Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

More fox lols

Recommended Posts

Or, you know, the flip side.

 

Republicans cut government spending and gave businesses incentives to hire more people! Yay jobs and yay less government.

 

That's actually exactly what I was thinking. Which is the reason why so many republicans have been elected recently, or that's my understanding of what the primary reason is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deficit is, and always will be, secondary to jobs. When republican policies dont' result in job creation, they'll be out on their ass ranting about things which the average American not only doesn't understand but is apathetic about. And this move in wisconsin actually does dems a huge favor - it creates something quite clear for them to be opposed to. "Republicans believe in fucking teachers while passing tax cuts for businesses." "Republicans want to balance the budget, but passed extensions of tax breaks for Big Oil." "Republicans are the party of corporations, and we are the party of you!"

 

Especially in an economically unstable time, populism works wonders - which is why republicans won't do nearly as well in 2012 as they did in 2010.

 

Okay, then. How about two years of absolute Democratic rule which has resulted in no jobs? I love how the current Dems consistently say that the GOP is being judged by how they help the economy, yet they refused to allow that same measurement to be applied to themselves.

 

And really? People have said those things about the GOP for decades. 1994 happened. 2010 happened. The overarching lefty mantras don't really make a big difference when the GOP actually has a real message (1994) or when the Dems screw things up so badly that people want anyone but them in office (2010).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give me a fucking break, I would love to be a professor. You say 80 hours a week? I say prove it. NONE of my professors worked those hours, not even close.

 

Yeah, some weeks they worked 80 hours, I know that. But not every week, no way in hell. Maybe before you get tenured there is a lot more push for it, but from my discussions I estimated 50-60 hours on average, including transit. I know one of my teachers would have fallen into the 80 hour week category, but that's because he picked up tons of additions, did a full credit workload, and went far above and beyond the other profs. But that is countered by another professor I had, senior professor who didn't work one second outside of his class+office hours. Once he left his office, he was done working. Great guy, lousy effort.

 

Tenure at its best there.

You are objectively incorrect about the assertions that you are making based on anecdotal information.

 

You may be correct if you are taking the hours worked by adjunct professors and the salary that is earned by tenure-track faculty, but then you've got a bit of a problem with comparing apples the fruits to apples the computers. Sure, they're both apples, but they're not exactly in the same ballpark.

 

Also, if you'd love to be a professor and you're in awe of the financial compensation, why aren't you going for it?

I doubt it, actually. Our debt and deficit are becoming big enough problems that average citizens are starting to notice it. Sure, it may be a clever GOP tactic to bring it up every five seconds, but that doesn't make it a bad idea to educate the citizens about it.
Yes; if there's one thing that 2000-2008 has taught me it's that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.

 

At this point I might as well vote for social issues because both parties are full retard on finances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, then. How about two years of absolute Democratic rule which has resulted in no jobs? I love how the current Dems consistently say that the GOP is being judged by how they help the economy, yet they refused to allow that same measurement to be applied to themselves.

 

Democrats are doing all right really, if you look at the stats, as far as the economy goes. Obviously not fixed, but the fact that we still have a functioning economy that resembles the economy we knew in 2006 is an achievement in itself. They inherited an incredible pile of shit from GW and his 8 years of deregulation, and have managed to shrink it slightly due to herculean efforts - the same efforts Republicans now hilariously claim are causing the depression.

 

And really? People have said those things about the GOP for decades. 1994 happened. 2010 happened. The overarching lefty mantras don't really make a big difference when the GOP actually has a real message (1994) or when the Dems screw things up so badly that people want anyone but them in office (2010).

 

The GOP hasn't been this blatantly pro-business in a long time. 1994 was about smaller government and was a reaction against Clinton's expansions. 2010 is the same. 1994 lasted about 2 years, then Clinton got re-elected handily. 2012, in my opinion, will be the same. 2010 will end up being a reactionary hiccup.

 

The main difference between dems and republicans on the deficit is how much importance they attach to it. Both sides care. Republicans treat it like its killing the country and causing the depression, while dems are willing to expand the deficit in the short-term in order to get job growth and the economy back on line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes; if there's one thing that 2000-2008 has taught me it's that the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility.

 

At this point I might as well vote for social issues because both parties are full retard on finances.

 

Hey, you're absolutely right. The GOP sucks in this arena, too. At this point, I'd vote for whatever party can actually come up with something original or practical to fix the budget.

