NoGodBlog.com

Peter, why the rabbi? Why not the gardener or the chef?

Okay seriously, the bible, like most other sources of similarly sized literature are opened to nigh endless interpretations. So most guesses are good as any other, provided they actually interpret what the bible says.

The "Bible belt" is the same part of the country that is a stereotype for people having sex with animals and relatives.

Sorry, we should not stereotype a segment of our society.

Please designate in order (how disgusting) you feel the following sex practices are - 1 being most disgusting - 5 being least disgusting:

Men having sex with animals

Men having sex with their Mothers

Men having sex with other men

Men having sex with underage boys and girls

Men having sex with themselves (including sex toys - blow-up dolls, vibrators, butt plugs, pictures of naked/sexually aroused people etc...)


I left women out because the stereotype says they don't engage in these practices.

Yes Virginia, there are perverts out there, and they want to force God on you.

Is your religious leader molesting boys, committing adultery, and at the same time telling you what your morals should be?

A 'proper' analysis of Genesis can be found at:

http://www.vsocial.com/video/?d=39855

Enjoy

Off-Topic: University of Oxford Spends $3.7M for Study About Why People Believe in God

They will not attempt to solve the question of whether God exists but they will examine evidence to try to prove whether belief in God conferred an evolutionary advantage to mankind.

Evolutionary advantage?? Too funny.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331190,00.html

I believe E.O. Wilson, in Sociobiology, first posited that religious belief might confer an evolutionary advantage. Which has got to explode the heads of the fundies because they can't brag about it without admitting that evolution is a fact.

This is the kind of ridiculous crap that inspires me to create websites about all of the stuff God hates. I haven't done one on gay penguins, yesterday it was brats.

http://GodHatesBrats.com/

That old God sure spends a lot of time hating. Maybe he really is a Republican?

Rusty

I once heard a anti-evolution conservative talk-radio host (Michael Medved) do exactly that. I called him on it and it was just hilarious to watch the backpedaling. Follow-up xian callers would not let him off the hook either.

UnGodly

That old God sure spends a lot of time hating.

Gawd is the hate proxy.

What,
That must have been awesome. Medved is a tool. Instead of becoming a shitty pundit, he should have stuck with his strength: being a shitty movie critic.

I forgot one other piece of the story. Another reason they needed God to tell them to marry a woman is that during the Bronze Age, everyone was home schooled.

Well not that much different than now in the Bible Belt where they abandoned public schools in the early 60's because they had to let blacks in and those who couldn't afford xian academies had to keep their kids at home.

Rusty

... he should have stuck with his strength: being a shitty movie critic.

I think that Michael "The Tool" Medved is closer to the center of the Xian Right propaganda machine than might appear to be the case. In 2003 I noted that the talking points of the Xian Right with respect to Iraq appeared on Medved first, often weeks in advance of other talk-radio and TV pundits. I think his show was a designated testing ground for GOP memes.

When I read the title of this thread there was no doubt who wrote it...

Animals and the bible belt? Hardly...try the state of Washington...Part of the "Left Coast"

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1739698,00.html

Comment from: UnGodly

That old God sure spends a lot of time hating.

Now that's funny...exactly how many web sites have you developed dealing with "hate"?

Have you developed any positive web sites?

*** OFF TOPIC ***

Unless Hilary steals the delegates it looks like Obama is going to be your man...(and if Hilary does, ironically Obama would win the popular vote, and she'd with the delegate count)...

Tell me...how is the country going to afford him?

phreedum,
What does bestia1ity with a horse have to do with gay penguins? You do understand that bestia1ity is not the same as consensual homosexuality between adults, right? I find the prospect of being fucked by a horse to be as disgusting as you do.

A religious studies professor here at UNC Chapel Hill has written a great new book called "God's Problem" which is about the incompatiability of god's existence and human suffering.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2286,Bart-Ehrman-Questioning-Religion-on-Why-We-Suffer,NPR

phreedm,

Tell me...how is the country going to afford him?

George Bush took this country from a $4.5 trillion deficit, to a $9 trillion deficit in seven short years, and you have the audacity to ask how this country can afford Obama?

None are so blind as those that refuse to see.

From phreddy's link on be@stiality:

Images of the flock of offerings on the bestial dude ranch were relayed over the internet and records indicate men had come from throughout the United States, according to police.

So much for wierdos on the "Left Coast". Sounds like wierdos abound in this here Christian Nation.

More War, Less Jobs

Vote John The-really-really-old-fart McCain

I must say, I applaud Mr. McCain for his NAVY antics and look forward to kicking major world ass with him! Can he help us kick ass in global trade, US ecconomics, and still flex our mighty military muscle as well!? I do admire a NAVY guy over all the other nobody shmucks.

QF

Just what we need more kick-ass mentality. That's been working out well for us hasn't it?

Didn't phreedum post about this horse fucking club in another thread? It's as if he has a fixation with it.

We don't call him Phreeky for nothing.

