QuoteMitt Romney shifts focus to Obama's '98 comments on 'redistribution'
After two politically treacherous days, Mitt Romney is trying to right-side his campaign by focusing on something President Obama said 14 years ago.
The Republican presidential candidate has been battered by relentless news coverage dissecting his assertion, caught on video, that "47 percent" of Americans feel entitled to government assistance. Now his aides believe they've stumbled upon a way to change the subject.
In a 1998 audio clip that surfaced online Tuesday afternoon, Obama is heard speaking at a conference at Loyola University, where he suggested that society needed to come up with a plan to "structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot."
Romney pounced on those comments, which Obama made when he was an Illinois state senator, at an Atlanta fundraiser on Wednesday. Obama's speech, Romney said, indicated support for a European-style system that would never work in the United States.
"I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we'll all be better off. It's known as redistribution," Romney told the crowd. "It's never been a characteristic of America."
"This idea of redistribution follows from the idea that if you have a business, you didn't build it -- someone else did that," Romney said, harkening back to Obama's "you didn't build that" line from a speech he made in July to point out that small businesses have relied on some government support.
Romney also brought up the 1998 speech in a Fox News interview Tuesday and in a USA Today op-ed published Wednesday, all part of a new strategy to raise doubts about Obama's economic theories, draw attention away from Romney's criticism of Americans who don't pay income tax, and perhaps also add the word "redistribution" to the list of well-worn, right-wing attack lines, including "Are you better off?" and "Drill baby, drill."
White House press secretary Jay Carney called the newest GOP assault the sign of a "desperate" campaign that is having a "very bad week."
"The charge based on this 14-year-old video sounds very familiar to one that was tried and failed in 2008," Carney said Wednesday. In 1998, "then-Senator Obama was making an argument for a more efficient, more effective government, specifically citing city government agencies that he did not think were working effectively. He believed then and believes now that there are steps we can take to promote opportunity and ensure that all Americans have a fair shot if they work hard."
The shift in campaign tactics comes just days after aides said Romney would begin offering details of his five-point economic plan, as voters become more attentive to the campaign and after polling data suggested they're eager to learn more about Romney's policy positions.
But in a memo to reporters Wednesday, Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said the campaign would now focus instead on the rivals' "starkly different visions" for the country.
"Mitt Romney's vision for America is an opportunity society, where free people and free enterprise thrive and success is admired and emulated, not attacked," Rhoades said in the memo. "President Obama's vision for America is a government-centered society, where government grows bigger and more active, occupying more of our everyday lives."
On the campaign trail Wednesday, Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), even slipped a new attack line into his standard stump speech.
"He's going to try and distract and divide this country to win by default," Ryan said during an event in Danville, Va. "You know, President Obama said that he believes in redistribution. Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth. Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth."
On Capitol Hill, Romney supporters aimed at Obama.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of Romney's most prominent surrogates, said Obama's 1998 remarks give "more insight into what he views government's role as."
"This is a president who believes the government's job is to pick winners and losers in the economy," Rubio told reporters Wednesday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested that Romney should campaign more aggressively in key swing states, particularly Virginia.
"If we win Virginia and one of Ohio and Florida, we're going to win this thing," Graham said. "So, if I were Mitt Romney, no person in Virginia could go very long without meeting me."
Democrats appeared buoyed on Wednesday. Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, met behind closed doors with Senate Democrats for their weekly caucus lunch, a gathering described by participants as upbeat.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Messina told senators that he expects the presidential race to remain close, but he also described polling data from key swing states that appeared to be solidifying for the president.
"What impressed me, as much as anything, was the pace of volunteers, calls, voter registration is dramatically larger than it was four years ago," Durbin said of the data.
In another sign of renewed Democratic optimism, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested Wednesday that Romney's dismissal of nearly half of the American electorate could work to swing key House and Senate races.
"I think what's happening is that the American people, particularly the middle class in America, are getting a clearer and clearer picture that the Democratic Party is on their side and the Republican Party is not," Hoyer said.
On the Republican side, that possibility was causing some concern among some GOP candidates, who were direct in seeking to distance themselves from Romney's video comments.
Sen. Dean Heller, locked in a tight race for reelection against Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley in Nevada, became the third GOP Senate candidate to take issue with Romney's comments, telling reporters Wednesday that he has "very different view of the world" when it comes to competing for the votes of those who do not pay income tax or who receive government assistance.
And Mark Meadows, a Republican running for an open House seat in the Asheville, N.C., area, said that voters in his district don't fit Romney's description at the fundraiser.
"I'm concerned about all 750,000 people," Meadows said at a televised forum Tuesday night. "I am here to represent the people of this district."
The Marxist Leninist Stalinist Castroist Obamaist recording here, all 1:36 of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ge3aGJfDSg4
I never did get Obama's comments about "making fatcats and millionaires pay their fair share so everybody can have a fair shot," and I don't understand this one either. Isn't the whole point of redistribution that nobody will never have a fair shot? Or is the fair shot he's talking about a fair shot at consuming like a rich person?
