Leesburg, VA has banned the American Library Association’s number one banned book for 2006. That’s right, the story of a gay family of penquins in the Central Park Zoo in NYC. So we got to have a damn constitutional amendment to stop gay penquins from destroying our way of life? If two damn penquins can destroy our entire way of life, I say we deserve to be destroyed. I know, let’s just have those two penquins destroy Leesburg.I really wish people would stop listening to the histrionics of televangelists who continually misinterpret the OT. If anyone really wants to understand the OT, then go ask a Rabbi, not a Southern Baptist.Come on, when God told the Hebrew tribes they had to marry women, well that was back in the Bronze Age. I mean, most men wanted to marry their camels. Young men were constantly bringing to the tent some cute hump and saying: “Mom, she has your eyes, doesn’t she?” So they really needed a religious tenet to tell them to reproduce with women and not the livestock. Even though the livestock were more plentiful and a hell of a lot easier to get into bed, if you know what I mean. Today, we don’t have exactly that much livestock around anymore in our urban world so I doubt that all of us still need to have a religious tenet to tell us to marry women. But when I look at our current leadership in Washington, I am not so certain that just maybe the GOP, Southern Baptists, and most of those in the Bible Belt just might need a constitutional amendment, in addition to a religious tenet, telling them they can only wed women. I mean do they really look smart enough to figure that out on their own? Really?Peter Nuhn
errata:
This sentence:
Should read like this:
If you want to suggest that the common economic understanding that deficits curb economic growth is wrong, go ahead.
Comment from: What
Apparently I’m in good company…
http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2007/10/29/focus4.html
Say “What”…are you this obnoxious in real life? Or does the anonymity of the internet allow you to be someone you’re not…?
alatham…
How much do you spend each week at the grocery store? Let’s say 100 bucks…
How much does that grocery buy from you? Zero?
You have a 100 dollar a week deficit with the grocery store. So why aren’t you going broke? Because…economies are closed systems. Overly simplified but hopefully you get the point…
And as for rich people spending their money overseas…so what?
Why should I care how you or they spend their/your money?
Phreeky should pick up a history book sometime. Obama has more federal legislative experience than did Abraham Lincoln prior to his election in 1860. What an idiot.
From wikipedia: A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in.
Phreeky does not even understand the meaning of this simple word. If I spend $100 per week and make $200 I don’t have a deficit. I have a surplus. Why is he so Phreeking stupid!?
What the hell was that gibberish. Is he mentally retarded?
Anybody that thinks that McCain should be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse should review their history. Start with this article in todays NYTimes.
http://tinyurl.com/3ymtaq
Anybody that would trust Mr. Deregulation at a time like this is not playing with a full deck – one slice short of a pie – a few clowns short of a circus – suffering from a marble deficiency – mad as a monkey on a trike – four quarters short of a dollar … an … idiot …!
Phreedm, until you answer the question “is the USA a white man’s country?” you should avoid demanding answers from others.
Second, your grocery store example is flawed. If I spend $100 on goods, I receive back $100 worth of goods. When the government spends $100 on me, it should be receiving back $100 (or more) worth of either services or future economic securities.
So, is a deficit always bad? No, I don’t believe so, but based on your explanation I think you have little understanding of the kind of situations that lead to it being acceptable to have a deficit.
Deficits are only ok when the programs you spend on are going to end up making more money in the long term. They’re a short term boost gambled on increased long term growth. You have to give up a percentage of future growth in order to get that short term boost.
That is why running a deficit is often an indicator of future slow growth or worse.
Running a deficit on something like wiping out the Nazi party was acceptable. Running a deficit on programs designed to put money in the hands of the rich is not.
I can’t believe you wrote that.
The reason you and I should care is because any money spent overseas – and I’m not saying we shouldn’t spend any money overseas – ultimately increases economic growth in the target country and reduces economic growth in the USA.
If someone dumps a ton of money into a Swiss bank and lets it accumulate interest, who benefits? The investor, the Swiss bank and to a much lesser extent, the rest of the world.
If a corporation sends 1000 technical jobs overseas, who benefits? The corporation, the other country, and to a much lesser extent, the rest of the world.
You should care that lots of American money is moving overseas because that’s money that you could have made in the job market.
The Global economy is indeed a closed system, but National economies are not. That’s a very elementary error on your part.
I would love to see a drive towards globalism, but it needs to be slow. Much slower than the Libertarians would like it to be.
Poll tidbits from The American Research Group
Evangelical Americans, why did you tie your dingy to BushCo’s titanic. What the hell. We’re glad you did!
phreedm,
January 20, 2009. The end of an error.
