Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Pastafarian]

No, just elect a better President.

[Grave_n_idle]

Obama offer jobs to show that they are working on reducing the unemployment but the jobs he offer have low income.On the main while he gave citizenship to that person who are illegally migrated which rises the unemployment rate.If you can make government by voting you have a right to dissolve it.

Wait - when did Obama grant citizenship to illegal immigrants?

Also - I have to point out - even if it had happened - citizenship and employment aren't intrinsically connected. Non-citizens can be employed (even illegal immigrants), and citizens can be unemployed. As such, granting citizenship doesn't inherently raise or lower employment rates.

[Grave_n_idle]

However, that most likely will not be necessary -- the federal government will either have to significantly reduce in size and scope or collapse of its own volition under a mountain of debt within our lifetime.

It's entirely possible the federal government will actually continue to increase, actually - and that's not necessarily a bad thing, provided it's efficient at what it does. Big government isn't inherently bad, and small government isn't inherently good - what matters is whether or not the government meets the need for which it is designed. And that might mean an increase in the size of government, and that would be 'good' under those circumstances.

[Obamacult]

I will proceed to expose, dismantle and cast off the numerous incidents of ideological faith-based disinformation, misinformation and outright bullshit that has emanated from trotskylvania on these threads. They are too numerous, even in a single post, to dissect in a single post, so I will start with his first comment in his last post on this thread.

trotskylvania's bullshit identified and exposed, sample #1:

You seem to think a bunch of unvetted links to blogs on the internet constitutes a substitute for academic research. You are sorely mistaken.

I told you were you could find what you're looking for.The fact that you haven't cited a single peer reviewed paper in any of the social science disciplines is rather telling. And until you actually choose to deal with vetted research rather than propaganda, you're going to be treated like the petulant little child that you are.

What is 'telling' is that the research I cited in my post was published in one of the peer reviewed journals (Journal on Economic Perspectives, Vol. 26. No. 3, Summer 2012) on trotsklyvania's list.


the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Bullshit comment #1 corrected.

In sum, it is time to identify, expose and dismantle the preponderance of unsubstantiated, lazy and fallacious arguments from polemic ideologues whose house of cards world views are based on faith, personal opinion and not much else.

I eagerly await trotsklyvania's inane retorts devoid of facts, logic and empirically supported arguments before moving on to expose, dissect and debunk trotsklylvania's bullshit comment #2.

[Nidaria]

Yes, decentralization will help the Union survive, for the reasons the OP stated.

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

[Dilange]

Yes, decentralization will help the Union survive, for the reasons the OP stated.

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

*Checks watch* Some of us are still here, we just dont care anymore about this.

[Norstal]

Yes, decentralization will help the Union survive, for the reasons the OP stated.

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

*Checks watch* Some of us are still here, we just dont care anymore about this.

Unlike pro-decentralization people, we have jobs and we needed to sleep.

[Death Metal]

*Checks watch* Some of us are still here, we just dont care anymore about this.

Unlike pro-decentralization people, we have jobs and we needed to sleep.

And arguments more intellectual to discuss. For example, which episode of Batman: The Animated Series was the best (the answer of course being "If You Are So Smart, Why Aren't You Rich?").

[Neo Art]

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

I guess if you're desperate enough "rambled incoherently enough that anyone interested in having a worthwhile conversation wandered off to find more fertile ground" can look like winning.

[Obamacult]

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

I guess if you're desperate enough "rambled incoherently enough that anyone interested in having a worthwhile conversation wandered off to find more fertile ground" can look like winning.

If you have something substantive objective to offer to challenge my assertions --- than have at it.

But your polemic and vitriolic personal opinion, while appreciated, is not considered valid or reliable evidence to any discussion.

[Ainin]

This proposal makes as much sense as that the Republicans threatened to move en masse to the Southern Hemisphere's 2nd most liberal country.

[Trotskylvania]

I will proceed to expose, dismantle and cast off the numerous incidents of ideological faith-based disinformation, misinformation and outright bullshit that has emanated from trotskylvania on these threads. They are too numerous, even in a single post, to dissect in a single post, so I will start with his first comment in his last post on this thread.

In other words, you have no argument.

What is 'telling' is that the research I cited in my post was published in one of the peer reviewed journals (Journal on Economic Perspectives, Vol. 26. No. 3, Summer 2012) on trotsklyvania's list.

