Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ignoring the theoretically impossible universes of which you seem so fond, you really need to stop making stuff up. There is no economic model that requires the US to cut its economy by 80%. Reducing our percentage of global resource use does not require a smaller domestic economy. I'm unsure which of your failings is more severe: economics or basic math. But is at least good to see you are ambiguously embracing the liberal position on sustainable development. Don't let your buddies at the Heritage Foundation know. I suspect that apostasy among conservatives is no more warmly received than apostasy in Islam.
You do not appear to have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The global economy is not a zero sum game.
I'm an aerospace engineer by training. I know the laws of thermodynamics like the back of my hand.
By referencing them in this discussion you are speaking unrefined crack-pottery.
Okay. Then show and prove to the rest of us we have a planet that can sustain 5, 6, 7, 8 Americas.
Quit being stupid. Just because you claim to be in aerospace does not lend credence to retardation and self-delusion.
If you knew the laws of thermodynamics then you'd know they closely match the laws of economics and all things around you.
I suppose you're about to argue that there's no equilibrium and that you can somehow defy the laws of physics, nature, economics and man.
Okay. Then show and prove to the rest of us we have a planet that can sustain 5, 6, 7, 8 Americas.
Why would I want to do that? America could not have sustained one "America" a mere 50 years ago. I decline to chase your red herring... especially since they're carp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Quit being stupid. Just because you claim to be in aerospace does not lend credence to retardation and self-delusion.
True, but referencing the laws of thermodynamics in this discussion proves beyond challenge that haven't any idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
If you knew the laws of thermodynamics then you'd know they closely match the laws of economics and all things around you.
I state without any fear of contradiction that such an assertion is stupid beyond belief. At the very, very, very best they can be used as analogies. But to the extent they can be used that way, they are bad analogies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
I suppose you're about to argue that there's no equilibrium and that you can somehow defy the laws of physics, nature, economics and man.
Not at all. I'm arguing that you are using big words to disguise that you're really saying precisely nothing.
Why would I want to do that? America could not have sustained one "America" a mere 50 years ago. I decline to chase your red herring... especially since they're carp.
True, but referencing the laws of thermodynamics in this discussion proves beyond challenge that haven't any idea what you're talking about.
I state without any fear of contradiction that such an assertion is stupid beyond belief. At the very, very, very best they can be used as analogies. But to the extent they can be used that way, they are bad analogies.
Not at all. I'm arguing that you are using big words to disguise that you're really saying precisely nothing.
And it's not working.
Wow, a king of deflection and disregard (and apathy).
Analogies you say? WTF do you think your entire economy is based on? The law of thermodynamics. The laws of economics.
I don't care to argue with you about the nuances of your misunderstandings, here are some facts:
2025: -788
2030: -1,416
2035: -2,258
2040: -3,320
Those are deficits that will be imposed on the US economy in the years provided in billions of dollars. Yes, that's a loss of $788 billion economically in 2025, just 12 short years from now.
Here's the kicker. Those assumptions are based on your economy being at $49 trillion a year and the average income per capita of $124,000 per year.
Face it, you can't pay for your wild fantasies and you never could. It was all made up make-believe Peter-Pan BS that you were completely complicit in.
Your economy is doing just find you say? You say that your "progress" is something to base the future on?
BS. You're spending 25 times more than your economy increases an even that's faltering.
In the end, no matter what appeals to power and authority you provide your outcome will be the same. No matter what lies you perpetrate upon the public all roads lead to the same results.
50 years ago the world could sustain one America. Today it can't sustain one America and you can see that by your eroding wages, your eroding infrastructure, your eroding political and economic power.
Well maybe you can't see it but there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
This is where you come in with starving the beast analogies and pure political ideology. The simple fact remains, you can't compete on the world market and when you can your GDP will be fraction of what it was in 2012. Specifically 1/5th.
Waiting for your one sentence responses....
Last edited by BigJon3475; 11-23-2012 at 08:42 PM..
80% of people under 30 support same sex marriage. Young Republicans are in general more open to the issue than older ones, even those who are religious.
But Democrats have most of the youth vote.
Also it would seems that older folks are setting the agenda in the Republican Party in term of social issues.
Ignoring the theoretically impossible universes of which you seem so fond, you really need to stop making stuff up. There is no economic model that requires the US to cut its economy by 80%. Reducing our percentage of global resource use does not require a smaller domestic economy. I'm unsure which of your failings is more severe: economics or basic math. But is at least good to see you are ambiguously embracing the liberal position on sustainable development. Don't let your buddies at the Heritage Foundation know. I suspect that apostasy among conservatives is no more warmly received than apostasy in Islam.
You do not appear to have any idea what the hell you are talking about. The global economy is not a zero sum game.
I'm an aerospace engineer by training. I know the laws of thermodynamics like the back of my hand.
By referencing them in this discussion you are speaking unrefined crack-pottery.
So cutting taxes and putting 2 wars on the credit card is the blueprint for fiscal sovency?
I couldn't rep your but
Republicans talking about fiscal reform without raising taxes is like a business wanted to increase profits without raising revenue.
That doesn't mean that some budget cuts don't have to be made but the idea that your are going to solve the federal governments fiscal prices without some increase in taxes is patently illogical.
If only that were true OP. The entitlement society is growing, and with that, the Democratic Party is growing with it. With Democratic policies, the Dems have created their own direct pipeline of voter support. The "47%" get 1 vote just as everyone else does, and that "47%" is GROWING, not shrinking.
And besides, right or wrong, logical or illogical, like it or not, people just do not like the idea of old white guys talking about cutting their "stuff."
If only that were true OP. The entitlement society is growing, and with that, the Democratic Party is growing with it. With Democratic policies, the Dems have created their own direct pipeline of voter support. The "47%" get 1 vote just as everyone else does, and that "47%" is GROWING, not shrinking.
And besides, right or wrong, logical or illogical, like it or not, people just do not like the idea of old white guys talking about cutting their "stuff."
The 47% has huge susbets like the elderly and military, who happen to vote primarily Republican.
Mitt's error was in equating the votes he LOST with the whole 47%.
The EITC recipients , tons being urban, most likely went against him. But the military and retirees far outnumber them.
The 47% has huge susbets like the elderly and military, who happen to vote primarily Republican.
Mitt's error was in equating the votes he LOST with the whole 47%.
The EITC recipients , tons being urban, most likely went against him. But the military and retirees far outnumber them.
Obama won the vast majority of those who earned less than 30k per year with a high school education or less, which would include veterans within that income bracket who were out of the military or those who were the elderly. They also represented approximately 20% of the voting block. To keep it simple, if you were poor, regardless of where you came from--you probably voted for Obama.
Yes, Mittens lost the "47%" vote and with it the Presidency.
Unless the GOP runs on a platform of giveaways, the next election will be their demise. Regardless of who or what is responsible for the increase in the policies that has substantially increased the COL, folks do not want to hear about being "cut" from anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