I think banging animals and machines and animal/machine hybrids is rather Phreeky too. One time I saw this chick in a bikini humping the front end of a Corvette, and really rocking it back and forth like crazy, when I was waiting for my pizza at Poppa Johns. She looked like she was all fired up about going for a ride in/on that car.

Don't tell my wife it's illegal to have sex with a beast. That's what she calls me all the time anyway.

Comment from: phreedm [Member]
When I read the title of this thread there was no doubt who wrote it...

Animals and the bible belt? Hardly...try the state of Washington...Part of the "Left Coast"

You could always talk about that christian activist who has openly admitted that he had sex with animals:

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/06/bizarre_sex_habits_of_the_extreme_rightwing.php

Then again, phreakshow exhibits a standard tactic of the religiously insane Republican't - accuse your opponents of the illegal and immoral behaviors you engage in:

Have you developed any positive web sites?

Well, phreakshow - have you made any positive comments here at this web stie? I would suggest that you focus on your own behavior until you can manage to avoid doing the things you fault others for doing. Possibly without referring to the Invisible Sky Fairy while you're at it.

Comment from: (: tom :)

I would suggest that you focus on your own behavior until you can manage to avoid doing the things you fault others for doing.

There's difference between debating and life's obsessions...

BTW...congrats on figuring out th "italics"....

Ren...

First of all spending originates in congress...

Second...deficits are not necessarily bad. You and I both run daily deficits with the grocery store and gas station...

I am greatly disappointed in the fact that Bush did not veto the spending bills. On that topic I agree with you...

There are 2 sides to every budget. Spending and income. Washington's spending is out of control, but there is no dobut that the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the government the same way they did for Pres Kennedy and for Pres Reagan...

As for Obama he addresses everyone as if they're a victim (most likely this sits well with the bomb thrower).

Whatever happened to people being able to stand on their own 2 feet? Why does so much of America believe "hope" lies within Washington?

I'm glad to see the christians are out spreading their message of peace and love by banning books. If there is one way to love everyone, it sure must be to deny them the right to read about penguins. Good job christians!

Comment from: What

More War, Less Jobs

Ren....case in point.

What believes that voting for one candidate or the other will either take away jobs or add jobs...

Nonsense....

As as for Iraq...regardless of who wins and regardless of what they are saying now...

They will NOT pull our troops out of Iraq...period.

By the way, did you know that both Obama and Clinton had their foreign policy advisors visit the president of Syria during the same week?

http://www.nysun.com/article/71373

Now why do you suppose they did that?

phreedm,

First of all spending originates in congress...

And no bill becomes law until the president signs it, with the exception of a veto override.

BTW, wasn't there a Republican congress during most of that time???

phreedm,

By the way, did you know that both Obama and Clinton had their foreign policy advisors visit the president of Syria during the same week?

BTW, did you know that Ronnie Ray-Gun met with Gorbachev on numerous occasions. DURING THE COLD WAR WITH THE SOVIET UNION!!!

Now, why do you suppose he did that?

Comment from: phreedm [Member]
Comment from: (: tom :)

I would suggest that you focus on your own behavior until you can manage to avoid doing the things you fault others for doing.br /> There's difference between debating and life's obsessions...

Yes, there is a difference. Too bad you never debate around here, and instead obsess over your pagan occult supaerstitions while throwing the comments off-topic.

BTW...congrats on figuring out th "italics"....

Congrats right back at ya for completely ignoring that whole 'debate' thing and continuing your practice of catapulting Republican't propaganda (there are all sorts of doubts about the Republican't lie that reducing taxes increases government revenue amongst those who engage in rational thought), and completely ignoring that whole spelling and grammar thing while responding.

I couldn't create a better poster boy for religious insanity than you, phreaky. I've already had a couple of christians renounce their superstitious propaganda after getting them to read a few of your screeds. So I guess you should also be congratulated for helping other who have shared your delusional mindset realize just how loony their belief system is.

Keep up the religious insanity, er, good work!

Phreedm,

Washington's spending is out of control, but there is no dobut that the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the government

Would you please explain this statement, Phreedm?

Don't make grand statements without explaining them. The phrases "it is clear that" and "there is no doubt" tend to trigger people's skepticism (mine included), you have to follow those statements with a solid explanation.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I really would like to hear your explanation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again- trying to have an intellectual debate with phreedumb is like administering medicine to the dead.

Oh, and Ren, if I remember correctly, didn't Clinton leave office with a surplus, then the Idiot pResident ran up this giant debt? You mentioned earlier that Clinton left with a $4.5 trillion debt, if I read correctly.

Oh, yeah - as for the italics thing: it looks to me as though the close bold html tag that I am used to using does not work here.

So, congrats again to phreakshow. You've just shown how little you know about things like html (and how it works around here), and sent off another gratuitous insult instead of, you know, rationally debating the subject at hand, and perhaps even pointing out the error of my ways.