It's stuff like this which makes me doubt Obama's intellectual depth.
I didn't watch the video, but my guess is it means something like this - have wealthy people pay a reasonable share of taxes to help fund (along with the taxes from the less wealthy) to provide a solid foundation for everyone to get their crack at the can. So, say, the kid of poor parents gets enough food that they don't suffer from malnutrition (and all the downstream results of that), that they get access to a decent enough education (that they couldn't afford if they had to pay for it themselves) that they have a chance to work hard and become well off themselves. Similarly, if someone's been working hard but larger economic trends leave them in a rough spot, say because their entire industry is outsourced or made redundant and their skills aren't transferable, there's enough of a support net to prevent them from losing the entire substance of their life immediately, and a process for getting them other skills so they can continue to work hard in a different industry.
I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".
They'll never find my coffee cans full of money buried all over the place
My wealth was redistributed to shareholders.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".
I think you just made that up and don't have a clue what it means either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".
I think you just made that up and don't have a clue what it means either.
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
I never did get Obama's comments about "making fatcats and millionaires pay their fair share so everybody can have a fair shot," and I don't understand this one either. Isn't the whole point of redistribution that nobody will never have a fair shot? Or is the fair shot he's talking about a fair shot at consuming like a rich person?
It's stuff like this which makes me doubt Obama's intellectual depth.
due to the way certain incomes are taxed, a millionaire, even more a billionaire might very well end up paying less taxes in % of his total income than someone from the middle class.
If you give the very rich a free ride on public services and let the poor fend for themselves, it means that the poor have zero to no chances of improving their conditions. Especially now that the government will help the really rich when they screw themselves and lose billions of $$.
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 07:15:27 PM
If you give the very rich a free ride on public services and let the poor fend for themselves, it means that the poor have zero to no chances of improving their conditions.
I don't see the connection between the two. The US didn't even have an income tax before WWI. Does that mean the poor had a negative chance of improving their conditions back then?
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 07:15:27 PM
due to the way certain incomes are taxed, a millionaire, even more a billionaire might very well end up paying less taxes in % of his total income than someone from the middle class.
At some point, I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing. At any rate, everyone's personal income tax rate in the US is too low, especially if they insist on wasting money on the USAF and a non-public health care system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
The two are related. Once your necessities are met, you have a chance to act like a human being rather than an animal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
That's what you think it is. I think it's about providing necessities of life so that every ordinary citizen can then maximize his potential instead of having material hardship waste it.
Social democracy isn't about the necessities of life, that sounds far more like a more right-wing idea, basically of the state as safety net. Any attempt at social democracy goes way beyond that.
Also this is stupid by Romney. McCain attacked Obama for similar remarks to no effect. Far worse is that attacking a guy who's been President for four years over something he said fifteen years ago looks weak and sort-of weird.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 19, 2012, 07:58:11 PM
Also this is stupid by Romney. McCain attacked Obama for similar remarks to no effect. Far worse is that attacking a guy who's been President for four years over something he said fifteen years ago looks weak and sort-of weird.
Particularly when the four year body of work offers no real demonstrable evidence. But panic time set in a while ago.
And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
I never did get Obama's comments about "making fatcats and millionaires pay their fair share so everybody can have a fair shot," and I don't understand this one either. Isn't the whole point of redistribution that nobody will never have a fair shot? Or is the fair shot he's talking about a fair shot at consuming like a rich person?
It's stuff like this which makes me doubt Obama's intellectual depth.
Yes, Yi. That is in fact the point of social Democracy. So nobody will have a fair shot. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 19, 2012, 07:58:11 PM
Social democracy isn't about the necessities of life, that sounds far more like a more right-wing idea, basically of the state as safety net. Any attempt at social democracy goes way beyond that.
Also this is stupid by Romney. McCain attacked Obama for similar remarks to no effect. Far worse is that attacking a guy who's been President for four years over something he said fifteen years ago looks weak and sort-of weird.
Well yeah, but the news cycle is dominated by Romney saying something really stupid. This attack will almost certainly be ineffective, but if the story becomes "look at these two clips of Romney and Obama saying things that are controversial" Romney might lessen the damage he is taking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:28:10 PM
I don't see the connection between the two. The US didn't even have an income tax before WWI. Does that mean the poor had a negative chance of improving their conditions back then?
Difficult to compare. Many blacks were poor because of racial issues in that time. So you exclude a very sizable part of the workforce from faire competition, and it didn't seem like the blacks of 1905 had a very good chance at gaining wealth, compared to a white man.
The poor people of today, black or white have a better chance of seeing their children escape poverty than the poor people of 1905.
If we go back to early US, the poor could still emigrate toward the frontier. Life wasn't easy, but they stood a chance, they could farm their own lands, chop the wood they needed to heat themselves in winter and raise some cattle. The occasional indian raid would have been a problem, but a minor one overall.
However today, you can't really go to a place where there's no one and build your own cabin in the wood. You can't really grow your own crops in a field to achieve self-sustainance, you'd still be devoid of any of the things we take for granted like television, cable, electricity. So you'd be a lot poorer compared to the average than you would be in 1757 or 1785.