 

I'm just saying that the GOP has a real opportunity right now. People from both sides are screaming about the budget being screwed up (as opposed to normal, where it's whatever party wasn't in power) and the Dems seem like all they want to do is drag their feet. Like I implied, I'm fairly sure it's mostly political, but at least the GOP is acting like they want to do something, even if they're just doing things for show since they know it won't matter since the Democrats are going to vote it down anyway. Personally, I think they're all just aliens or something, that are incapable of rational thought when it comes to balancing the budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe balancing the budget is a complex economic issue that requires a lot of practical and actual knowledge. You know, something politicians who do nothing but spew bullshit can never grasp.

 

Who are you and what did you do with the real l2c?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National debt/deficit doesn't matter. Soz.

 

Don't even get me started on gross debt vs debt held by public.

 

Anyway, we will always have an unbalanced budget, it will never matter, deal with it republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* - Offer valid only to members of unions who donate billions of dollars to the democratic party.

 

Yes, how dare 3 of the 10 top individual donors remain democrat-donators. Vote Koch brothers 2012!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, how dare 3 of the 7 top individual donors remain democrat-donators. Vote Koch brothers 2012!

 

It's interesting that you quote only to the top 7 donors. Seven's sort of an odd number to stop at, since normally we like to use nice even numbers, like 5, 10, 20, and so on. I'd be interested to know why whatever source you got your information from neglected to include the remaining 3 donors, or 13 donors or whatever.

 

IMO, there are only two reasons: The top 7 donors' contributions are extremely high and as we pass from 7 to 8, the amount is minimal. For instance, donor 7 contributed a million dollars (for the sake of discussion) but then donors 8 and up contributed a couple hundred or less.

 

Or, 7 donors is where the information cutoff is so that your source makes it look like evil Republican corporations donate more to political causes than the innocent, bullied Democrats. In other words, if we had went to 10 donors, the remaining 3 would all be Democratic donors, making the count 6 to 4, which would make the story completely different.

 

Just a casual observation... I could be completely off, but that sort of thing interests me, especially since your statistic reeks of propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mis-typed, 3 of the top 10 non-party-affiliated groups (which is where the real money in elections is outside the DNC / RNC and related funding). All 3 of which are unions, and all 3 of which will be hurt if this law spreads as it seems to be doing. 2 of them are public-sector employee unions, too.

 

Limiting it to non-party-affiliated groups sounds like propaganda, until you consider that of the $480 million or so spent by outside groups during the campaign, almost $300 million comes from those non-party-affiliated groups. They're highly important, and favor republicans by almost a 2:1 margin.

 

source - http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2010&disp=O&type=P&chrt=V

 

I really do wonder how much better things would get with reasonable campaign donation limits. It would probably stop all kinds of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National debt/deficit doesn't matter. Soz.

 

Don't even get me started on gross debt vs debt held by public.

 

Anyway, we will always have an unbalanced budget, it will never matter, deal with it republicans.

 

Yes it does dude. Maybe not atm or in the next decade and yes I understand that America is too big to fail and that we can increase taxes by a little to pay of our debts but there is a limit to the money we can borrow. ><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does dude. Maybe not atm or in the next decade and yes I understand that America is too big to fail and that we can increase taxes by a little to pay of our debts but there is a limit to the money we can borrow. ><

 

Nope. You'll see. Remember this discussion in 40 years or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are objectively incorrect about the assertions that you are making based on anecdotal information.

 

You may be correct if you are taking the hours worked by adjunct professors and the salary that is earned by tenure-track faculty, but then you've got a bit of a problem with comparing apples the fruits to apples the computers. Sure, they're both apples, but they're not exactly in the same ballpark.

 

Or you can bullshit yourself and pretend I didn't link hard evidence and that your bullshit anecdotal evidence is better than my bullshit anecdotal evidence.

 

You say professors work 80+ hours a week, you say this because of your experience working/learning with professors. The same experience I've had, virtually the same.

 

It just baffles me that you want to say a professor, on average, works 80+ hours a week and are unwilling to listen to statistics presented about professor salary.

 

If you want to completely ignore everything in front of you and simply talk bullshit against bullshit, woopty we'll go in circles. Might as well just talk about tiger blood. Winning.

 

Also, if you'd love to be a professor and you're in awe of the financial compensation, why aren't you going for it?

 

I expected a bit more in terms of logic from you. This is a logical fallacy, which we discussed fairly thoroughly in recent threads. Tu quoque at its worst, don't fall into that hole.

 

Besides, I do have plans to finish my PHD and eventually teach. But my life and it's nuances have nothing to do with this debate, as the tu quoque counter implies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Goes to show you that retards are on both sides of the spectrum.