Comment from: Ren

BTW, did you know that Ronnie Ray-Gun met with Gorbachev on numerous occasions. DURING THE COLD WAR WITH THE SOVIET UNION!!!

Now, why do you suppose he did that?

Hmmm...Ren, can you get past your anger?

Anyway, huge difference and I'm surprised you compare the two...

Reagan WAS president representing the American people in full view of the world...

You're blind if you don't understand why the Obama and Clinton camps did this in secret...

I'm sure you can connect the dots but if not I'll be glad to explain it to you...or do you need to answer a question with a question....again?

And yes, you're about to see the fruit of Reagan's vision for missle defense this week...

Comment from: Ren

BTW, wasn't there a Republican congress during most of that time???

Yep...just as they were in control of congress for most of Clinton's administration...

Comment from: alatham

Washington's spending is out of control, but there is no dobut that the Bush tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the government

Would you please explain this statement, Phreedm?

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.cfm

Not only penguins are gay:

http://tinyurl.com/yudg5q

Thank you.

So federal income has increased, presumably because of tax cuts mostly for high-income households. But it hasn't caught up with the increase in federal spending, nor has it actually improved economic stability.

These tax cuts may give people a bit more money in the short term, but they've also helped to increase our deficit.

If you want to help the economy in the long term, cut taxes for people who actually spend money: lower income households.

Bush could have done a much better job, but he choose the financial security of the rich over the poor.

Give money to rich people, it sits in a savings account (maybe even one that isn't in the US). Give money to less rich people and the money goes right back into the economy.

Phreedm,

It's interesting that that site doesn't have a chart showing the after-tax income for each tax bracket. That would tell you more about how well the economy is doing than any of the charts they do provide.

Second...deficits are not necessarily bad. You and I both run daily deficits with the grocery store and gas station...

What an idiot. Phreeky doesn't even understand the difference between debt and deficit. Home-schooled no doubt.

So federal income has increased, presumably because of tax cuts mostly for high-income households. But it hasn't caught up with the increase in federal spending, nor has it actually improved economic stability.

I wouldn't presume that at all - I would think federal tax revenues have increased because the number of taxpayers has gone up, not that tax cuts (the majority of which are extremely skewed towards the super-rich) have increased federal revenues. Which is what naturally happens as the population (especially the tax-paying portion thereof) increases.

I'm relatively certain that the extremely conservative Heritage foundation would be somewhat biased in their reporting of this sort of thing. And, funny - I couldn't find any sort of statistics there that would let me determine if the reason that tax revenues have gone up is that there are more people paying taxes. Nor any sort of disclaimer by the troll that, yet again, throws the comments thread off-topic with Republican't propaganda points, that the 'evidence' that 'proves' that tax cuts increase government revenues is coming from an idealogically conservative site with a vested interest in catapulting the Republican't propaganda point that tax cuts increase government revenues.

Why does Phreeky want to stay in Iraq? Clearly he and his xian brethren have not had their blood lust quenched yet but the real reason is that Phreeky-kind understand that our departure from Iraq will take the last breath from the religious rights political machine. Our eminent 2009 departure from Iraq will underscore in the boldest terms the disasters that await the US when the religious right wields influence.

Comment from: alatham

So federal income has increased, presumably because of tax cuts mostly for high-income households.

Don't fall for the class warfare tactic...

But it hasn't caught up with the increase in federal spending, nor has it actually improved economic stability.

Of course it has...not only was the US in a recession but we had 9/11 which is estimated to have taken
90 billion out of the economy. The stock market was at 7800.
We have had tremendous growth since 2002 with the market topping out at 14,000! Sure sounds stable to me...

These tax cuts may give people a bit more money in the short term, but they've also helped to increase our deficit.

Tax cuts do not increase a deficit...spending does.

If you want to help the economy in the long term, cut taxes for people who actually spend money: lower income households.

Another myth. We all spend money. And I've never been hired by a poor person. Once again designed as class warfare allowing the government to look like the white knight as they redistribute wealth...

Tom...with your rants you prove your lack of understanding of economics and your inability to see past your ideology...

There is some truth to the idea that more people are working and thereforer paying more taxes...

But that's not what's caused the federal revenue to climb...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117867077879196610.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'm sure you'll find some off the wall reason why the WSJ article is invalid as well...

Huge surplus under Clinton -> huge deficit under BushCo. Recession deepening by the day due to BushCo's lack of oversight of the securities industry. Out of control spending on a war that will only end up damaging our global economic standing. Yet Phreeky thinks he has grip on economics. No other way to say it - Phreeky is an idiot.

Phreedm,

Do the decline in value of the US dollar, the decline in the job market, the increase in deficit, and the dismal state of the home market help your case that the US has left it's recession?

You're right about one thing though, everyone does spend money when they have it, even the rich. The rich (and corporations) are just more likely to spend it overseas.

phreedm,

Hmmm...Ren, can you get past your anger?

Do you want the Reader's Digest condensed version answer to that question, or the Encarta unabridged encyclopedia version?