Oh noez, you cited a single example of peer reviewed research. And apparently, you still haven't learned that correlation doesn't imply causation. Time for you to go.

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Bullshit comment #1 corrected.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, so you have no argument. Even the evidence you cite doesn't say what you say it says. That's academic dishonesty.

In sum, it is time to identify, expose and dismantle the preponderance of unsubstantiated, lazy and fallacious arguments from polemic ideologues whose house of cards world views are based on faith, personal opinion and not much else.

I eagerly await trotsklyvania's inane retorts devoid of facts, logic and empirically supported arguments before moving on to expose, dissect and debunk trotsklylvania's bullshit comment #2.

Yes, my inane retorts about requiring your arguments to make some logical sense. Oh, how unforgivable of me to demand the bare minimum of academic integrity from you. I guess that means I'm an ideologue.

I can't make this any more simple for you: you're wrong, and you will remain wrong so long as you rely upon your faith-based economics and only get your information from the pre-approved ideological censors on the Mises blog and related shills.

[Obamacult]

I will proceed to expose, dismantle and cast off the numerous incidents of ideological faith-based disinformation, misinformation and outright bullshit that has emanated from trotskylvania on these threads. They are too numerous, even in a single post, to dissect in a single post, so I will start with his first comment in his last post on this thread.

In other words, you have no argument.

What is 'telling' is that the research I cited in my post was published in one of the peer reviewed journals (Journal on Economic Perspectives, Vol. 26. No. 3, Summer 2012) on trotsklyvania's list.

Oh noez, you cited a single example of peer reviewed research. And apparently, you still haven't learned that correlation doesn't imply causation. Time for you to go.

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Bullshit comment #1 corrected.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, so you have no argument. Even the evidence you cite doesn't say what you say it says. That's academic dishonesty.

In sum, it is time to identify, expose and dismantle the preponderance of unsubstantiated, lazy and fallacious arguments from polemic ideologues whose house of cards world views are based on faith, personal opinion and not much else.

I eagerly await trotsklyvania's inane retorts devoid of facts, logic and empirically supported arguments before moving on to expose, dissect and debunk trotsklylvania's bullshit comment #2.

Yes, my inane retorts about requiring your arguments to make some logical sense. Oh, how unforgivable of me to demand the bare minimum of academic integrity from you. I guess that means I'm an ideologue.

I can't make this any more simple for you: you're wrong, and you will remain wrong so long as you rely upon your faith-based economics and only get your information from the pre-approved ideological censors on the Mises blog and related shills.

Bullshit, you accused me of posting exclusively from blogs without a single peer reviewed study.

I exposed and debunked this bullshit and now you have issued another bullshit strawman.

In sum, you have yet to offer anything substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported to debunk any of the raw data, empirical evidence and logical arguments I have offered, save your personal opinion.

And yes, the dreaded 'correlation doesn't equal causation' argument when you have nothing else but your personal opinion.

[Frisivisia]

In other words, you have no argument.

Oh noez, you cited a single example of peer reviewed research. And apparently, you still haven't learned that correlation doesn't imply causation. Time for you to go.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, so you have no argument. Even the evidence you cite doesn't say what you say it says. That's academic dishonesty.

Yes, my inane retorts about requiring your arguments to make some logical sense. Oh, how unforgivable of me to demand the bare minimum of academic integrity from you. I guess that means I'm an ideologue.

I can't make this any more simple for you: you're wrong, and you will remain wrong so long as you rely upon your faith-based economics and only get your information from the pre-approved ideological censors on the Mises blog and related shills.

Bullshit, you accused me of posting exclusively from blogs without a single peer reviewed study.

I exposed and debunked this bullshit and now you have issued another bullshit strawman.

In sum, you have yet to offer anything substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported to debunk any of the raw data, empirical evidence and logical arguments I have offered, save your personal opinion.

And yes, the dreaded 'correlation doesn't equal causation' argument when you have nothing else but your personal opinion.

Let's see if this is Obamacult:

Starts with the preface "bullshit": Check

Demands evidence while giving no or irrelevant evidence: Check

Accuses of multiple logical fallacies with little explanation: Check

Uses 3 of 4 of the following phrases: "substantive", "logical", "factual", "empirical" all together at one point in the post: Check

Constantly skips lines to give more volume to the already voluminous post, while remaining devoid of substance: Check

Proclaims self winner of the argument and all others wrong forever and for all time: Check

Yep, that's Obamacult.