It's really hard to compare.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 08:01:25 PM
And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.
Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 08:01:25 PM
And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.
Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?
Rosie O'Donnell is still alive :(
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 08:01:25 PM
And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.
Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?
As a loyal Obama supporter I might be able to secure a job as a camp guard for FEMA.
I call Blokhin's job. :w00t:
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 10:56:28 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 10:08:20 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 19, 2012, 08:01:25 PM
And sorry, kids, but Obamacare doesn't really count.
Btw, I meant to ask: how are those death panels going?
As a loyal Obama supporter I might be able to secure a job as a camp guard for FEMA.
Not so fast! Those are Union jobs....bought and paid for!! :nelson:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:10:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".
I think you just made that up and don't have a clue what it means either.
You wanna bet?
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
Difficult to compare. Many blacks were poor because of racial issues in that time. So you exclude a very sizable part of the workforce from faire competition, and it didn't seem like the blacks of 1905 had a very good chance at gaining wealth, compared to a white man.
The poor people of today, black or white have a better chance of seeing their children escape poverty than the poor people of 1905.
If we go back to early US, the poor could still emigrate toward the frontier. Life wasn't easy, but they stood a chance, they could farm their own lands, chop the wood they needed to heat themselves in winter and raise some cattle. The occasional indian raid would have been a problem, but a minor one overall.
However today, you can't really go to a place where there's no one and build your own cabin in the wood. You can't really grow your own crops in a field to achieve self-sustainance, you'd still be devoid of any of the things we take for granted like television, cable, electricity. So you'd be a lot poorer compared to the average than you would be in 1757 or 1785.
It's really hard to compare.
How does any of what you described change if we tax the rich more?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 08:03:11 PM
Yes, Yi. That is in fact the point of social Democracy. So nobody will have a fair shot. :rolleyes:
:lol: Seriously Raz, who on Languish do you think is stupid enough that they won't notice the so you added?
Quote from: alfred russel on September 19, 2012, 08:22:55 PM
Well yeah, but the news cycle is dominated by Romney saying something really stupid. This attack will almost certainly be ineffective, but if the story becomes "look at these two clips of Romney and Obama saying things that are controversial" Romney might lessen the damage he is taking.
Wonder how long they were holding on to this clip. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 11:29:19 PM
How does any of what you described change if we tax the rich more?
It might not but we might be able to balance the budget better. I mean eventually taxes are going to skyrocket and spending is going to collapse so we might as well ease into it instead of shock therapy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 11:31:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2012, 08:03:11 PM
Yes, Yi. That is in fact the point of social Democracy. So nobody will have a fair shot. :rolleyes:
:lol: Seriously Raz, who on Languish do you think is stupid enough that they won't notice the so you added?
:unsure: He added so?
QuoteUpdated 11:29 p.m. — Mitt Romney's campaign this week has pounced on a 14-year-old clip of Obama speaking about "redistribution" in October 1998 at a conference in Chicago, in which the future president seems to extol the virtues of redistributing wealth.
Yet NBC News has obtained the entirety of the relevant remarks, which includes additional comments by Obama that weren't included in the video circulated by Republicans. That omission features additional words of praise for "competition" and the "marketplace" by the then-state senator.
"I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities."
Obama continues in a few words after that to describe the use of tax credits in setting public housing development policy in Chicago as an example before concluding.
The video circulated by Republicans, which has used as fodder for an attack on Obama, includes a longer reflection by Obama about talking about how government action can be effective. But the clip has been cut short after the word "shot;" Obama's words about competition, the marketplace and innovation are omitted from the clip.
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
What is worse, however, is tha the only present alternative to him is Romney, who appears to be an evil twisted mofo.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 19, 2012, 07:07:51 PM
They'll never find my coffee cans full of money buried all over the place
chances are you won't find them either :p
Wtf are you babbling about tamas.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
Then we'll be OK, since we're not going to have him do that.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
:huh:
That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2012, 06:44:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
:huh:
That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.
The problem with socialism these days is that we don't have societies. Elements of socialism were the solution to the excesses of the economic system that built unprecedented prosperity, but it was made possible by the nation-state. Since prosperity has eroded the nation-state, socialism has become an iffier prospect.
Quote from: Jacob on September 19, 2012, 07:07:08 PM
I didn't watch the video, but my guess is it means something like this - have wealthy people pay a reasonable share of taxes to help fund (along with the taxes from the less wealthy) to provide a solid foundation for everyone to get their crack at the can. So, say, the kid of poor parents gets enough food that they don't suffer from malnutrition (and all the downstream results of that), that they get access to a decent enough education (that they couldn't afford if they had to pay for it themselves) that they have a chance to work hard and become well off themselves. Similarly, if someone's been working hard but larger economic trends leave them in a rough spot, say because their entire industry is outsourced or made redundant and their skills aren't transferable, there's enough of a support net to prevent them from losing the entire substance of their life immediately, and a process for getting them other skills so they can continue to work hard in a different industry.