 

I know, in a financial down time, let's wage a bank money run! That'll learn um gude! Maybe we can even cause a bank to fail and everyone invested can lose a portion of their savings! Winning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mis-typed, 3 of the top 10 non-party-affiliated groups (which is where the real money in elections is outside the DNC / RNC and related funding). All 3 of which are unions, and all 3 of which will be hurt if this law spreads as it seems to be doing. 2 of them are public-sector employee unions, too.

 

Limiting it to non-party-affiliated groups sounds like propaganda, until you consider that of the $480 million or so spent by outside groups during the campaign, almost $300 million comes from those non-party-affiliated groups. They're highly important, and favor republicans by almost a 2:1 margin.

 

source - http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2010&disp=O&type=P&chrt=V

 

I really do wonder how much better things would get with reasonable campaign donation limits. It would probably stop all kinds of bullshit.

 

I love how short our memory is.

 

2008 anybody?

 

2006 anybody?

 

2004?

 

2002?

 

Guess what, the dems outspend the reps by about the same margin (in reverse).

 

Convenient, when your party stops spending as much as the other, they cry "FOUL" stop the spending!

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php

 

For reference.

 

And guess what, even if these unions fold, if you want to donate money to an election, being in a public sector union or not being in a public sector union won't stop you. The money potentially "lost" by those 2 unions you refer to will be redirected through another organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you can bullshit yourself and pretend I didn't link hard evidence and that your bullshit anecdotal evidence is better than my bullshit anecdotal evidence.
You posted a link to assistant professor salary and compared it to adjunct professor hours. Assistant professor salary is also tailored to the candidate and to the department, which makes blanket comparisons useless. I also don't care enough to argue with you about the hours that an assistant professor works.

 

Good luck with your plans to finish your PhD. People often leave grad school and then come back and finish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mis-typed, 3 of the top 10 non-party-affiliated groups (which is where the real money in elections is outside the DNC / RNC and related funding). All 3 of which are unions, and all 3 of which will be hurt if this law spreads as it seems to be doing. 2 of them are public-sector employee unions, too.

 

Limiting it to non-party-affiliated groups sounds like propaganda, until you consider that of the $480 million or so spent by outside groups during the campaign, almost $300 million comes from those non-party-affiliated groups. They're highly important, and favor republicans by almost a 2:1 margin.

 

source - http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2010&disp=O&type=P&chrt=V

 

I really do wonder how much better things would get with reasonable campaign donation limits. It would probably stop all kinds of bullshit.

 

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

 

I don't really have a problem with placing no limits on campaign contributions. With no limits, that means it's an even playing field. I don't think it should be legal for a public sector union to contribute and I don't think it should be legal for a private corporation that is under government contract or being considered for such to contribute. All of these are obvious conflicts of interest. But anyone else? I don't care, as long as who donates to whom is made public knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree Cat. What that means, given that politicians get exposure totally through an expensive media, is that rich people (and rich corporations) have more influence over politicians than the average person does - because they're the ones giving the money for the ads. Which is why you get shit like Republicans passing oil tax breaks to some of the world's most profitable companies. We need severe limits on how much any individual person can donate, as well as severe limits on political ads by outside groups (because, as is already the case today, if you restrict money to candidates the money will simply go to lobbying groups who will then run ads of their own). Today's limit of $4,000 or whatever it is is still too high - that's 10% of the average annual income of Americans, no way in fuck average Americans can donate that much. It should be something absurdly low, like $10 or $20 - enough that anyone who wants to can donate, and enough that Bill Gates can donate as much as a person working at McDonald's. Combine that with federal funding for viable candidates (and rules requiring cheap access to media for viable candidates as well), and you've got a pretty workable system.

 

Consider the system: $10 max donation, from everyone in total, for any candidate. Safeguards against fraud (requiring ID, donations only in check form, etc) in place. Individual news stations agree to x number of debates for any politician passing a poll popularity requirement to ensure Aryan Nation retards don't get airtime. Flat amount per candidate of federal funds (paid for via tax form donations as at present) for election campaigns (again, with the poll % minimum). No outside group is allowed to air ads naming specific persons, they are limited to issue-only ads, if that. Does it limit their free speech? Sure. But it serves the good of the public as a whole, and protects the free speech abilities of the average $10 donator, which is far more important.

 

The result is that a politician would have to have true popularity to make it because he'd have to meet the poll % requirement in order to get on the air. He'd then have to do what the majority wants him to do (instead of his lobbyists / key donors) because they're the ones who have the money. Corporations would lose the massive influence they have over politics today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You posted a link to assistant professor salary and compared it to adjunct professor hours. Assistant professor salary is also tailored to the candidate and to the department, which makes blanket comparisons useless. I also don't care enough to argue with you about the hours that an assistant professor works.