Here, let me make it easy on you: No. If I could, I wouldn't be F'ed up in the head, requiring daily medication, now would I?

Oops. There I go again; answering a question with a question. My bad.

If you think I am angry about Reagan, I want to make it known publicly that, had I been old enough at the time, I would have voted for Reagan, twice. I joined the army under Reagan. I absolutly hated the army during the Clinton years. Couldn't stand Clinton, though I now look back fondly over the '90s, because they were (compared to now) good times.

I caucused for Obama and will be voting for him, or the Libertarian candidate if he gets screwed out of the nomination, in November. I refuse to vote for Clinton, and as far as I am concerned, John McCain is not a war hero because he survived six years in a POW camp. However, he is a coward for his actions aboard the USS Forrestal, when he left his Plane Captain to die in a pool of burning fuel, while he ran to jump over the side of the flight deck and onto the catwalk, as young sailors rushed headlong into an inferno with nothing more than fire extinguishers, as 500 lb bombs were exloding all around. Some hero!

Boise Jim,

if I remember correctly, didn't Clinton leave office with a surplus, then the Idiot pResident ran up this giant debt? You mentioned earlier that Clinton left with a $4.5 trillion debt, if I read correctly.

Let's not forget that most of that $4.5 trillion deficit was run up under Reagan.

One last thing. I have been hearing a lot about how Clinton cut our Army by so many hundreds of thousands of troops and that is what has left our military in such bad shape. I know, it certainly couldn't have anything to do with Iraq. But anyhow, the drawdown of troops began under Bush 41. I was in a Cavalry unit that was deactivating when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 Aug '90. I had to volunteer to join another unit to go, because the people in MY unit were cleaning and turning in equipment because we were shutting down. It was called the Peace Dividend, and it was because the Cold War had ended, not because we got a Democrat in the Whitehouse. The fact the drawdown continued under Clinton is a non-sequiter.

You're right about one thing though, everyone does spend money when they have it, even the rich.

My wife and I have been in saving mode since 2004. Like many in our tax bracket we do not spend when we have it. If one has the luxury of choosing when to spend there are good times to spend and bad times to spend. 2004-2008 was a bad bad time to spend. Homes, cars, vacations purchased in 2004-2008 will be much regretted in 2009.

Phreeky really loves that the class warfare mantra. He expects Americans to put aside the fact that the middle class has been shrinking rapidly these past 30 years due to the class warfare he would like us to overlook. Good luck with that Phreek.

Do the decline in value of the US dollar, the decline in the job market, the increase in deficit, and the dismal state of the home market help your case that the US has left it's recession?

Or that they are indicative of a "stable" US economy?

Ren

McCain would have been dead if it were not for the case that his father was an admiral. Hero or not that son-of-privilege status kept him alive.

Comment from: alatham

Do the decline in value of the US dollar

It would appear the dollars devaluation is by design...

the decline in the job market

I'm not sure what you're talking about...unemployment is just about as low as it can go. Almost a full point less then it was in the 90's...

the increase in deficit

While the dollar amount is higher then past deficits as a percentage of GDP it's far less. And as I've stated before, deficits are not necessarily bad...

and the dismal state of the home market

There is no doubt that housing is overpriced, but it's merely going through an anticipated cycle as everything does in economies...again politicians are making hay out of this for their own political gains...

help your case that the US has left it's recession?

Are you suggesting America has been in a recession for the past 8 years?

The rich (and corporations) are just more likely to spend it overseas.

Another myth..

Contrary to conventional U.S. beliefs, the research found that American manufacturing workers weren't the biggest losers. The U.S. lost about two million manufacturing jobs in the 1995-2002 period, an 11% drop. But Brazil had a 20% decline. Japan's factory work force shed 16% of its jobs, while China's was down 15%.

http://www.bchinab.com/eng_press_WSJ102803.htm

What...

For argument sake, let's say the middle class is shrinking...

What would be your solution?

phreedm,

I'm not sure what you're talking about...unemployment is just about as low as it can go. Almost a full point less then it was in the 90's...

Are you aware that shortly after Bush took office, the way unemployment is calculated was changed?

It used to be that if someone below the retirement age lost their job, they were considered unemployed until they found a new job. Today, when someone falls off the other end of the unemployment rolls, they are no longer considered unemployed, even if they never found a job.

Recently, there was a net monthly LOSS of jobs, and at the same time, the unemployment numbers dropped slightly. Now tell me there isn't something wrong with that picture?

Damn! There I go with another one of those questions.

Comment from: Ren

I caucused for Obama and will be voting for him, or the Libertarian candidate if he gets screwed out of the nomination, in November.

Well now I know why you becamse so defensive...

Obama has absolutely no experience...

Without a doubt this is the worst choice for president that I have ever seen...on both sides...

Hiliary and Bill will destroy the party before they let someone rob them of their destiny...

If she steals the delagates at the convention the riots of the 60's will look like a picnic...

Don't forget those 1200 FBI files...

