Why it will never work

[justoffal]

So the left has bought itself four more years to pretend that they can cope with the growing demand curve of needs and wants currently hanging like a lie a massive and insatiable yaw over the existence of clueless liberalism.

Changing the tax structure will help a little...but not very much.

We have an aging population that no longer fits the model that was crafted for it by the benevolent hand of that Global Intellectual elitist.... FDR...God please DO NOT REST his soul!

As the Global population expands exponentially we still have absolutely no idea what the demand curves are going to look like. Simply put we've never been there before and we cannot predict what it's going to look like when we do get there......but it doesn't look very pretty so far. The reason we cannot know is because there are just too many dynamic interfaces that affect the rate of change to have any idea whatsoever as to whether we will be able to come close to meeting that demand and frankly most exponential curves curve up and out not in and down.

Would Ryan's approach work? Who knows....nobody really knows. It may not have. Did Ryan's plan accept the inevitable? Yes..it did. Does the current plan ( um, what plan? ) being offered out by the foolhardy boy who would be king take the inevitable into account? Well they say it does...but then it proceeds to show plans for expansion that are already far beyond the known limits of current graphic boundaries. In other words they don't add up.

I guess if you're going to fail you might as well party on the way down....cuz I have no idea whatsoever whether Changing Presidents would change our predicament. One thing I do know for certain though; Changing the tax rate...doesn't add up. It doesn't even reverse the debt trend. OK I'll say it's one teenie-tiny step in the right direction...but it's a complete waste of time all by itself. Confiscate 100% of the upper 10% wealth ( of course that will only happen once ) and you have several months worth of solvency before there's nothing left.

See here is the ugly truth. There are too many people and they live too long. I know that sounds horrible but being repulsed by the statement doesn't make it go away. Right now we don't have a workable answer to the problem. The democrats don't and neither do the republicans. However there is one tried and true method that works for systems of demand time and again and that is going back to the basic parts of a system to repair their contributory status on a piece by piece basis. You can't make all the parts contribute but if you make most of them contribute you can almost always turn the failure curve around. Will it work with humanity? I don't know. Is there a chance that we might morph into a borg-like macro-system that is greater, more efficient and mightier than the sum of its parts? I say no.

Socialists think yes...although there has never been such a system in our history that has worked even a little. Any of such cultures have always started at maximum potential and wound down to nothing eventually collapsing. The most recent was the Soviet Union.

Maybe Liberals would be better off watching Japanese anime!

Here is what the Obama administration thinks the human race can do.

[video=youtube;tZZv5Z2Iz_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZv5Z2Iz_s[/video]

 

[Arkady]

I'm not at all clear what your argument is, but at least you have a cartoon to entertain yourself.

 

[GordonGecko]

I'm not at all clear what your argument is, but at least you have a cartoon to entertain yourself.

He's basically a "Time Machine" Rightwinger....you know the guys who think "Everything would be perfect if we cut all Government back to the level it was in 1890".

Or a "Apocalypse" Rightwinger....the kind who think "socialism is going to utterly destroy the country...has been for 100 years" and sees no hope and is just "waiting for the inevitable collapse" sitting on his stack of MREs and gold coins.

Or combine them....into a "Terminator" Rightwinger....which uses both time travel AND the Apocalypse. Plus he seems to like robots.

 

[trapdoor]

The date I'd pick would be more like 1933, but yes, we'd be freer citizens with less government, and we'd have a smaller debt, deficit and tax burden.

 

[degsme]

See here is the ugly truth. There are too many people and they live too long. I know that sounds horrible but being repulsed by the statement doesn't make it go away.

You need to read some history and econ.

This has been true since we began having food production surpluses in the late 1300s.

Malthusian doomsday scenarios have never come true.

as for us "not knowing if the Ryan plan would work"? Well we also don't know if tomorrow all pigs will spontaneously sprout wings and fly. But we have a Damned LOT of evidence both won't happen

 

[zzigzzag]

All work and no play makes Justoffalittle a very dull boy.

Therapy?

Can't believe I read all of that. Made me think of Archie listening to Edith.

[video=youtube;yKwdRHovYok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yKwdRHovYok[/video]

 

[GordonGecko]

The date I'd pick would be more like 1933, but yes, we'd be freer citizens with less government, and we'd have a smaller debt, deficit and tax burden.

and we've have senior citizens as THE poorest demographic, forced into "county homes" and "poor farms". As well as widows and orphans. Throw in bankruptcies from medical expenses.

