. One would argue clinton did very little to create that surplus, unless you credit him for the dot com boom. But then again, if you credit him for the boom, you must fault him for its crash too.

Alright -

 

This forum needs more action.

 

Obama seems to be a viable candidate for the Dems. I will still vote McCain but I am ok with Obama except for a few areas. Let's see where this goes:

 

Union Strikers - Obama wants to pass a law to protect striking workers. If you strike on your employer your job cannot be given to someone else - What in the world? If you strike and leave your job, why should it be protected? If the company hires someone else then you took a gamble and lost - life is tough, move on.

 

Unions - Obama wants to pass a law that employers cannot stop a union from being formed. I was torn until I thought about the private companies out there. If I own a company and my workers want to form a union - and I hate unions - then I should be allowed to hire new people if they form one. If my employees do not like their pay/job/hours then they can go find another job.

 

Minorities - Obama wants to pass laws strengthening the diversity laws out there. What about the majority? Currently my company has such a strict diversity requirement that lesser-qualified candidates are given higher status based SOLELY on their ethnicity. This is just plain wrong!

 

Healthcare - Obama wants healthcare provided by the government. However, he just seems to want this for children under 18. Not much I can say here, I actually agree with him, except I would move it to people that are full-time in college or 1-year out of a full-time educational status, but not their spouses. Give people a chance to get educated through HS and college and then they have to provide for themselves. Yes - this goes against the "republican" mindset but I like this plan.

Union Strikers - Agreed

Unions - Don't agree. The person will just join up a union in secret, then when he has enough protection, pounce on the owner.

Minorities - I don't think Obama wants to eliminate Equal Opportunity Employment to favor minorities. Any company that has a diversity "requirement" is not equal opportunity. The problem you are talking about is not a fault of Obama or his agenda. It's the company that is wrong. Diversity in schools is important because that is where you become more aware of yourself and your surroundings. Being around other cultures and races is beneficial because ppl tend to fear the unknown. Well then...make them known through diversity programs during the "growing years". School.

Healthcare - Obama's plan covers all children up to age 25 and does not cover spouses. Their spouse would be covered by his/her own parent if the spouse was under 25.

----

McCain doesnt' care about healthcare.

McCain wants to spend more on the military

McCain wants to expand military bases into the middle east

McCain doesn't know what to do about the economy except make tax cuts.

----

Re: Flat tax and consumption tax - Agreed, with the stipulation that there is a poverty line around 25K. This line should be adjusted for inflation/deflation on an annual basis. What I mean by poverty line....those under 25K income do not pay income tax, only consumption tax. Those who make 50K, pay income tax on 50k-25k = 25k. They pay consumption tax. Those making 10M/yr pay income tax on $9,975,000. They pay consumption tax. No write-offs except for children and education. Period. If you donate, its from the heart, not because a tax break.

Where do I stand?

If Clinton wins, I vote McCain

If Obama wins, I sit out the vote and let you schmucks decide.

-----

I'm just thankful that none of the candidates are pushing the policy of "The USA enjoys freedom of religion....as long as its Christian". Ugh.

Oh, and for the katrina hotel problem. Who's fault is that? The governments. We could probably fund universal healthcare w/o raising taxes a single percentage. Government needs to be more accountable for spending. For instance, of the 80B send for iraq reconstruction, how much was accounted for? I think it was like 4B or something. They don't know where the other 76B went. Amazing.

Scenario 1: 5 people in a room. 1 is going to die of some disease. 4 people gather around, eat a steak and watch the last one die.

Scenario 2: 5 people in a room. 1 is going to die of some disease. The 4 people decide they'll have chicken that night instead so they can help chip in so the 5th doesn't die.

Some would say it would depend on who that 5th person is. So let's say...its your mother.

"Isn't that a bit like asking a person without a car what they think about the U.S. Interstate system? Or like asking someone who never plays games what they think about the state of console gaming on the next-gen systems?"

That is a flawed analogy. A person w/o a car can typically survive. e.g., find a job nearby or take public transportation. You can tell them not to find work too far away.

You can't tell someone not to get sick. It just happens. Maybe you see it differently. But I grew up in a neighborhood where no one I knew had healthcare. It aint pretty.

The real question would be to ask a person who doesn't have health care where they think the US ranks vs the modern world among healthcare systems.

Healthcare should be universal. To those who disagree, well, one day someone you know may die of a curable disease because they didn't have healthcare. And then maybe you'll see the light.

Karma. It's a beautiful thing.

When Paris Hilton news invades a gaming forum, you know she gets waaaay too much press.

ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,

The political group that

agrees with you most is...

CENTRIST

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

70%/40%