There is no doubt that housing is overpriced, but it's merely going through an anticipated cycle as everything does in economies...again politicians are making hay out of this for their own political gains...

Phreeky has got to be the most ill-informed person on the planet. The moron thinks that the housing bubble and its fallout is part of some normal economic "cycle". Can't say it enough. What an idiot!

And then the idiot says this.

I'm not sure what you're talking about...unemployment is just about as low as it can go.

While the rest of the world sees the inevitable economic train wreck unfolding Phreeky prefers to pretend it isn't happening. Of course this is to be expected given the fantasy world in which the dolt lives.

What...ignoring my question?

Come now...you're full of insults and void of facts...

How would you protect the middle class?

Phreedm,

It would appear the dollars devaluation is by design...

Can you explain this?

While the dollar amount is higher then past deficits as a percentage of GDP it's far less.

You use the term "far less" but that's a gross overstatement at best, flat out lie at worst. As a percentage of GPD, we're doing just as bad as the Reagan and Bush Sr eras. Clinton is the clear winner in this race.

Read the explanation of the second graph:
http://tinyurl.com/26x2wh

And as I've stated before, deficits are not necessarily bad...

You stated it, but you didn't explain why you believe this. You just made some bizarre allusion to the grocery store as if it were supposed to explain everything.

If you want to suggest that the common economic understanding that deficits curb economic growth, go ahead. But provide some reasoning to go along with it.

Are you suggesting America has been in a recession for the past 8 years?

Sorry, my original quote should have read "avoided its recession." I believe Allan Greenspan when he says we've got a good chance of heading into one soon.

Re: manufacturing jobs. So what? We've made big strides in manufacturing technology, it's no wonder that the demand for manufacturing jobs is down since so much manufacturing is automated now. Your article has nothing useful to say on the topic of the job market in general, just a narrow corner of it.

Even then, you've ignored that Spain, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Mexico do a lot of manufacturing for the USA and all of them had a net gain of manufacturing jobs. I don't know if Canada does, I was surprised to see that they've gained so much.

You effectively ignored my comment about the rich spending overseas. Were you thinking nobody would notice?

errata:

This sentence:

If you want to suggest that the common economic understanding that deficits curb economic growth, go ahead.

Should read like this:
If you want to suggest that the common economic understanding that deficits curb economic growth is wrong, go ahead.

Comment from: What

Phreeky has got to be the most ill-informed person on the planet. The moron thinks that the housing bubble and its fallout is part of some normal economic "cycle". Can't say it enough. What an idiot!

Apparently I'm in good company...

Subprime collapse part of economic cycle

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2007/10/29/focus4.html

Say "What"...are you this obnoxious in real life? Or does the anonymity of the internet allow you to be someone you're not...?

alatham...

How much do you spend each week at the grocery store? Let's say 100 bucks...

How much does that grocery buy from you? Zero?

You have a 100 dollar a week deficit with the grocery store. So why aren't you going broke? Because...economies are closed systems. Overly simplified but hopefully you get the point...

And as for rich people spending their money overseas...so what?
Why should I care how you or they spend their/your money?

Obama has absolutely no experience...

Phreeky should pick up a history book sometime. Obama has more federal legislative experience than did Abraham Lincoln prior to his election in 1860. What an idiot.

From wikipedia: A budget deficit occurs when an entity spends more money than it takes in.

Phreeky does not even understand the meaning of this simple word. If I spend $100 per week and make $200 I don't have a deficit. I have a surplus. Why is he so Phreeking stupid!?

You have a 100 dollar a week deficit with the grocery store. So why aren't you going broke? Because...economies are closed systems.

What the hell was that gibberish. Is he mentally retarded?

Anybody that thinks that McCain should be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse should review their history. Start with this article in todays NYTimes.

http://tinyurl.com/3ymtaq

Anybody that would trust Mr. Deregulation at a time like this is not playing with a full deck - one slice short of a pie - a few clowns short of a circus - suffering from a marble deficiency - mad as a monkey on a trike - four quarters short of a dollar ... an ... idiot ...!

Phreedm, until you answer the question "is the USA a white man's country?" you should avoid demanding answers from others.

Second, your grocery store example is flawed. If I spend $100 on goods, I receive back $100 worth of goods. When the government spends $100 on me, it should be receiving back $100 (or more) worth of either services or future economic securities.

So, is a deficit always bad? No, I don't believe so, but based on your explanation I think you have little understanding of the kind of situations that lead to it being acceptable to have a deficit.

Deficits are only ok when the programs you spend on are going to end up making more money in the long term. They're a short term boost gambled on increased long term growth. You have to give up a percentage of future growth in order to get that short term boost.

That is why running a deficit is often an indicator of future slow growth or worse.

Running a deficit on something like wiping out the Nazi party was acceptable. Running a deficit on programs designed to put money in the hands of the rich is not.

And as for rich people spending their money overseas...so what?
Why should I care how you or they spend their/your money?

I can't believe you wrote that.