Also throw in rivers that "caught fire" lack of environmental policies and workers working for pennies.

A glorious age, trap.

 

[888888]

So the left has bought itself four more years to pretend that they can cope with the growing demand curve of needs and wants currently hanging like a lie a massive and insatiable yaw over the existence of clueless liberalism.

Changing the tax structure will help a little...but not very much.

We have an aging population that no longer fits the model that was crafted for it by the benevolent hand of that Global Intellectual elitist.... FDR...God please DO NOT REST his soul!

As the Global population expands exponentially we still have absolutely no idea what the demand curves are going to look like. Simply put we've never been there before and we cannot predict what it's going to look like when we do get there......but it doesn't look very pretty so far. The reason we cannot know is because there are just too many dynamic interfaces that affect the rate of change to have any idea whatsoever as to whether we will be able to come close to meeting that demand and frankly most exponential curves curve up and out not in and down.

Would Ryan's approach work? Who knows....nobody really knows. It may not have. Did Ryan's plan accept the inevitable? Yes..it did. Does the current plan ( um, what plan? ) being offered out by the foolhardy boy who would be king take the inevitable into account? Well they say it does...but then it proceeds to show plans for expansion that are already far beyond the known limits of current graphic boundaries. In other words they don't add up.

I guess if you're going to fail you might as well party on the way down....cuz I have no idea whatsoever whether Changing Presidents would change our predicament. One thing I do know for certain though; Changing the tax rate...doesn't add up. It doesn't even reverse the debt trend. OK I'll say it's one teenie-tiny step in the right direction...but it's a complete waste of time all by itself. Confiscate 100% of the upper 10% wealth ( of course that will only happen once ) and you have several months worth of solvency before there's nothing left.

See here is the ugly truth. There are too many people and they live too long. I know that sounds horrible but being repulsed by the statement doesn't make it go away. Right now we don't have a workable answer to the problem. The democrats don't and neither do the republicans. However there is one tried and true method that works for systems of demand time and again and that is going back to the basic parts of a system to repair their contributory status on a piece by piece basis. You can't make all the parts contribute but if you make most of them contribute you can almost always turn the failure curve around. Will it work with humanity? I don't know. Is there a chance that we might morph into a borg-like macro-system that is greater, more efficient and mightier than the sum of its parts? I say no.

Socialists think yes...although there has never been such a system in our history that has worked even a little. Any of such cultures have always started at maximum potential and wound down to nothing eventually collapsing. The most recent was the Soviet Union.

Maybe Liberals would be better off watching Japanese anime!

Here is what the Obama administration thinks the human race can do.

[video=youtube;tZZv5Z2Iz_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZZv5Z2Iz_s[/video]

OK, so what is the answer? Should Americans learn to live with less and have less of a future if your a working person. While at the same time those who control the wealth continue to gather it at an amazing pace.

According to republicans everyone who depends on things like SS, Medicare, food stamps, student loans, need to understand that America cannot continue to pay for it out of the taxes that are collected. That States and local govts need to do with less as does the federal govt.
While profits that mainly go to the those who are very wealthy need to continue to grow.

We can't as a country, can't take care of the needs of what our overall population will and do have right now. We have 16 trillion in debt but little of it is because of the bottom 90% of our population. While at the same time we have grown debt, the top 10% have grown wealth and want more.

Why shouldn't the cost of what we need as a nation come out of the profits of what we produce as a nation? Workers are told they must do with less, give up what gains they have gotten while at the very same time those who have profited the most want a status quo.

The deficit is not a problem that can be fixed by cutting benefits. People have to go to work. Put people to work is the answer, but if we can't count on those who have so much paying what they did before Bush's tax cuts how are we going to figure out a plan on how to get Americans back to work.

I am so sick of hearing people who have the money say I will not put as many people to work as I need, until I get what I want. Do these people really want people to believe that companies use their money to hire people they don't need. Really you want us to believe that hiring is based on want and not need.

 

[trapdoor]

and we've have senior citizens as THE poorest demographic, forced into "county homes" and "poor farms". As well as widows and orphans. Throw in bankruptcies from medical expenses.

Also throw in rivers that "caught fire" lack of environmental policies and workers working for pennies.

A glorious age, trap.

Or living with and cared for by their families, as my family did during that period. Or they'd have to save and pay for their own retirements (apparently personal responsibility is too much to expect), or any number of other non-governmental, and certainly non-federal, solutions to the problem.