I think that's what's meant by "a fair shot".
Yeah, I think this is a no-brainer. I don't know if the Yanks who claim they don't get it are just dumb (maybe noone gave them a fair shot at getting a decent IQ) or deliberately obtuse?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
Don't you really see the connection between the two? I mean, seriously. Are you unable to see it or is it just another Yi-style debate of "prove something obvious to me"?
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2012, 07:30:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I think he does have a clue, personally. It seems like a standard defense of social democracy.
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
The two are related. Once your necessities are met, you have a chance to act like a human being rather than an animal.
Pretty much. If you live below subsistence level, you have no chance of improving your conditions because your entire effort is spent on hand-to-mouth existence.
Incidentally, that's also why no successful revolution was started by the working class only.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
What is worse, however, is tha the only present alternative to him is Romney, who appears to be an evil twisted mofo.
I said it before and I will say it again: your country failed not because it was run by social democrats, but because it was run by Hungarians.
Countries like Germany, Poland, or many in Scandinavia (the epitome of social democracy) are actually managing quite well right now, both in terms of their fiscal stability and their economies. The countries most hit by the crisis are either kleptocracies like Greece, or the free market gone wild countries like the UK.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 19, 2012, 07:58:11 PM
Social democracy isn't about the necessities of life, that sounds far more like a more right-wing idea, basically of the state as safety net. Any attempt at social democracy goes way beyond that.
Also this is stupid by Romney. McCain attacked Obama for similar remarks to no effect. Far worse is that attacking a guy who's been President for four years over something he said fifteen years ago looks weak and sort-of weird.
Yeah, as a reply shot to the Romney video gaffe this is the political equivalent of "yo momma!". :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2012, 06:44:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
:huh:
That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-3ec4N_HW-f0%2FUCuWWV92zHI%2FAAAAAAAAADU%2FGBGB0eXNYrE%2Fs400%2Fjackie-chan-meme1.jpg&hash=23b7912dcb618de67db214057bf559eb00a7bc2a)
Quote from: katmai on September 20, 2012, 06:31:41 AM
Wtf are you babbling about tamas.
welfare spending inevitably results in a spending spiral leading to failure.
And don't give me the crap about Germany. Sure, Germany works. Right. Germany profited a lot from the EU, and the others fucked up economies which got dominated by Germany. The bill for the fuckups is theirs too in the sense that they have tied their fate to the fuckups without requiring them to be non-fuckups.
It's only fuckups when you lose the ability to print more money.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 20, 2012, 08:07:58 AM
It's only fuckups when you lose the ability to print more money.
So the amount of money in circulation can be increased ad infinitum with no negative consequence. Okay, good to know. Now all I need is a timemachine to tell Weimar it's ok to have inflation.
It is. :yes: Public debt doesn't matter.
Tamas reminds me of young Russians in 1990ies. Communism failed, so obviously the system to replace it is the one thought up deep in the bowels of von Mises, human suffering be damned. The one lesson they didn't seem to learn was the danger of extreme reforms, and how extreme measures foster extreme blowback.
Socialism must be rooted out. That is the main task of the Holy Ordos.
That quote CdM highlighted is positively Blairite :mmm:
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2012, 08:34:47 AM
Tamas reminds me of young Russians in 1990ies. Communism failed, so obviously the system to replace it is the one thought up deep in the bowels of von Mises, human suffering be damned. The one lesson they didn't seem to learn was the danger of extreme reforms, and how extreme measures foster extreme blowback.
I dream of a United States of Europe with low taxes and sustainable budgets. :)
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 08:41:45 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2012, 08:34:47 AM
Tamas reminds me of young Russians in 1990ies. Communism failed, so obviously the system to replace it is the one thought up deep in the bowels of von Mises, human suffering be damned. The one lesson they didn't seem to learn was the danger of extreme reforms, and how extreme measures foster extreme blowback.
I dream of a United States of Europe
The fuck?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 07:25:34 PM
That's sort of my point. Social Democracy is not about giving anybody a fair shot at anything, it's about providing the necessities of life.
To quote Admiral Yi: "I think you just made that up and don't have a clue what it means."
The USE is a much greater danger than China and its potential existence calls for us to preemptively invade Canada and secure their resources. :ph34r:
Quote from: viper37 on September 19, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
However today, you can't really go to a place where there's no one and build your own cabin in the wood.
We were wrong to get rid of the Homestead Act. The Republican Party should make it part of their platform to bring it back. Well, so should the Democratic Party, but I see zero chance of the Democratic Party endorsing anything that gives something the government owns to a private individual. Not that there's much chance that the Republicans will endorse bringing back the Homestead Act, either.
Quote from: TyrSocialism is the future.
I a bit more optimistic than that--the future doesn't have to be dystopian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 19, 2012, 11:29:19 PM
How does any of what you described change if we tax the rich more?
