When I put this together I didn't run across it on the .gov sites. I'm just throwing out what I have cause I know there are many here who may feel inclined to analyze it themselves.

Related note, since lots of people are at least intellectually involved in politics and macroeconomics, figured I would share this. I compiled this years ago from multiple governmental databases. So piecemeal, if you want a source I can't remember them, but they were all .gov sites.

https://drive.google.com/...5OUo2dmM/edit?usp=sharing

Let me know if this doesn't share, it should be for anyone online. I only just added it to my drive...

perhaps this one has my older account...

edit: huh, one login, two handles...w/e. I'll use this then.

How many acres for bottomfeeders are produced by ghost acres? I guess, for me, if we are to include all attacks where a retal is made, what is the real difference if we include those in which a retal was not made? Is the amount of ghost acres produced for a bottomfeeder just ignored in this case?

Overall, I just see that definition of landtrading as insane. Why don't we just take away attacking and then all net in a bubble to see who is truly the best.

I think it kind of follows that if we haven't caused it, what could we possibly do to mitigate it? If all the stuff we've done still hasn't caused anything, how can reversing what already has done nothing, do anything? That is the thought process there. Show we are causing climate change and how to mitigate it as DStone says and I'll sign on as well.

I guess someone who disagrees with you is...not allowed?

It's not always about what side their analysts fall on, but what stories they cover and from what angle. I see lots of stories from all news networks where they have analysts from both sides, yet they cover the story completely different and ask radically different questions about the situation. When you start thinking critically, you can get back to me. *rolls eyes*

Have an opinion?

I'm pretty sure Pang is just trolling with this question or he would call into question all of our news outlets. I find MSNBC far more biased than any news outlet I've ever watched. CNN is pretty biased to the left as well. Going newspapers, NYT is almost a tabloid it is so far left.

Had Pang actually brought up the entire conversation, I would think he was serious, but as it is, he was trolling.

Supertodd, I think what locket is trying to say with that last comment is he believes the way he does, simply because he does. As you said, tyranny is the rule, not the exception throughout history. Unless human nature has changed in the past few hundred years, our Constitution is as relevant now as it was then.

In short, locket is more of a troll when it comes to gun control than a thinker and contributor to the conversation.

I'm not exactly sure how people actually think we should increase gun control when all the stats show when you make a move in that direction violent crimes and murder rates rise.

Qzjul, what about requiring teachers to take a gun course and to have a gun locked up in their classroom?

Serpentor, nobody has said more guns = less gun violence. However more guns = less violence. You can subset the violence if you choose, however in places where gun laws have become more strict, murder rates and general violent crimes have gone up. Are you willing to have more overall deaths and violence just to have fewer gun related deaths and violence?

locket, what makes you think the world is different now than it was then? Why would it not happen? Did Germans think it would happen in the 1930's when the Nazi's were coming to power?

The 2nd amendment was specifically put into our constitution so the people would always be able to defend themselves against the government. Human nature has not changed since that moment and I see no reason why we should take our eye off our government. A disarmed populace can do nothing against a tyrannical government. All the other arguments about lower murder rates, lower violent crimes rates, etc, are just background noise which make the case stronger for gun rights.

The evidence proves otherwise locket. Apparently you didn't read the extensive research that was done in my link. Pity.

Here you go locket, read away. Covers Europe crime and murder rates.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/...No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

You go ahead and focus on school shootings while the rest of us focus society as a whole.

oh brother locket...yea he had no way of getting a gun. *rolls eyes*

And Switzerland?

+

they did this long before the patriot act. even on phone calls, if you say a buzzword, you may be contacted.

bonus!

Meh, it sounds like it's only the animation, so lots of e-readers don't use that animation so it shouldn't change too many things.

http://www.factcheck.org/...and-the-democratic-party/

Thats historically. If you read factchecks take it's because of the civil rights act. Probably true. I'm surprised they do still vote that way. You can't get 90% of any bloc of people to agree on anything, but meh, such is life.