I’m confused. First you say Obama is the worst choice, and then without explaining yourself, you lambaste Clinton like SHE is the worst choice for president. Which is it? (D’oh! Another question.)
Now that it appears McCain was diddling a lobbyist, 20 years his junior, during the 2000 election cycle, I wonder how THAT little tidbit of info, if proven to be true, will go over with the evangelicals? Or, as I like to call them, the ruination of the Republican Party.
Ren
If it wasn’t a male the evangelicals will say he does’nt have qualifying experience.
septos,
I guess that’s why David Vitter got slapped on the back by his collegues with a hardy attaboy, while Larry Craig got slapped across the face with an embarrassing WTF were you thinking?
Comment from: phreedm [Member]
What…ignoring my question?
Come now…you’re full of insults and void of facts…
Coming from someone who routinely ignores questions from others, this is truly amazing, That a supposed christian would be this hypocritical about others when it engages in the same type of behavior is quite illuminating.
I have a question: why do you think anyone should answer you, when you routinely do not answer others?
Comment from: phreedm [Member]
How much do you spend each week at the grocery store? Let’s say 100 bucks…
How much does that grocery buy from you? Zero?
You have a 100 dollar a week deficit with the grocery store. So why aren’t you going broke? Because…economies are closed systems. Overly simplified but hopefully you get the point…
I have another question: where did you come up with this concept of what a deficit is?
When I look at a definition of the word deficit, I find:
deficit – an excess of liabilities over assets (usually over a certain period); “last year there was a serious budgetary deficit”
This is not at all in agreement with the scenario pulled from one of your comments above. Perhaps if you had mentioned that you were spending grocery money that you didn’t have, and you borrowed in order to buy those groceries, your example might be close to being accurate.
I have another question: will you admit you were wrong in this case, and that you have incorrectly described a situation that would create a deficit?
Ren,
No confusion at all. I am no fan of McCain for many reasons. But there is absolutly now way I’d vote for Obama or Clinton.
I do not believe in wealth redistribution through government intervention.
Side note…in 96 the dems forced Dole to resign from the Senate. Today we have 3 senators running for office…
Come on Ren. Can’t you see the transparency? The Times endorsed McCain last month and now they offer a hit piece? Please…exactly how many reporters and editors from the Times admitted to making up stories?
Comment from: alatham
Hmmm…no. And no it’s not flawed. However if you believe it is, please let the author of this example know…go ahead. Send him an email with your complaint and then post his answer here…
Walter E. Williams
Department of Economics
MSN 3G4
George Mason University
http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/
You know…you’re right.
phreedm,
And I do not believe in wealth redistribution by having CEOs make as much in a single day, as their employees make in a year.
I yearn for a more equitable world. One where one’s compensation is based on their productivity, not on their position.
phreedm,
Soooooooooooo, the USA is a white man’s country, or you should avoid demanding answers from others?
I wasn’t able to find anything about running a deficit by using $100 of your $200 to buy groceries, as opposed to putting it on a high interest credit card, but I did find this interesting statement:
Call me crazy, but that statement goes against every principle of supply and demand. More people utilize hotels and car rentals on the week-ends, therefore they can and do charge higher rates at those times. I have never taken a single economics course in my life, and even I understand that concept.
As an aside: Strangely enough, there were at least three links to global warming mythology on an economics page. Hmmmmmm, now why do you suppose that would be? This guy doesn’t sound like an economics professor, so much as he sounds like a toady for the conservative right.
Comment from: phreedm [Member]
I do not believe in wealth redistribution through government intervention.
I have some questions: why is it okay to engage in government welfare for abstinence-only programs? Is this wealth redistribution through government intervention okay? Why are corporate tax breaks (which are a form of wealth redistribution through governemnt intervention) not causing you to voice similar concerns about the Republican’t governemnt engaging in wealth redistribution to rich corporate elites and rich religious organizations? Why do you say that you are concerned that Obama/Clinton will redistribute wealth through government intervention, when the current occupant of the White House and his Republican’t cronies have done much more of this type of thing than Democratic polititans have? Finally, now that you have admitted that one of those who question the validity of your statements was right, will you also be admitting that you are wrong (no matter who you blame for your concept of what a deficit is, it’s your belief in it that you are being asked about) about how a deficit is defined? There’s so much more tha I feel you should admit you’re wrong about, but IMHO baby steps would be best for someone in your situation at this time.
