Jump to content


Official Republicans In Congress Are Idiots Thread


  • Please log in to reply
574 replies to this topic

#561 Dread Aidan

Dread Aidan

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,313 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seven Seas

Posted 25 August 2011 - 09:26 AM

View Postmk, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 7:44 AM, said:

macro policies tend to be well telegraphed and in the information age companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy than react to it over a decade later.

View Postmk, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 7:59 AM, said:

this is a solid part of the gop playbook, obvrecord gdp and employment growth of the 90s is attributable to the previous decade's reaganomics yet the current lack of gdp and employment growth is the fault of obama policies which have yet to be implemented (and likely never will be) but are such scary boogeymen no one is willing to hire or expand.i find this narrative: compelling and rich
When did the information age begin in your opinion? It seems possible that companies were more reactionary in the 80's and early 90's, which could mean that Reagan policies had delayed results. I don't really know; this theory is almost entirely based on the above posts.You also say "companies and markets are much more likely to anticipate future policy" now, but deride the GOP for claiming the current economic situation has anything to do with not yet implemented Obama policies. If what you are saying in post 1 is true, then at least half of what the GOP is saying in post 2 is true. Or at least part of the problem.Labeling these theories as narrative feels correct to me. It's a story that one side presents to gain support from the masses. Both sides do it and both sides have holes in their stories.

#562 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 25 August 2011 - 06:52 PM

View Postmk, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 9:59 AM, said:

record gdp and employment growth of the 90s is attributable to the previous decade's reaganomics
You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#563 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 26 August 2011 - 02:12 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 6:52 PM, said:

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.
so we need to start another WW?? $20 block pool anyone?
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#564 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,246 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2011 - 04:09 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 11:52 PM, said:

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.
So you admit that even though it was a Republican in the White House, it took a Democrat (Al Gore) inventing the internet to keep you out of recession?
Long signatures are really annoying.

#565 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,371 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 August 2011 - 06:28 AM

View Postmrdannyg, on Friday, August 26th, 2011, 5:09 AM, said:

So you admit that even though it was a Republican in the White House, it took a Democrat (Al Gore) inventing the internet to keep you out of recession?
Yea but then he invented global warming so its a wash.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#566 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 26 August 2011 - 04:40 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Thursday, August 25th, 2011, 9:52 PM, said:

You would be pretty hard pressed to find that one GOP wack-job that wouldn't attribute the far majority of the 90's growth to the internet. I think pretty much everyone knows that's what it was.Kind of like everyone knew that WWII saved our economic asses in spite of the excellent job FDR did to destroy our country for the next 100 years.
WWII brought about wage ceilings which forced employers to compete on fringe benefits... one of the major reasons employer-provided healthcare is so predominant today. so I would say WWII fucked our asses.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#567 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 26 August 2011 - 07:50 PM

View Poststrategy, on Friday, August 26th, 2011, 7:40 PM, said:

WWII brought about wage ceilings which forced employers to compete on fringe benefits... one of the major reasons employer-provided healthcare is so predominant today. so I would say WWII fucked our asses.
If you finished your sentence with "also" when included in the long-term discussion I would be more comfortable.Minimum wage laws and wage ceilings are all very very bad.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#568 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 27 August 2011 - 11:42 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Friday, August 26th, 2011, 10:50 PM, said:

If you finished your sentence with "also" when included in the long-term discussion I would be more comfortable.Minimum wage laws and wage ceilings are all very very bad.
I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?


#569 ShakeZuma

ShakeZuma

    A hot and bothered astronaut

  • Members
  • 14,680 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:crashing while I'm jacking off
  • Interests:Basket weaving, gardening, BDSM

Posted 27 August 2011 - 11:48 AM

View Poststrategy, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 3:42 PM, said:

but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war.
I bet scram agrees

View PostAmScray, on 30 August 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:

one cannot possibly ascribe themselves to the larger (D) philosophy without first being a poon

#570 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 27 August 2011 - 01:37 PM

View Poststrategy, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 3:42 PM, said:

I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.
Depends. Do you mean if we simply built all the tanks, planes, and hired all the soldiers, but they didn't actually fight?

#571 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 27 August 2011 - 03:15 PM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 3:37 PM, said:

Depends. Do you mean if we simply built all the tanks, planes, and hired all the soldiers, but they didn't actually fight?
No, we would build nicer houses, better cars, and more food.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#572 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 27 August 2011 - 04:20 PM

View Poststrategy, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 2:42 PM, said:

I kinda don't buy that producing bombs/ammunition/etc. for the purpose of fighting a war that ultimately removed a bunch of humans from the equation was a positive thing. it was positive in the sense that it severely hurt everyone else and gave us a competitive edge, but we'd be so much further ahead as a species if we hadn't felt compelled to fight that war. like, I think the 50s would have been even more prosperous for the US if not for the war. I think I'm in the minority here, and unfortunately I don't have any citations to back it up.
The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.It also would have been good if it didn't happen, since the war distracted everyone while FDR was screwing us in the butt.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#573 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 28 August 2011 - 07:30 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 8:20 PM, said:

The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.
There's nobody in this thread asserting that the United States should not have fought in WWII. The effects on world society from winning the war are obvious.The question is, what are the economic effects on the United States from waging the war?Many of the arguments for the economic benefits are the broken window fallacy. However, I think there's a legitimate argument that the US (specifically, not the world) benefited from weapons exports. And also the value of the research to the civilian economy.But for the most part, the notion that the US government employing people to build tanks is, in itself, good for the nation's economic well-being, is stupid.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#574 phlegm

phlegm

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,631 posts

Posted 28 August 2011 - 12:13 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 8:30 AM, said:

There's nobody in this thread asserting that the United States should not have fought in WWII. The effects on world society from winning the war are obvious.But for the most part, the notion that the US government employing people to build tanks is, in itself, good for the nation's economic well-being, is stupid.
This sounds a little like Obamas theory of stimulating the economy by creating more govt make work jobs.So you are correct, it is stupid.
I am not an alcoholic

I am a drunk

Alcoholics go to meetings

#575 strategy

strategy

    Internet expert

  • Members
  • 15,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:strategy
  • Favorite Poker Game:strategy

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:35 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Saturday, August 27th, 2011, 7:20 PM, said:

The problem is, like Shake hinted, if we didn't fight the war then the Jews would be extinct and there would be a lot less black people. Who knows how many Europeans would have died. We had to fight the war. We couldn't choose not to fight.Unless you're saying that Hitler shouldn't have chosen to start the fight, and then we agree.It also would have been good if it didn't happen, since the war distracted everyone while FDR was screwing us in the butt.
bad wording on my part. I think we chose the least damaging option in fighting WWII, as do most non-scram people. I just think it's crazy there are millions of people in this country who think WWII was a positive for the economy and simultaneously despise Obama's stimulus. to me, the spending looks identical, except Obama's policies don't carry quite as high a mortality rate.

View Postphlegm, on Sunday, August 28th, 2011, 3:13 PM, said:

This sounds a little like Obamas theory of stimulating the economy by creating more govt make work jobs.So you are correct, it is stupid.
SIGH
QUOTE (ShakeZuma @ Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 4:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seriously though, with that grammar it's really like, I mean it doesn't bother me as much that she gets beat, you know?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users