I know of no river that caught fire in the 1930s. The one I know of that did catch fire, in Ohio, was an event that took place well into the "alphabet-soup-of-government-regulations" era.

I know of no "glorious" age, either in our own history or in any other country. I know, however, that people can be free or constrained, and that more regulation means more constraint, not more freedom. When you accept government funding, you accept government control (which is why researchers should run far and fast from any government grant program). What about you, in your own personal life. Would you rather be free, or under the control of regulations written by a faceless bureaucrat unfamiliar with your life? (My guess is I know the answer).

 

[degsme]

Or living with and cared for by their families, as my family did during that period.

May have worked in SOME cases. but in general it did not. IN GENERAL it resulted in a BROADENED LEVEL OF POVERTY and Shortened life span.

I know of no river that caught fire in the 1930s. The one I know of that did catch fire, in Ohio, was an event that took place well into the "alphabet-soup-of-government-regulations" era.

not quite. IN fact the "alphabet soup" took place AS A RESULT of the 1970s fires But even going back tot he 1700s there were creeks and rivers SO POLLUTED that they were filled in and covered over. Places on the east coast, particularly along the NJ and DL coasts have had some significant structural and legal problems with this. One of the Admiralty law cases my father handled when I was in HS dealt with exactly this.

[quote[I know of no "glorious" age, either in our own history or in any other country. I know, however, that people can be free or constrained, and that more regulation means more constraint, not more freedom. [/quote]
You know nothign of the sort - you switch between the negativist view of freedom (which you just expressed here) to a positivist view (when you claim that Obama's daughters will never face the challenges to success you have) at your emotional convenience. You have no cosnsitent philosophy of "freedom" or "liberty"... instead you just run on the recevied ideology that is largely oriented around your personal convenience and tastes.



And as a white male - OF COURSE you would like to move to the 1933s - you get a restoration of all sorts of unearned priviledges and don't have to worry about treating THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION as equals. You don't have to compete with them on skills, and your lack of a Univ degree hampers you less in financial success.

What you ignore of course is that your health would be worse, your life expectancy shorter, the scope of opportunities IN THE AGGREGATE would be lowr for you (you'd probably be working as a slightly but permanently injured family member on your father's farm), you would have fewer of the things you enjoy (guns for target shooting, fast cars) and you would work harder and longer.

 

[trapdoor]

May have worked in SOME cases. but in general it did not. IN GENERAL it resulted in a BROADENED LEVEL OF POVERTY and Shortened life span.

There are many factors associated with the lengthened lifespan in the U.S. since the 1930s, not the least of which is better medical care and improved medical technology since that period. I've yet to see any valid study indicating it is bad for your health to live with your own family.

not quite. IN fact the "alphabet soup" took place AS A RESULT of the 1970s fires But even going back tot he 1700s there were creeks and rivers SO POLLUTED that they were filled in and covered over. Places on the east coast, particularly along the NJ and DL coasts have had some significant structural and legal problems with this. One of the Admiralty law cases my father handled when I was in HS dealt with exactly this.

The Cuyahoga caught fire in 1969. This was before the Clean Water Act, but after the passage of a host of other regulations. As for the other instances, I can't comment without detail.

You know nothign of the sort - you switch between the negativist view of freedom (which you just expressed here) to a positivist view (when you claim that Obama's daughters will never face the challenges to success you have) at your emotional convenience. You have no cosnsitent philosophy of "freedom" or "liberty"... instead you just run on the recevied ideology that is largely oriented around your personal convenience and tastes.

Freedom has only one meaning -- the lack of constraint. I don't endorse your "positive" and "negative" uses on the term, because invariably it means less "positive freedom" less freedom to actually act, in the name of a "freedom" that is either collective or unusable.

My convenience IS my freedom, just as your convenience is your freedom, and the only place any government should be involved is if one directly impinges on the other. And the federal government's influence in that should be the last resort, not the first option.

What you ignore of course is that your health would be worse, your life expectancy shorter, the scope of opportunities IN THE AGGREGATE would be lowr for you (you'd probably be working as a slightly but permanently injured family member on your father's farm), you would have fewer of the things you enjoy (guns for target shooting, fast cars) and you would work harder and longer.

But Degs -- if I choose to smoke or eat fatty foods, I'm making a decision that could shorten my life, but the key word is COULD, and the determination on whether or not to pursue those activities should be mine to make, not someone else. My freedom to leave the farm and work for a truck line (my father's choice) to abjure trucking and seek journalism (my own), etc.? Those are individual choices made in an unconstrained environment.