A) The government needs money to fund some social programs that helps the poor compete on a more equal foot: education (kinda necessary if you want to improve your condition today), access to health care (an healthy workforce is a benefit to all of society, and on an individual basis, having access to healthcare means you're less likely to suffer from unemployment period due to diseases), access to decent roads to travel, welfare coverage for the needy (people with physical or mental disabililities) & non restricted public access (ramps, bathrooms, etc), minimal welfare coverage for people unable to find a job on a temporary basis, and maybe a few other things. This costs money, and you need to take it somewhere. If you tax the poor or the middle class, you take away what little money they have and screw their chances of climbing the social ladder. Especially if you then give their money to the rich in form of tax breaks, grants, subsidies, guaranteed loans, bailout and various other measures associated with corporate wellfare. Due to the way the tax system is structured, taxing the rich simply equals the fields by having the very rich pay just as much taxes, in %of their income to the middle class whose currently supporting everyone above&below.
B) Taxing the very rich a little higher, you will curb the natural tendancies of clans/aristocracy/dynasties to form itself and take all the power over the rest of the society. It will help fund the programs of A and make them a tad little poorer wich may induce them in watching more carefully over their money and throw less of it at politicians in the hope of having the elevator returned when they screw themselves in the ass.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
What is worse, however, is tha the only present alternative to him is Romney, who appears to be an evil twisted mofo.
the US is very far from a social democratic state.
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2012, 06:44:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
:huh:
That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.
It made wonders for Greece :)
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 12:59:34 PM
the US is very far from a social democratic state.
What makes you say so?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 12:59:34 PM
the US is very far from a social democratic state.
What makes you say so?
Yeah, I mean, we do have that 3000+ mile border.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 12:59:34 PM
the US is very far from a social democratic state.
What makes you say so?
I always think its the vanity of small difficulties. China isn't a social democracy, Hong Kong isn't, Ethiopia isn't. The US government spends about 2% less than the Canadian, that's not the dividing line between social democracy and bracing capitalism. The US is simply another Anglophone social democracy of varying degrees, just like the UK, NZ and Oz.
That's funny Sheilbh :lol:
"Just another anglophone social democracy."
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2012, 01:37:31 PM
The US government spends about 2% less than the Canadian, that's not the dividing line between social democracy and bracing capitalism.
Yeah but they spend it on health care and we spend it on the military.
Th US government spends more as a percent on healthcare than Canada, they just get more for it.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
What makes you say so?
I live in Quebec. I know what is a socialist hell.
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
What makes you say so?
I live in Quebec. I know what is a socialist hell.
You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2012, 01:59:12 PM
Th US government spends more as a percent on healthcare than Canada, they just get more for it.
not really, no.
As % of the GDP, us total expenditures in health care for 2010 were 9.6%, significantly less than Canada at 11.4%.
Per Capita, they do spend twice as more as us, 8233$ vs 4445$.
In the US, 48.2% of health expenditures are made by the government compared to 71.1% for Canada.
Source: OECD Health Data 2012 - Frequently Requested Data
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.
Isn't Martinus too young to have known the communist era?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 02:17:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 02:14:11 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 20, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
What makes you say so?
I live in Quebec. I know what is a socialist hell.
You know, I bet one of the posters that has lived in a Warsaw pact country could give us a better idea what "socialist hell" is.
Tax rates as a % of GDP:
Canada: 32.2%
USA: 26%
Quebec would be higher than Canada, but I can't find the date. Just for Quebec, taxes are 23% of the GDP, but you need to add the Federal taxes too.
Dguller is the same age as me, Marty and Solymr are a bit older. I don't know Tamas's age. I think there's a good chance they all remember the communist era.
My source was World Bank/WHO.
Looking at OECD data you're not comparing the same thing, though you're right. Total expenditure on health as a percent of GDP is 11.4% in Canada and 17.6% in the US. Government expenditure is 71% and 48% respectively of those totals. So government healthcare spending is 9% and 8.5% respectively. It is lower in the US (though other sources disagree) but it's hardly a massive difference.
Quote from: dps on September 20, 2012, 12:24:24 PM
We were wrong to get rid of the Homestead Act. The Republican Party should make it part of their platform to bring it back. Well, so should the Democratic Party, but I see zero chance of the Democratic Party endorsing anything that gives something the government owns to a private individual. Not that there's much chance that the Republicans will endorse bringing back the Homestead Act, either.
Farming is never the answer.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2012, 07:41:06 AM
Don't you really see the connection between the two? I mean, seriously. Are you unable to see it or is it just another Yi-style debate of "prove something obvious to me"?
What I don't see is the means and end connection between the two. A low income person in Britain isn't given a housing subsidy "so that they can have a fair shot at a good paying job." If that were true then the continuation of that person in his low income job would be proof of the failure of the subsidy to achieve its stated objective. Or alternatively, there might be requirements attached to the subsidy involving a good faith effort to take advantage of that "fair shot" which the subsidies provide. Neither of those is true. What's true is that residence in a social democratic state entitles a person to a minimum standard of living, regardless of whether they take a fair shot at a good paying job or not.
In the US context the phrase "having a fair shot" has gained legitimacy during the debates about racial discrimination, access to higher education, sex discrimination, and the like. Most Americans agree with the notion that factors that prevent a competition on pure merit are illegitimate. Most Americans agree that everyone should, in fact, have a fair shot.