Oh once you factor in...blah blah blah H4, that is all I read from that. Who decides how much to weight that? No, by metrics, it is the best care in the world. I've yet to read one report who in detail explains the better care by other countries.

H4 you are asking for specifics, but fail to give any of your own. Yes I have theories, based on empirical evidence of things around me, books I've read, other reaches of government, etc. I could ask to show where government is more efficient and say you are blowing smoke, but do I?

blid, standard of living as in the number of TV's a family can afford, the number of cars a family can afford, the number of household appliance items a family can afford, salary vs cost of products, services, etc...yes standard of living is higher in America than any European country.

Suddenly? People have been conditioned for dependency now, you can't just create a vacuum. It's called sun-setting, slowly get rid of the program and people will start planning for it.

As in the other thread, why have healthcare costs risen? Could it be government intervention around the world? I posted in another thread about that one, but costs around the world are rising as government takes more and more of the market. The only way to curb costs that way is removing care, reducing quality. The thing about your entire point about bankruptcies is you are comparing a government controlled market to a government monopoly market. I'm arguing for none of the above and you fault me for the government increasing healthcare costs and that in turn sending people through bankruptcy?

Doing some research on your potato famine, not everybody could even own land and you call it capitalism? Catholics couldn't do anything up until just prior to this point in time. As a result of non-capitalist policies 80% of catholics lived in poverty, thus creating the exact result you are talking about. So in summary, you blame capitalism for government creating laws that brought about the situation. Good job blid.

I'm still not sure why you ask if there was any poverty. Here lets do a little research...

"In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004."
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#3

So, by the time the war on poverty was in full swing, poverty had already reached the minimum it would be for the next 50 years. It then bottoms as the war on poverty is fully implemented and because it didn't skyrocket again the program was a success? No, if we were getting along not spending 16 trillion dollars and ended with a poverty rate approaching 11.1 and then decided to spend all that money and ended with poverty in the 12's, how could it possibly be viewed as anything other than a failure. Spending 16 trillion to maintain status quo is called unsustainable.

Maybe China can get the rights and protect it from Disney haha...good episode...

Orkin, blacks have historically voted about 90% democrat. Now, have they turned out in higher numbers? Yes, but they already vote monolithic.

blid, it's not my job to educate you. I brought up affirmative action as a side point so someone can go look for themselves, obviously you don't care to expand your knowledge on this topic.

Claiming natural unemployment=poverty is ridiculous. Even on its face it's ridiculous, but you could take a look at prosperity in other nations and compare it. What is the standard of living in Germany? I've been there and my sister has lived there, it's not near what we have in America. Compare it to any other European nation, compare it to Canada, compare it to whomever you like, standard of living is what capitalism is all about, not employing 100% of the population.

Your points were worthless, it isn't that I didn't read them, I just rolled my eyes at them. First off, without all these government programs people would actually plan ahead and families would stick together. Second, without the government stealing our money, we would have more to contribute to the charitable organizations of our choice. For an example of charity doing more than government take a look at the "Texas Seed Bill" under Grover Cleveland, back when the government didn't have their hands in everything.

Why would a charity try to run a universal healthcare program? Would not a majority of the population already pay for their own care in a capitalist society? A charity would at most need to handle their local area and only those who came to them for help. Why would you think all these charities would be on a national scale?

As to the great recession(I'm guessing you mean depression), I propose you check out the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, and the expansion of government in the role of creating a 12 year depression. I don't just blame FDR as Hoover was the one that started a bunch of government programs before him.

Proving a negative H4? Not me. I've yet to see a factual argument showing a reason for the program to exist.

Here is where we differ...the American healthcare system, but pretty much every metric, is the best in the world. Treatment for everything is of a higher quality than anywhere I've read about, so if you have something to show on that front, I would like to see it.

Your argument about public care being better with more money than public care with less has little basis. The education system in America is a perfect example of more money showing no results. The war on poverty, as in the other thread, is another example of 16 trillion dollars being thrown out the window.