 

Good luck with your plans to finish your PhD. People often leave grad school and then come back and finish.

 

I don't think you actually read the links I posted if you think I posted a link to assistant professor salaries. No where in my links does it point to just assistant professor salaries. The wiki page points to all, the PDF points to an entire college (so all of the varying professors) and the study that compares world salaries is, again, an aggregate of all professors.

 

Also, where on earth did I talk about part-time (adjunct) professor hours? Not a single one of my professors I talked about were below full professor. In fact, 2 of my best known professors were senior profs.

 

Let me repeat this, they do NOT work 80+ hours a week. Wherever you are pulling 80 hours a week, on average, is either way off, or very specific to a certain kind of professor that you may know. 80 hours a week, for the record, is over 12 hours 7 days a week. Or 5 days a week for 16. Honestly, throw around shit numbers and I'm going to call you on it.

 

And, yes, I agree, some weeks professors will work 80 hour weeks, those are the hell weeks and are not typical. Kinda getting bored of terrible numbers getting thrown around and then shit into people's mouths as if they are fact, and when you call them on their numbers, they get huffy and sarcastic, angry, or simply increase the rate of bullshit to cover the initial bullshit.

 

And yes, there are exceptions to the rules, there will be some professors that work 80+ hours a week, but there will also be some professors who work less than 30 hours a week, I knew 2 of each variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree Cat. What that means, given that politicians get exposure totally through an expensive media, is that rich people (and rich corporations) have more influence over politicians than the average person does - because they're the ones giving the money for the ads. Which is why you get shit like Republicans passing oil tax breaks to some of the world's most profitable companies. We need severe limits on how much any individual person can donate, as well as severe limits on political ads by outside groups (because, as is already the case today, if you restrict money to candidates the money will simply go to lobbying groups who will then run ads of their own). Today's limit of $4,000 or whatever it is is still too high - that's 10% of the average annual income of Americans, no way in fuck average Americans can donate that much. It should be something absurdly low, like $10 or $20 - enough that anyone who wants to can donate, and enough that Bill Gates can donate as much as a person working at McDonald's. Combine that with federal funding for viable candidates (and rules requiring cheap access to media for viable candidates as well), and you've got a pretty workable system.

 

Consider the system: $10 max donation, from everyone in total, for any candidate. Safeguards against fraud (requiring ID, donations only in check form, etc) in place. Individual news stations agree to x number of debates for any politician passing a poll popularity requirement to ensure Aryan Nation retards don't get airtime. Flat amount per candidate of federal funds (paid for via tax form donations as at present) for election campaigns (again, with the poll % minimum). No outside group is allowed to air ads naming specific persons, they are limited to issue-only ads, if that. Does it limit their free speech? Sure. But it serves the good of the public as a whole, and protects the free speech abilities of the average $10 donator, which is far more important.

 

The result is that a politician would have to have true popularity to make it because he'd have to meet the poll % requirement in order to get on the air. He'd then have to do what the majority wants him to do (instead of his lobbyists / key donors) because they're the ones who have the money. Corporations would lose the massive influence they have over politics today.

 

Your entire post screams, "It's not fair that some people have more money than other people and they spend it in a way with which I disagree!" Meanwhile, the unions completely control the Democratic party on a far greater level than you think corporations control the GOP. Yet, you have no issue with that.

 

Keep in mind, if we had your system, Obama would still be a Senator and not the POTUS. Part of why he won the election was because he reneged on his promise to McCain to only take federal funding and went the public funding route. Of course, the main reason he won was because Bush had been so successfully vilified, that Maru the cat could have easily won the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree Cat. What that means, given that politicians get exposure totally through an expensive media, is that rich people (and rich corporations) have more influence over politicians than the average person does - because they're the ones giving the money for the ads. Which is why you get shit like Republicans passing oil tax breaks to some of the world's most profitable companies. We need severe limits on how much any individual person can donate, as well as severe limits on political ads by outside groups (because, as is already the case today, if you restrict money to candidates the money will simply go to lobbying groups who will then run ads of their own). Today's limit of $4,000 or whatever it is is still too high - that's 10% of the average annual income of Americans, no way in fuck average Americans can donate that much. It should be something absurdly low, like $10 or $20 - enough that anyone who wants to can donate, and enough that Bill Gates can donate as much as a person working at McDonald's. Combine that with federal funding for viable candidates (and rules requiring cheap access to media for viable candidates as well), and you've got a pretty workable system.