What Obama has done has taken this previously legitimized principle of the level playing field, and attempted to graft it onto a) higher taxes on the rich, and b) wealth redistribution, which in my mind completely ignores the lack of a causal relationship between the policies and outcomes being discussed.
Is a child living in a housing project proof of the failure of said child to get a good paying job?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
Is a child living in a housing project proof of the failure of said child to get a good paying job?
Pick whatever answer you'd like to on my behalf, then go on from there. I'm curious where you're trying to take this.
You said this.
QuoteIf that were true then the continuation of that person in his low income job would be proof of the failure of the subsidy to achieve its stated objective. Or alternatively, there might be requirements attached to the subsidy involving a good faith effort to take advantage of that "fair shot" which the subsidies provide. Neither of those is true. What's true is that residence in a social democratic state entitles a person to a minimum standard of living, regardless of whether they take a fair shot at a good paying job or not.
However, a child might be living in subsidized housing, and neither of your options (the continuation of the child living in subsidized housing or some sort of requirement that of a good faith effort on the part of the kid), doesn't make sense in that context. However, a child that lives in cruddy house or apartment has a better chance of going to school and getting a job then a kid that is say living on the street or running around the forest being raised by wolves (or what ever the rural homeless do).
All this, and Yi will probably still vote for Obama :mellow:
At this point, I probably would too. Romney's a dumbass.
I think both you guys should just stay home that day.
Yeah.
I have a protest vote to lodge, thank you. :P
Quote from: Habbaku on September 20, 2012, 06:45:42 PM
I have a protest vote to lodge, thank you. :P
It'll be a bigger protest vote if you go with the POTUS. Imma jus' sayin'. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 20, 2012, 06:45:42 PM
I have a protest vote to lodge, thank you. :P
It'll be a bigger protest vote if you go with the POTUS. Imma jus' sayin'. :lol:
I'll be happy if he just votes for the libertarian. Though it's not going to matter. Georgia ain't going to go for Obama.
Hence the term 'protest vote'...
Edit : Doubt I'd vote for Romney no matter what state I was in at this point, though.
I just hope he's got the appropriate ID for Georgia. He's white and not elderly, so I'm assuming he does.
QuoteEleven percent of eligible voters say they lack current government-issued photo IDs, a survey on the potential impact of voter ID laws found. You live in Georgia and you're one of them. Like 66,515 other Georgians, according to a recent study from the Brennan Center for Justice, you also lack vehicle access and live more than 10 miles from an office that issues state ID.
As a registered voter who's skipped the past few elections, you decide you'll vote this year. But you spend your life working multiple jobs to provide for your family, not tuned in to a news cycle that may have told you about a voter ID law that changed the requirements.
If you were aware of the measure, you'd know that you have to get yourself to a state office during business hours to procure a photo ID in order to vote. According to the Brennan Center, these facilities are often only open part time, especially in areas with the highest concentration of people of color and in poverty. While the state does offer a free photo ID initiative, the Brennan Center points out that many of the offices provide confusing or inaccurate information about what Georgians need to do to get one.
This may be a tough task as you juggle a strenuous work schedule with other commitments -- and that's assuming you're aware of the requirement. But you're not, so you head to your voting precinct on election day with no access to an acceptable form of identification and vote with a provisional ballot. To verify that ballot, you'll have two days to present appropriate photo ID at your county registrar's office, which at this point wouldn't be doable.
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Sure thing, Mr. 53%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Sure thing, Mr. 53%.
I don't like your attitude mister. We'll deal with you 47%'ers.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Sure thing, Mr. 53%.
I don't like your attitude mister. We'll deal with you 47%'ers.
Don't forget that the 47%ers apparently include all active duty combat troops.
What if the economy worsens and the 53% decide to take on the 1%, they might in that instance even ally with the 99%; hell the 152% would be an unbeatable force.
Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2012, 07:29:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Sure thing, Mr. 53%.
I don't like your attitude mister. We'll deal with you 47%'ers.
Don't forget that the 47%ers apparently include all active duty combat troops.
Whom Dems usually try to disenfranchise. Yeah, I went there.
Quote from: derspiess on September 20, 2012, 07:33:42 PM
Whom Dems usually try to disenfranchise. Yeah, I went there.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on September 20, 2012, 07:29:30 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:26:50 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 07:22:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:17:39 PM
Being from an impotent state, I suggest you peons bid for my vote.
Sure thing, Mr. 53%.
I don't like your attitude mister. We'll deal with you 47%'ers.
Don't forget that the 47%ers apparently include all active duty combat troops.
I don't see southerners and Midwesterners siding with liberul faggits.
And before you leftist faggots call me GOPtard, I haven't decided who to vote for yet.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:41:57 PM
And before you leftist faggots call me GOPtard, I haven't decided who to vote for yet.
You're one of the few Languishites that actually qualify economically to vote Republican. So don't bullshit us, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 20, 2012, 07:47:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:41:57 PM
And before you leftist faggots call me GOPtard, I haven't decided who to vote for yet.