The reason you and I should care is because any money spent overseas - and I'm not saying we shouldn't spend any money overseas - ultimately increases economic growth in the target country and reduces economic growth in the USA.

If someone dumps a ton of money into a Swiss bank and lets it accumulate interest, who benefits? The investor, the Swiss bank and to a much lesser extent, the rest of the world.

If a corporation sends 1000 technical jobs overseas, who benefits? The corporation, the other country, and to a much lesser extent, the rest of the world.

You should care that lots of American money is moving overseas because that's money that you could have made in the job market.

The Global economy is indeed a closed system, but National economies are not. That's a very elementary error on your part.

I would love to see a drive towards globalism, but it needs to be slow. Much slower than the Libertarians would like it to be.

Poll tidbits from The American Research Group

George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

Evangelical Americans, why did you tie your dingy to BushCo's titanic. What the hell. We're glad you did!

phreedm,

Without a doubt this (Obama) is the worst choice for president that I have ever seen...on both sides...

January 20, 2009. The end of an error.

I'm confused. First you say Obama is the worst choice, and then without explaining yourself, you lambaste Clinton like SHE is the worst choice for president. Which is it? (D'oh! Another question.)

Now that it appears McCain was diddling a lobbyist, 20 years his junior, during the 2000 election cycle, I wonder how THAT little tidbit of info, if proven to be true, will go over with the evangelicals? Or, as I like to call them, the ruination of the Republican Party.

Ren
If it wasn't a male the evangelicals will say he does'nt have qualifying experience.

septos,

I guess that's why David Vitter got slapped on the back by his collegues with a hardy attaboy, while Larry Craig got slapped across the face with an embarrassing WTF were you thinking?

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

What...ignoring my question?

Come now...you're full of insults and void of facts...

Coming from someone who routinely ignores questions from others, this is truly amazing, That a supposed christian would be this hypocritical about others when it engages in the same type of behavior is quite illuminating.

I have a question: why do you think anyone should answer you, when you routinely do not answer others?

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

How much do you spend each week at the grocery store? Let's say 100 bucks...

How much does that grocery buy from you? Zero?

You have a 100 dollar a week deficit with the grocery store. So why aren't you going broke? Because...economies are closed systems. Overly simplified but hopefully you get the point...

I have another question: where did you come up with this concept of what a deficit is?

When I look at a definition of the word deficit, I find:

deficit - an excess of liabilities over assets (usually over a certain period); "last year there was a serious budgetary deficit"

This is not at all in agreement with the scenario pulled from one of your comments above. Perhaps if you had mentioned that you were spending grocery money that you didn't have, and you borrowed in order to buy those groceries, your example might be close to being accurate.

I have another question: will you admit you were wrong in this case, and that you have incorrectly described a situation that would create a deficit?

Ren,

No confusion at all. I am no fan of McCain for many reasons. But there is absolutly now way I'd vote for Obama or Clinton.
I do not believe in wealth redistribution through government intervention.

Side note...in 96 the dems forced Dole to resign from the Senate. Today we have 3 senators running for office...

Now that it appears McCain was diddling a lobbyist, 20 years his junior, during the 2000 election cycle, I wonder how THAT little tidbit of info, if proven to be true

Come on Ren. Can't you see the transparency? The Times endorsed McCain last month and now they offer a hit piece? Please...exactly how many reporters and editors from the Times admitted to making up stories?

Comment from: alatham

Second, your grocery store example is flawed. If I spend $100 on goods, I receive back $100 worth of goods. When the government spends $100 on me, it should be receiving back $100 (or more) worth of either services or future economic securities.

Hmmm...no. And no it's not flawed. However if you believe it is, please let the author of this example know...go ahead. Send him an email with your complaint and then post his answer here...

Walter E. Williams
Department of Economics
MSN 3G4
George Mason University

http://gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

Phreedm, until you answer the question "is the USA a white man's country?" you should avoid demanding answers from others.

You know...you're right.

phreedm,

I do not believe in wealth redistribution through government intervention.

And I do not believe in wealth redistribution by having CEOs make as much in a single day, as their employees make in a year.

I yearn for a more equitable world. One where one's compensation is based on their productivity, not on their position.

phreedm,

You know...you're right.

Soooooooooooo, the USA is a white man's country, or you should avoid demanding answers from others?

I wasn't able to find anything about running a deficit by using $100 of your $200 to buy groceries, as opposed to putting it on a high interest credit card, but I did find this interesting statement:

Car rental companies and hotels often charge cheaper rates on weekends.

Call me crazy, but that statement goes against every principle of supply and demand. More people utilize hotels and car rentals on the week-ends, therefore they can and do charge higher rates at those times. I have never taken a single economics course in my life, and even I understand that concept.

As an aside: Strangely enough, there were at least three links to global warming mythology on an economics page. Hmmmmmm, now why do you suppose that would be? This guy doesn't sound like an economics professor, so much as he sounds like a toady for the conservative right.

Comment from: phreedm [Member]

I do not believe in wealth redistribution through government intervention.