A public system has no reason whatsoever to be efficient. I don't know how many programs I've looked into where the government creates jobs simply to create jobs. They are not looking to get the best bang for your buck, they are looking to employ more people. Couple this with the fact that a government program is a defacto monopoly (which everybody hates with a passion for some reason) and it adds to the reasoning that they have no reason to keep costs low for your benefit. Privatization is the only way to keep costs low because they compete against each other. They have motive to provide the best care at the best price. The problem with our system is the regulation surrounding hospitals and insurance as it is. What we have now is the halfway solution that is worse than freedom and chains. Either the government has to leave it alone or take it all over. So a comparison of what a free market healthcare system would do to what we actually have is inaccurate.

Now, if we want to talk about healthcare costs in relation to government intervention, we could go there. As the government has become more involved, costs have risen as a % of GDP. I found a couple sites with OECD data, and all looked similar to this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/.../Health_costs_USA_GDP.gif

Now, this isn't only in America, other countries have all had costs rising as a % of GDP, however they have curbed the actual care they get and as such it didn't rise as sharply.
http://media.economist.com/...isease_health_as__gdp.jpg

As for your last point, I would argue the governments around the world are the problem in creating that increase in costs.

There are lots of government programs with that same outcome Oceana. I would get some facts on affirmative action actually hurting those it tries to help, but I don't care enough to spend that kind of time in finding stuff I read a few years ago.

The war on poverty is a disaster and there is no getting around it. Yet, somehow because those on the right think with our minds and not our hearts we are monsters? All the compassion in the world won't create prosperity, however cold facts and logical thinking will. Spending trillions of dollars on the impoverished only creates a larger problem with dependents not striving to improve themselves.

Here is how I see it went down:
-Program created with good intentions
-People back politicians giving them money, creating a permanent voting bloc
-Program fails to show results, however it would be political suicide to remove such program
-Politicians use program to continually promise more for votes
-16 trillion dollars later, we have a program that does not help anybody and yet still costs the American taxpayers billions each year


This is why charity will always do a better job. The means testing is built into the system and a charitable organization can refuse someone if they aren't helping themselves. A government program always ends up bloated and inefficient.

H4, are you saying there is a 1:1 correlation of spending to results? I would argue that a private system will be much more efficient and cost less for the quality of care. If however you stick to more money=better care then I have some fantastic beach property to sell you.

More money does not equal better, especially when in regards to a government operation. Our education system is a perfect example of this.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/.../articleshow/17194134.cms

Anyone else see something wrong with a government filing suit against a credit rating agency? Should they win I guess we can throw out the worthiness of those credit rating agencies as they will not have the freedom necessary to do their jobs anymore.

Anon, not going to go into specifics too much, but a couple stick out...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...one-xl-oil-pipeline-video

http://www.washingtontimes.com/...illing-projects/?page=all

Stopping new drilling and exploration(which will raise prices down the road too) are things he has done during his 4 years. Did it have a huge effect? The price of oil is probably more driven by futures than the current situation and his policies lower our output into the future, creating possible shortages as countries around the world use more oil.

I don't blame him only or anything, but as my previous link was about how he blamed Bush, should he get to escape blame now?

4 years galleri? Why wait that long? Next round of election is only two years ahead and campaigning starts today!

Trife, I've never strictly blamed him personally, but his policies are restrictive to new drilling and exploration. However, just for comparisons sake...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQb_4hXLx2Q

Bobby, have you thought that your process would work better without the government involvement? Think of it in terms of buying your own insurance. You pay for certain things to be covered, at a premium. Want more covered? Pay more. There is no reason for the government to make a decision on whether anyone will get care, because it will be in the hands of that individual.

This is the problem with the government being involved at all in healthcare. Halfway only makes the problem worse because people don't pay and get care. The only way a government can get involved is a full scale takeover, but then they will decide who lives and who dies. In the end you end up with a 2 class system where people with enough money to pay the government healthcare costs on top of private costs get the care they want and another class of citizens who can't and don't.

