h you mean things like healthcare, houseing, education, etc? You’re right. We should all just be sick, illiterate and homeless. That’ll fix everything.
Last time I checked, you learn to read in elementary school (then again judging by the way you spelled “housing” I may be wrong), so you shouldn’t be in debt from that. However, if you choose to take out an astounding amount of debt to go to college, you better be able to afford to pay it back.
Same goes for sickness, injuries and other unforeseen accidents. If you choose to spend your money on pointless bullshit instead of insurance, you may pay the consequences in doing so. That’s the gamble. Choice is yours.
Also, if you can’t afford a certain home or rent…then you should not choose that home. And people wonder why the housing crisis occurred…
Posters in Washington State Capitol claim gun laws are just like anti-gay discrimination. Just no.
If you believe you cannot limit one’s right to marry, you cannot also not extend that belief to one’s right to keep and bear arms. I mean I guess you could if you were a massive hypocrite.
Plus, if you believe that gay individuals are so discriminated against would it not be best for those people to be able to defend themselves, hold the source of power of the people (yes, guns are the source of the people’s power; if you doubt me, go reexamine history).
Who runs Think Progress? Oh, that’s right…hypocrites.
Quantitative Easing: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
This is the third and last article in a short series on America’s loss of prosperity and the things that Obama and the liberal progressives are doing that are ultimately bringing this loss of prosperity to pass. Quantitative easing, the Fed’s euphemism for simply creating additional money out of thin air, is playing a substantial role in this. It’s important to understand what quantitative easing ultimately does…. it buys you time.
Quantitative easing doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing. If you are facing an economic crisis and by using quantitative easing you can postpone that crisis and subsequently avoid it by fixing the fundamental elements that are the cause of that crisis, then quantitative easing is actually a good thing. Unfortunately that is not what is happening in America right now.
As I mentioned in my last article “destroying the foundation of America’s prosperity,” the fundamental underlying cause of the economic crisis and the loss of prosperity to come is liberal progressive ideology and the welfare nanny state that it has created. What liberal progressive ideology has done is take half the population and punish/disincentivized it from working and pursuing success through extreme inequality in income taxes with an aggressive “progressive” tax stratification. It has taken the other half of the population and bathed it in rewards to not work at all and to not even take the first step towards realizing their potential. With the economy being people working (doing and creating things of value) the combined effects of these policies is that liberal progressive ideology is destroying the economy from both directions.
With this being the fundamental cause of the economic crisis to come, the answer is simply to use the time given by quantitative easing to fix that fundamental cause…to replace the inequality in income taxes with a flat tax that removes all tax breaks and favoritism; and, to replace the disastrous system of social welfare entitlements (that ultimately destroys the very people it’s intended to help) with an actual bare bones safety net. If we were utilizing the time given to us by quantitative easing to implement these critical reforms then quantitative easing would actually be a good thing.
Instead, with Obama and the liberal progressives in power, they are seeking to expand these extremely foolish policies. In the current environment, quantitative easing is simply an enabler of this foolishness. By now we should be feeling significant amounts of negative feedback on the economy because of these liberal progressive policies but we are not because it is being papered over with billions of dollars per day of quantitative easing and additional federal government borrowing. We will still feel these negative economic effects but, instead of experiencing it gradually, it is being stored up for the future where it will be unleashed with much more devastating cumulative effect.
Ben Bernanke should be smart enough to know that, with Barrack Obama and the liberal progressives in charge of the federal government, the additional time gained from his quantitative easing is going to be wasted on perpetuating this foolishness instead of fixing it. It would be better for us as a nation to be feeling the economic pain and negative feedback that comes from undermining the economy (and from flat out ignoring common sense) rather than concealing it with quantitative easing, which only leads to far worse economic pain in the future. At least by experiencing some of the economic pain today it might wake up the majority of the American populous to the fact that liberal progressive ideology and the welfare nanny state does not work. Mr. Bernanke, your legacy will not be defined by the relative calm of today. It will be defined by the strife and economic devastation that is to come and by the fact that you will have played a significant contributory role in creating it.
Pretty spot on.
Yeah… it’s pretty much like that…
can I just bring this post back?
It’s important to spot the differences. It could save your life.
I have neither seen Fracknation nor Gasland, but now I want to. I’ve long been interested in the bogus stories being thrown around by environmentalists about fracking.
The next time someone argues that they only want stronger background checks and not a gun registry, show them this video. Three liberals openly advocate for a gun registry to track your “deadly weapons” as well as call the Second Amendment ‘bullshit.’ Luckily, one libertarian was there to use cold, hard facts to defend your rights.
Side note, Michael Moore may be the most worthless idiot on the face of the planet. I’m so sick of this guy.
Jon Stewart Destroys Obama Over IRS Scandal & Lack Of ‘Managerial Competence’
Ha, he got close to being an actual journalist there.
Everyone keeps commenting how Stewart is bashing Obama over these scandals, but no one seems to realize that he really is still calling conservatives ‘tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists’ and blaming the Democrats for actually making us look legit.
He’s not bashing Obama, he’s really saying, “hey, we had a good thing going here making the conservatives look like whack-jobs on these issues and now you’re fumbling the ball and making them look pertinent!”
Jon Stewart is a liberal. His interests lie with this President.
Which is why I did not call him an actual journalist; he just got close to being one.
Damn he only got CLOSE to being a real journalist. He’s said so many times that his show is all about facts and journalism and not about opinion and comedy that I have lost all respect for him now that you point out that this isn’t actually journalism. I’m shocked.
Only problem is, Jon Stewart believes he is real news, even though he is just supposed to be a comedian. And he hides behind that whenever he gets called out on his crap.
Yep. It all depends on what hat he decides to wear. He’s a serious fact-driven news provider when he can openly bash those he opposes…unless, he’s clearly and completely wrong; then he puts on his comedian hat.
Who cares, the guy only looks clever half the time because he has a team of writers putting his show together. Even his debates with Bill O’Reilly and others were pretty much scripted jokes and points from notes. I’d love to hear him take live phone calls on the fly from informed conservatives or libertarians. They’d eat him for breakfast.
By EMMA INNES
- Weaker men more likely to support welfare state and wealth redistribution
- Link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in our ancestors
- Strength was a proxy for ability to defend or acquire resources
- There is no link between women’s physical strength and political views
Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according to a new study.
Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to physical strength.
Men’s upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to the research.
The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen, of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to influence behaviour today.
Professor Petersen said: ‘While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, it has - in a sense - always been with our species.’
In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but through shows of strength.
With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesised that upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire resources - would predict men’s opinions about the redistribution of wealth.
The researchers collected data on bicep size, socio-economic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina and Denmark.
In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.
Professor Petersen said: ‘Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that - at the psychological level - individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way.
‘In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursue the self-interested position on redistribution.’
Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest.
Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support.
Professor Petersen said: ‘Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest - just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions.’
However, the researchers found no link between upper-body strength and redistribution opinions among women.
Professor Petersen argued that this is likely due to the fact that, over the course of evolutionary history, women had less to gain, and also more to lose, from engaging in direct physical aggression.
He said, together, the results indicate that an evolutionary perspective may help to illuminate political motivations, at least those of men.
Professor Petersen added: ‘Many previous studies have shown that people’s political views cannot be predicted by standard economic models.
‘This is among the first studies to show that political views may be rational in another sense, in that they’re designed by natural selection to function in the conditions recurrent over human evolutionary history.’
The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.
Not a huge shocker…in my experience, right-wingers are generally smarter as well.