I have some questions: why is it okay to engage in government welfare for abstinence-only programs? Is this wealth redistribution through government intervention okay? Why are corporate tax breaks (which are a form of wealth redistribution through governemnt intervention) not causing you to voice similar concerns about the Republican't governemnt engaging in wealth redistribution to rich corporate elites and rich religious organizations? Why do you say that you are concerned that Obama/Clinton will redistribute wealth through government intervention, when the current occupant of the White House and his Republican't cronies have done much more of this type of thing than Democratic polititans have? Finally, now that you have admitted that one of those who question the validity of your statements was right, will you also be admitting that you are wrong (no matter who you blame for your concept of what a deficit is, it's your belief in it that you are being asked about) about how a deficit is defined? There's so much more tha I feel you should admit you're wrong about, but IMHO baby steps would be best for someone in your situation at this time.

Comment from: Ren [Member]

I wasn't able to find anything about running a deficit by using $100 of your $200 to buy groceries, as opposed to putting it on a high interest credit card, but I did find this interesting statement:

Car rental companies and hotels often charge cheaper rates on weekends.

Call me crazy, but that statement goes against every principle of supply and demand. More people utilize hotels and car rentals on the week-ends, therefore they can and do charge higher rates at those times. I have never taken a single economics course in my life, and even I understand that concept.

You're not crazy, Ren.

I used to work for a major car rental company, and the rates most definitely went up from Friday - Sunday due to the higher demand.

I have also rented hotel rooms during the course of my adult life, and I have never seen the weekend rates be less than the weekday rates.

Maybe this is some sort of faith-based economic theory? It sure would explain the disconnect from reality and the beliefs being treated as though they are fact.

Here is another quote from the "Economic" website phreedm sent.

Wisdom of the Month

"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny." ---Barry Goldwater

If that doesn't sum up the last seven years of the Bush 43 administration, I don't know what does. Thanks for the link, phreedm. It is a goldmine!

Phreedm,

Don't pass the blame for your faulty definition of deficit. If you truly believe that the grocery store example is a good one then defend it yourself.

This kind of behavior just adds weight to the idea that you don't think for yourself.

Phree

Your paying 100 dollars for food and getting 100 in value of food back ? how is that a deficit !!! did the food lose its value when you walked outta the store !!!I think you misunderstood the professor. Try reading the whole example and not only a piece of it next time. Then do the same with the BABLE might open your eyes if you can comprehend it all ??

There is a purposeful disconnect here with regards to deficits.

Phreedm is talking about a trade deficit, which is what happens when America buys more Chinese goods than China buys American goods.

However, the deficit everyone else is talking about is a budget deficit, where America spends $1 trillion dollars more than it has, and has to pay interest on the debts it acquired to finance that spending.

Trade deficits and budgetary deficits have differing consequences, and are not really even that similar.

Not absolutely sure this conversation didn't occur, therefore and forever it is a christian-fact.

Bush: "Dicky them unworkers is ruinin' my perfect record."

Dicky: "I don't know that the unemployed should even be considered citizens, maybe we shouldn't even count them."

Bush: "I understand about those of us that can't count Dicky, I understand that."

Bravely bold phreakshow, rode forth from the convent,

He was not afraid to lie, Oh Brave phreakshow,
He was not at all aware he'd be called on his lies
Brave, brave, brave, brave phreakshow.

He was not in the least bit scared to be shown to have no point
Or to have his eyes opened up and his hypocrisy exposed;
To have his 'logic' skewered and his 'reasoning' laughed at
And his faith all ridiculed and lampooned, brave phreakshow.

His lies smashed in, and his hypocrisy held high,
And his bias exposed, and his retreat from reality uploaded,
And his questioning others while refusing to answer questions himself highlighted,
And his infinitives split ... and his ...

Brave phreakshow ran away.
Bravely ran away, away.
When called to treat others as he expects to be treated,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, Brave phreakshow turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave phreakshow
Petrified of being wrong
Soiled his pants then brave phreakshow
Turned away and fled.
Bravely good phreakshow was not at all afraid
To have his logic skewered ...

... and his bias exposed and his lack of reasoned argument shown off ...

...with apologies to Monty Python.

erchambers,

Might I suggest that you run yourself up to the top of the thread, find the first occurrence of the word deficit, then reconsider your comment.

Also, there are similarities between trade deficits and budget deficits.

However, the current christian fantasy believing administration has an overabundance or many kinds of deficits.

Ren & tom,
phred's right on the economics. Car rental supply = stagnant, so on the weekends, when demand goes up, price follows. Basic stuff.

His copy & past of the grocery analogy is 100% correct. People often confuse trade deficits with budget deficits.

rna2dna:

I suggest that you run yourself up to the top of the thread, find the first occurrence of the word deficit, then reconsider your comment.