Just read your link galleri...I think that is the main problem with this bill. Nobody really knows what it is, mainly because it was written vague enough to mean anything and nothing. I guess we'll get to see it unravel for the next 4 years though.

I'm just glad we can keep entertaining galleri with all this political talk even after the elections.

The consumers control businesses. Don't buy their products and they won't be around much longer.

AM I SUPPOSED TO YELL NOW??? Why get personal when we are forming analysis?

Yea, it's because of the precincts remaining. Cuyahoga county would be the main reason.

It was a win for Obama, but the Reps are looking to pick up seats in the house. So, no mandate either way which brings us to a stalemate for the next 4 years. Probably better than our government doing anything to cause more problems.

True, but do you trust them to open up the entire constitution? State officials wouldn't be any better in most regards, especially since each federal rep is voted individually at the state level already and they are part of the problem.

A constitutional convention opens up everything and I don't trust this generation of Americans to protect freedom.

blid, this situation can only occur in a society in which the government has any power over businesses in the first place. If the reps didn't have power to influence business, would businessmen be paying them off? I doubt it, because they would have nothing to gain. Capitalism is the lack of government involvement. Your definition of capitalism can be applied to even those societies who fall under the communism banner. So no, it is not capitalism, but rather any society that puts the necessary power in their national/federal/whatever government will end up in this state of affairs. The final say will either come from business or government, but it matters not. Give government power and in the end one or the other will control the economy, not the people at large.

Angel, a constitutional convention is a bad idea because the people who are in power today are not there because they wish to limit the role of the federal government. A constitutional convention opens up the entire constitution to being changed, not just adding some ins and outs. Imagine say you have a majority of the people wanting to limit arms, who use that to compromise with another group who want to institute a poll tax. You have to take into account the people who would be changing our constitution vs who built it in the first place. It is not the laws that are the problem, but rather the vast power grabs being made around the laws. A constitutional convention will not fix that.

Rockman, here's where we differ on this. You call it state capitalism, while I say it isn't capitalism at all. Rather it is fascism, where the government controls business. Capitalism is where the government does not have the power to control business. So state capitalism, by the very definition of capitalism, cannot exist.

I wouldn't advocate calling either fascists, but I wouldn't call them very far off either.

Rockman, one could argue that what you just said is basically the definition of fascism. Not the always negative connotation the word has, but the actual definition of the form of government. Communism is the government taking the business from the businessman. Fascism is the government leaving the business in control of the businessman, but controlling how he runs it. Socialism is really both and neither at this point in time. Those forms of government hate each other, historically, yet one (communism) is trumpeted as a graduated form of socialism and the other (fascism) has had socialism in the name (nazi's).

These debates need to find a way to get on primetime TV. If people were to hear about these candidates more, it wouldn't be a "waste" of a vote. I say "waste" because it isn't really a waste, just voting for a candidate that won't win.

blid, in case you didn't notice, I ignored your last post. So...I see no reason to respond now. He released 2 years of straight taxes. 20 years in summary. Plus some odds and ins as well.

*shrugs* I say again, I'm no great defender of Romney, but it is laughable to use this issue against him.

Diss, did you go to the website, it doesn't actually say anything other that offer up the actual documents for you to download. If you don't trust the actual paperwork from him, then why are we having this conversation?

16, -3

between libertarian and republican. I think I would have been closer to libertarian, but some of the questions, say labor laws, were lead on questions with no correct answer, so I just said don't know for keeping it out of the equation.

Gary Johnson 90% with Romney at 64% for me.

oh sorry I guess 20 was a bit of an overstatement, but...
http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure

for you to read.

I'm no great defender of Romney, there are many things I don't like about him, but complaining about his tax returns is laughable at best.

dex, I'm a little confused. At first I thought you were talking about Romney, but then you mentioned 2 years of tax returns when Romney released 20 of his and his dads. On top of Romney giving something like 35%+ of his income to either the government or charity...

Who were you talking about there?