Comment from: Ren [Member]
I wasn’t able to find anything about running a deficit by using $100 of your $200 to buy groceries, as opposed to putting it on a high interest credit card, but I did find this interesting statement:
Call me crazy, but that statement goes against every principle of supply and demand. More people utilize hotels and car rentals on the week-ends, therefore they can and do charge higher rates at those times. I have never taken a single economics course in my life, and even I understand that concept.
You’re not crazy, Ren.
I used to work for a major car rental company, and the rates most definitely went up from Friday – Sunday due to the higher demand.
I have also rented hotel rooms during the course of my adult life, and I have never seen the weekend rates be less than the weekday rates.
Maybe this is some sort of faith-based economic theory? It sure would explain the disconnect from reality and the beliefs being treated as though they are fact.
Here is another quote from the “Economic” website phreedm sent.
If that doesn’t sum up the last seven years of the Bush 43 administration, I don’t know what does. Thanks for the link, phreedm. It is a goldmine!
Phreedm,
Don’t pass the blame for your faulty definition of deficit. If you truly believe that the grocery store example is a good one then defend it yourself.
This kind of behavior just adds weight to the idea that you don’t think for yourself.
Phree
Your paying 100 dollars for food and getting 100 in value of food back ? how is that a deficit !!! did the food lose its value when you walked outta the store !!!I think you misunderstood the professor. Try reading the whole example and not only a piece of it next time. Then do the same with the BABLE might open your eyes if you can comprehend it all ??
There is a purposeful disconnect here with regards to deficits.
Phreedm is talking about a trade deficit, which is what happens when America buys more Chinese goods than China buys American goods.
However, the deficit everyone else is talking about is a budget deficit, where America spends $1 trillion dollars more than it has, and has to pay interest on the debts it acquired to finance that spending.
Trade deficits and budgetary deficits have differing consequences, and are not really even that similar.
Not absolutely sure this conversation didn’t occur, therefore and forever it is a christian-fact.
Bush: “Dicky them unworkers is ruinin’ my perfect record.”
Dicky: “I don’t know that the unemployed should even be considered citizens, maybe we shouldn’t even count them.”
Bush: “I understand about those of us that can’t count Dicky, I understand that.”
Bravely bold phreakshow, rode forth from the convent,
He was not afraid to lie, Oh Brave phreakshow,
He was not at all aware he’d be called on his lies
Brave, brave, brave, brave phreakshow.
He was not in the least bit scared to be shown to have no point
Or to have his eyes opened up and his hypocrisy exposed;
To have his ‘logic’ skewered and his ‘reasoning’ laughed at
And his faith all ridiculed and lampooned, brave phreakshow.
His lies smashed in, and his hypocrisy held high,
And his bias exposed, and his retreat from reality uploaded,
And his questioning others while refusing to answer questions himself highlighted,
And his infinitives split … and his …
Brave phreakshow ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When called to treat others as he expects to be treated,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave phreakshow turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave phreakshow
Petrified of being wrong
Soiled his pants then brave phreakshow
Turned away and fled.
Bravely good phreakshow was not at all afraid
To have his logic skewered …
… and his bias exposed and his lack of reasoned argument shown off …
…with apologies to Monty Python.
erchambers,
Might I suggest that you run yourself up to the top of the thread, find the first occurrence of the word deficit, then reconsider your comment.
Also, there are similarities between trade deficits and budget deficits.
However, the current christian fantasy believing administration has an overabundance or many kinds of deficits.
Ren & tom,
phred’s right on the economics. Car rental supply = stagnant, so on the weekends, when demand goes up, price follows. Basic stuff.
His copy & past of the grocery analogy is 100% correct. People often confuse trade deficits with budget deficits.
rna2dna:
It looks like Ren was talking about the national d3bt, which relates to a budget deficit. It would have been better wording to just say “national d3bt”. If you take this year’s budget deficit or surplus and add the interest accrued this year from outstanding debt, you find how much the national d3bt will change.
The example phreedm was using, spending $100 at a grocery without reciprocal purchases, describes a trade deficit. They are not the same. A trade deficit does not imply that you go into d3bt. However, on a national scale, currency values are affected by trade deficits.
The word deficit needs to have an explicit modifier because all it really means is “less than”. So budget deficit means you have less than you spend. Trade deficit means you sell less than you buy. Arguing about deficit the way it’s being argued now is similar to arguing with a Christian and having them say “it’s just a theory”.
Why is the word d.e.b.t blocked?
Tom, that was brilliant.
I can see the dancing priests / minstrels dancing in my head.