George Bush took this country from a $4.5 trillion deficit, to a $9 trillion deficit in seven short years

It looks like Ren was talking about the national d3bt, which relates to a budget deficit. It would have been better wording to just say "national d3bt". If you take this year's budget deficit or surplus and add the interest accrued this year from outstanding debt, you find how much the national d3bt will change.

The example phreedm was using, spending $100 at a grocery without reciprocal purchases, describes a trade deficit. They are not the same. A trade deficit does not imply that you go into d3bt. However, on a national scale, currency values are affected by trade deficits.

The word deficit needs to have an explicit modifier because all it really means is "less than". So budget deficit means you have less than you spend. Trade deficit means you sell less than you buy. Arguing about deficit the way it's being argued now is similar to arguing with a Christian and having them say "it's just a theory".

Why is the word d.e.b.t blocked?

Tom, that was brilliant.

I can see the dancing priests / minstrels dancing in my head.

Comment from: mxracer652 [Member]

Ren & tom,
phred's right on the economics. Car rental supply = stagnant, so on the weekends, when demand goes up, price follows. Basic stuff.

First: this wasn't phreakshow - it was a quote from the web site that he linked to that supplied his flawed grocery deficit analogy.

Comment from: Ren [Member]
I wasn't able to find anything about running a deficit by using $100 of your $200 to buy groceries, as opposed to putting it on a high interest credit card, but I did find this interesting statement:

Car rental companies and hotels often charge cheaper rates on weekends.

The statement here is that price decreases when demand goes up. Which flies in the face of that basic theory you are referring to.

His copy & past of the grocery analogy is 100% correct. People often confuse trade deficits with budget deficits.

And it appears to some of us here that phreakshow is doing just that. Possibly deliberately in order to confuse the issue. I believe that the discussion was about budget deficits, not trade deficits - and for someone to introduce that element into the debate suggests either ignorance of the debate topic, or deliberate malicious intent to confuse the debate.

Comment from: alatham [Member]

Tom, that was brilliant.

I can see the dancing priests / minstrels dancing in my head.

Thanks! For some strange reason, someone whining about how no one responds to their questions while simultaneously refusing to answer any themselves led to this adaptation.

erchambers,

Yes, I was refering to the National D3bt. Deficit was the wrong choice of words, but it was the one used initially, and without thinking, I continued to use it. Of course, it is our annual budget deficits that have brought us to our current total d3bt. So in that sense, the two are, like, totally related. Totally. Fer sure!

erchambers,

Well, we know what the 4.5 trillion and 9 trillion are referring to, right? Are you suggesting that those figures could be confused, by a knowledgeable person, with the figures that represent trade with other nations? I wasn't the least bit confused about what Ren was referring to, I think the meaning was obvious.

So, I wasn't very explicit regarding what part of your comment you might want do reconsider. Maybe you could have used better wording here?

There is a purposeful disconnect here with regards to deficits.

As that was your first sentence and paragraph I assumed the rest of the comment might be expanding on that. Was I wrong? Knowing now the context of how the subject of deficit was started, who would "purposeful disconnect" refer to?

On the grocery thingy, I would have you try to make consistent sense out of the comments made by that particular christian idiot, over time. As I have decided (over time) not to read them. The problem you see is probably a combination of intent and lack of knowledge by phreedm but, it is not new or specific to what is happening in this particular thread. Go ahead try having a few intelligent discussions with the troll.

tom,
Then we've got typos galore or some misunderstanding, because I read:

I used to work for a major car rental company, and the rates most definitely went up from Friday - Sunday due to the higher demand.

There's also the business side of this mix, which is inflexibility. Recreational users can & do wait out high prices, where business travelers have no choice. That is one instance where less demand = higher price. I'm a few years removed from an econ minor, but this is still basic stuff.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding things...

the first quote was:

Car rental companies and hotels often charge cheaper rates on weekends.

which is (unless I'm reading something incorrectly) from the web site of one Walter E. Williams, who was used to supply the grocery deficits example.

Then I said:

I used to work for a major car rental company, and the rates most definitely went up from Friday - Sunday due to the higher demand.

as a personally observed example of the rate increases that come into play on the weekends, and that directly contradict the theory from the first quote.

mxracer652,

You are the one with the econonomics education, not me, so I am not trying to argue with you. I am just trying to understand what you are saying.

If car rental companies and hotels charge a premium during the week because of the inflexibility of business travelers, and then those same companies increase their rates on the week-ends because of higher demand... what exactly is it that recreational users wait out in order to get cheaper rates?

It may be basic stuff for you educated folks, but for us laymen, it is confusing at best. If possible, without writing a thesis on the subject, could you spell it out for me a little better? I don't mean to sound like an ass. I honestly do not understand. Thank you in advance.

Oh yeah - I almost forgot: we gave discounts to businesses for their week long rentals. Because they were giving us regular business, less of a risk to stiff us on paying for wrekcing vehicles / tickets / etc. And if we didn't give them the best rate, they could always go to the competition. The constance of the business demand for car rentals was a factor in their getiing reduced rates - not a reason to raise them.