 

Before I go into it further, the current donation limit to a federal candidate is $2,400. This is closer to 5 or 6% of the average GDP. But you may give this $2,400 to multiple candidates (up to a limit of $42,700 total). There are other donation opportunities as well, the numbers can be seen here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

 

First of all, tax breaks are often done to encourage growth and development, not because they donate lots of campaign money. Is it a factor? Yes, but not as big of factor as the goal of the tax breaks, to stimulate the economy / job market by increasing the available funds.

 

I don't understand why you want to severely limit free speech simply based on an arbitrarily low income figure. Do the math. People simply aren't donating. Do the math.

 

If everyone donated 10 bucks, like you suggested, that would result in 3.5 billion dollars.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election

 

So, on average, Barrack Obama was given $7.39 by each VOTER and Mccain was given $5.78.

 

The system is fine, people just are not donating. This is why the Obama campaign was so successful, he worked on getting lots of very small donations. So, even if you put this 10-20 dollar limit... You wouldn't reduce the money here like you think, you would be shaping the donation system to favor one party, the party who receives more, smaller donations. This would basically be pandering towards the common donation type from democrats. This is one of the most biased donation schemes I've ever seen suggested, you might as well be spewing democratic talking points, because that's exactly what the $10-20 limit is.

 

You don't need to change the system, people just need to give 10 bucks to the candidate they want to vote for. Or 20 bucks. They simply aren't doing that.

 

Consider the system: $10 max donation, from everyone in total, for any candidate. Safeguards against fraud (requiring ID, donations only in check form, etc) in place. Individual news stations agree to x number of debates for any politician passing a poll popularity requirement to ensure Aryan Nation retards don't get airtime. Flat amount per candidate of federal funds (paid for via tax form donations as at present) for election campaigns (again, with the poll % minimum). No outside group is allowed to air ads naming specific persons, they are limited to issue-only ads, if that. Does it limit their free speech? Sure. But it serves the good of the public as a whole, and protects the free speech abilities of the average $10 donator, which is far more important.

 

This sounds expensive, convoluted, difficult to implement, and completely against the current system. You say "Aryan Nation retards don't get air time" well, if people are support them and donate to them, I really don't care who gets air time. I'm not going to design a system that actively inhibits freedom of speech. Yes, I'll prevent hate speech, but that doesn't mean we should only give air time to people who have 25% popularity, that would mean Ross Perot and Ralph Nader would have been left off of the air time. Unless you are talking about perhaps a bare minimum number here, like 1 or 2% acceptance.

 

The result is that a politician would have to have true popularity to make it because he'd have to meet the poll % requirement in order to get on the air. He'd then have to do what the majority wants him to do (instead of his lobbyists / key donors) because they're the ones who have the money. Corporations would lose the massive influence they have over politics today.

 

It sounds like you are proposing we vote with $10 bills before we actually know the candidate very well. It sounds like you are stiffing the small party candidates with this proposal.

 

And I still think you are over-emphasizing something that isn't a problem. Get your people to give 10 bucks, that would easily outstrip the corporate donations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entire post screams, "It's not fair that some people have more money than other people and they spend it in a way with which I disagree!" Meanwhile, the unions completely control the Democratic party on a far greater level than you think corporations control the GOP. Yet, you have no issue with that.

 

That's exactly the problem. People / organizations with money control the system. It's why we have lobbyists and special interest groups and all the bullshit they create. If you instituted a severe limitation on how much any person can donate, you'd stop all of those problems - because the lobbyists and special interests can't donate any more than joe schmoe in Arkansas. As for which party is more dominated by its rich donors, you can't prove Dems are more dominated than GOP, and neither can I beyond anecdotal evidence. And its still irrelevant to my point.

 

Keep in mind, if we had your system, Obama would still be a Senator and not the POTUS. Part of why he won the election was because he reneged on his promise to McCain to only take federal funding and went the public funding route. Of course, the main reason he won was because Bush had been so successfully vilified, that Maru the cat could have easily won the election.

 

Doesn't affect my argument in the slightest. If this system was in place, Obama would have run against McCain and both would have received matching funds (or enhanced funds, as you would probably need to give them 3x or 4x matching to make campaigning viable). Although it probably wouldn't have affected the outcome of the election, but that's again unrelated to my argument.

 

Tell me Cat, why do you not have a problem with a billionaire businessman being able to pump 5 million into a re-election campaign, PAC, or outside group which directly campaigns for or against a given candidate? How can anyone not be deeply concerned that money so clearly controls politicians and elections? Seems pretty common sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×