You're one of the few Languishites that actually qualify economically to vote Republican. So don't bullshit us, man.
I really don't like Mittens. I hate Obama's wife even more.
El jefe afraid of a strong black woman :o
Quote from: katmai on September 20, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
El jefe afraid of a strong black woman :o
She is a gorilla who is a food nazi. I just don't like her.
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Not a gorilla in a dress at least.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Not a gorilla in a dress at least.
Do you think you're being funny?
One bite so far.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Imperious. "You people", and all that.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Probably quiet and forgettable like Laura Bush. Though I shall never forget that Mrs. Bush killed a boy with her car.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 20, 2012, 08:47:45 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 20, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
What kind of First Lady would Ann make? :hmm:
Probably quiet and forgettable like Laura Bush. Though I shall not forget Mrs. Bush killed a boy with her car.
Hehe.
Quote from: Phillip V on September 20, 2012, 08:47:45 PM
Probably quiet and forgettable like Laura Bush. Though I shall never forget that Mrs. Bush killed a boy with her car.
It's always the quiet ones. Year after year they smile in their gingham dresses, smiling away. Then they suddenly grab the cast iron frying pan and beat the bejesus out of someone.
Oh no, man. Ann's a right queen bitch. That kitten's got claws. She's filet Laura and Barbara at the same time.
Then have her horse stomp on them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 09:22:32 PM
Then have her horse stomp on them.
But he helps with her multiple sclerosis. Somehow.
Quote from: viper37 on September 20, 2012, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 20, 2012, 06:44:06 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2012, 06:21:53 AM
I tell you again what I keep telling you: Obama is a social democrat, and social democracies are in their final phases of dying out in Europe.
To have him switch the US into a welfare state when welfare states have been proved a bad idea would be catastrophic.
:huh:
That's completely the opposite of the way things are. Its OTT liberalism which has been shown to be very iffy thanks to the 2008 mess. Socialism is the future.
It made wonders for Greece :)
Lying on your accounts and not paying taxes is not socialism at all. Quite the opposite.
If we look to the truly socialist countries however; Scandinavia, Germany.....they're doing best.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 08:46:55 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 20, 2012, 08:44:56 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 08:43:28 PM
One bite so far.
:D
I can just see DG balling his tiny Slavic fists in fury.
It was Guller who went ballistic over "whore pills" too. Maybe he's just easily trolled. :hmm:
Pffft just don't call him Dorsey.
Quote from: Tyr on September 21, 2012, 12:20:29 AM
Lying on your accounts and not paying taxes is not socialism at all. Quite the opposite.
If we look to the truly socialist countries however; Scandinavia, Germany.....they're doing best.
Which leads to the conclusion that socialism is suitable for only a small number of countries in the world, relying as it does on social cohesion, self-discipline, and a sense of responsibility that only a few countries' populations possess.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:56:22 AM
It was Guller who went ballistic over "whore pills" too. Maybe he's just easily trolled. :hmm:
I didn't go ballistic, I just don't see the humor in saying something incredibly offensive without in any way coupling it with something amusing (like Seedy always does, for example). If those are trolls, then they don't strike me as very clever. :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2012, 08:35:32 AM
I didn't go ballistic,
Not this time, but your whore pill response was more forceful IIRC.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 08:40:56 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2012, 08:35:32 AM
I didn't go ballistic,
Not this time, but your whore pill response was more forceful IIRC.
Yeah, probably, but that was derspiess. How was I to know that this one particular right wing stupidity was not actually heartfelt by him?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:39:36 PM
I don't see southerners and Midwesterners siding with liberul faggits.
Iowa usually goes Dem. Just sayin'. :sleep:
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2012, 08:44:06 AM
Yeah, probably, but that was derspiess. How was I to know that this one particular right wing stupidity was not actually heartfelt by him?
:nelson:
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:39:36 PM
I don't see southerners and Midwesterners siding with liberul faggits.
Iowa usually goes Dem. Just sayin'. :sleep:
Well, heck yeah--there's still enough small-government types left in the Republican Party that want to end farm subsidies.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2012, 08:44:06 AM
How was I to know that this one particular right wing stupidity was not actually heartfelt by him?
I find it impossible to believe that he isn't always posting with tongue in cheek. No one with a brain could actually believe most of the things he claims to believe. When he claims that Romney or Ryan have a speck of credibility, for instance, he surely doesn't believe it. Not, I would note in the spirit of honesty, that Obama or Biden are much better.
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:00:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:39:36 PM
I don't see southerners and Midwesterners siding with liberul faggits.
Iowa usually goes Dem. Just sayin'. :sleep:
Well, heck yeah--there's still enough small-government types left in the Republican Party that want to end farm subsidies.
Please to esplain Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Nebraska then. :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
Quote from: dps on September 21, 2012, 10:00:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 20, 2012, 07:39:36 PM
I don't see southerners and Midwesterners siding with liberul faggits.
Iowa usually goes Dem. Just sayin'. :sleep:
Well, heck yeah--there's still enough small-government types left in the Republican Party that want to end farm subsidies.
Please to esplain Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Nebraska then. :hmm:
Kansas and Nebraska vote Republican for the same reason South Carolina and Georgia voted Democratic in the 1920's--they're still fighting the Civil War in their minds.
Oklahoma and Indiana--uhm, must be an Indian thing.
;)
Quote from: merithyn on September 21, 2012, 11:29:52 AM
Please to esplain Kansas, Oklahoma, Indiana, and Nebraska then. :hmm:
More bible thumpers.
Anyway, I doubt the majority of farmers vote Democrat, subsidies or not. Though there is probably a greater tendency for them to do so than other rural business owners.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Anyway, I doubt the majority of farmers vote Democrat, subsidies or not. Though there is probably a greater tendency for them to do so than other rural business owners.
Yeah, I tend to agree, although I can't find any relevant links right now.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Anyway, I doubt the majority of farmers vote Democrat, subsidies or not. Though there is probably a greater tendency for them to do so than other rural business owners.
Well, to be serious about this for a minute, for the most part farm subsidies aren't going to be an issue in farm country, because no one who wants to be a credible candidate there is going to be able to advocate eliminating or even reducing them, so in a local race, there won't really be any difference in either party's candidate's position on the issue.
Quote from: ulmont on September 21, 2012, 12:43:41 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:31:39 PM
Anyway, I doubt the majority of farmers vote Democrat, subsidies or not. Though there is probably a greater tendency for them to do so than other rural business owners.
Yeah, I tend to agree, although I can't find any relevant links right now.
Not the best effort, but here's one relevant link.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26920037@N06/2933924214/lightbox/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 08:01:54 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 21, 2012, 12:20:29 AM
Lying on your accounts and not paying taxes is not socialism at all. Quite the opposite.
If we look to the truly socialist countries however; Scandinavia, Germany.....they're doing best.
Which leads to the conclusion that socialism is suitable for only a small number of countries in the world, relying as it does on social cohesion, self-discipline, and a sense of responsibility that only a few countries' populations possess.
That's a strange conclusion to come to.
Farmers are 2% of the population. How do they have so much political pull?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 21, 2012, 01:31:41 PM
Farmers are 2% of the population. How do they have so much political pull?
They vote.
They wield disproportionate influence in underpopulated farm states and hence the Senate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 21, 2012, 01:31:41 PM
Farmers are 2% of the population. How do they have so much political pull?
It's because in many rural areas of the midwest and plains states, they're the main social group, and they tend to vote as a bloc (or at least, they are perceived in that manner).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 21, 2012, 01:31:41 PM
Farmers are 2% of the population. How do they have so much political pull?
I think that a disproportionate number of people in Congress own a farm.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 02:04:20 PM
They wield disproportionate influence in underpopulated farm states and hence the Senate.
There are also a lot of people (I'd say they even outnumber farmers) who aren't farmers but whose livelihoods are tied to the farming sector.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 21, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 21, 2012, 01:31:41 PM
Farmers are 2% of the population. How do they have so much political pull?
I think that a disproportionate number of people in Congress own a farm.
Damn you, Nancy Pelosi. :mad:
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
There are also a lot of people (I'd say they even outnumber farmers) who aren't farmers but whose livelihoods are tied to the farming sector.
No doubt. But that's still a relatively small number (you don't need that many seed salesmen and John Deere salesmen).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 02:54:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
There are also a lot of people (I'd say they even outnumber farmers) who aren't farmers but whose livelihoods are tied to the farming sector.
No doubt. But that's still a relatively small number (you don't need that many seed salesmen and John Deere salesmen).
Add to that banks, real estate agencies, veterinarians, and entire towns.
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:57:26 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 21, 2012, 02:54:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 21, 2012, 02:46:53 PM
There are also a lot of people (I'd say they even outnumber farmers) who aren't farmers but whose livelihoods are tied to the farming sector.
No doubt. But that's still a relatively small number (you don't need that many seed salesmen and John Deere salesmen).
Add to that banks, real estate agencies, veterinarians, and entire towns.
Yeah, though outside of major cities there are lots of smaller cities and towns that are dependent on one industry, not always agriculture. For example, there really aren't that many working coal miners in West Virginia anymore, but there are still plenty of localities there where the only reason the town exists is because of the nearby mines. Or look at a lot of college towns--they wouldn't be there if not for the school. Here where I live, I suspect that if the Air Force base were shut down, within 20 years the population of Goldsboro would drop by at least 50%. Heck, DC might revert to swamp if we ever moved the nation's capital to another city.
Quote from: DGuller on September 21, 2012, 08:35:32 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 21, 2012, 12:56:22 AM
It was Guller who went ballistic over "whore pills" too. Maybe he's just easily trolled. :hmm:
I didn't go ballistic, I just don't see the humor in saying something incredibly offensive without in any way coupling it with something amusing (like Seedy always does, for example). If those are trolls, then they don't strike me as very clever. :huh:
I'm tired.
How is it incredibly offensive? I don't see race.