[Nua Corda]

Bullshit, you accused me of posting exclusively from blogs without a single peer reviewed study.

I exposed and debunked this bullshit and now you have issued another bullshit strawman.

In sum, you have yet to offer anything substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported to debunk any of the raw data, empirical evidence and logical arguments I have offered, save your personal opinion.

And yes, the dreaded 'correlation doesn't equal causation' argument when you have nothing else but your personal opinion.

Let's see if this is Obamacult:

Starts with the preface "bullshit": Check

Demands evidence while giving no or irrelevant evidence: Check

Accuses of multiple logical fallacies with little explanation: Check

Uses 3 of 4 of the following phrases: "substantive", "logical", "factual", "empirical" all together at one point in the post: Check

Constantly skips lines to give more volume to the already voluminous post, while remaining devoid of substance: Check

Proclaims self winner of the argument and all others wrong forever and for all time: Check

Yep, that's Obamacult.

Well, I laughed my ass off. Job well done!

[Frisivisia]

Let's see if this is Obamacult:

Starts with the preface "bullshit": Check

Demands evidence while giving no or irrelevant evidence: Check

Accuses of multiple logical fallacies with little explanation: Check

Uses 3 of 4 of the following phrases: "substantive", "logical", "factual", "empirical" all together at one point in the post: Check

Constantly skips lines to give more volume to the already voluminous post, while remaining devoid of substance: Check

Proclaims self winner of the argument and all others wrong forever and for all time: Check

Yep, that's Obamacult.

Well, I laughed my ass off. Job well done!

I tried my best.

[Mount Shiloh]

I Won't Make My Opinion On This Question Known Cause I Don't Have One. It's Not Time.

[Frisivisia]

I Won't Make My Opinion On This Question Known Cause I Don't Have One. It's Not Time.

Then Why Did You Post? And Why Did You Capitalize Every Word?

[Nua Corda]

I Won't Make My Opinion On This Question Known Cause I Don't Have One. It's Not Time.

Then Why Did You Post? And Why Did You Capitalize Every Word?

I thought he might be spelling something in the capitals, a-la textrolling, but no.

[Dooom35796821595]

with the US supporting a federal europe, AKA WWIII they should increase federal power and sort out the infighting among states. seriously, in 5-10 years europe could be more united then the 'united' states of america.

[Mount Shiloh]

I Won't Make My Opinion On This Question Known Cause I Don't Have One. It's Not Time.

Then Why Did You Post? And Why Did You Capitalize Every Word?

Swerve.

[Obamacult]

Bullshit, you accused me of posting exclusively from blogs without a single peer reviewed study.

I exposed and debunked this bullshit and now you have issued another bullshit strawman.

In sum, you have yet to offer anything substantive, factual, logical or empirically supported to debunk any of the raw data, empirical evidence and logical arguments I have offered, save your personal opinion.

And yes, the dreaded 'correlation doesn't equal causation' argument when you have nothing else but your personal opinion.

Let's see if this is Obamacult:

Starts with the preface "bullshit": Check

Demands evidence while giving no or irrelevant evidence: Check

Accuses of multiple logical fallacies with little explanation: Check

Uses 3 of 4 of the following phrases: "substantive", "logical", "factual", "empirical" all together at one point in the post: Check

Constantly skips lines to give more volume to the already voluminous post, while remaining devoid of substance: Check

Proclaims self winner of the argument and all others wrong forever and for all time: Check

Yep, that's Obamacult.

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

This is the short list -- I could produce empirical findings supporting the same results for pages, but when has substantive fact, logic and empirical evidence from objective sources ever swayed the faith-based, anti-science mob?

[YellowApple]

So far (as of 23 February 2012 16:49 UTC-8), I have counted a total of 489 instances of the word "shit" in this thread, including the two in this post.

Dude, we could make a drinking game out of your posts.

I live in Ohio. My legislature sucks. Many of the Congressmen do not even have college degrees.
Those that aren't in the pocket of this or that anonymous corporation are backwoods nuts who only hold their positions because of how effectively the GOP has gerrymandered everything to Hades.
Recently, they passed a law compelling bars to permit guns on the facilities, all while proclaiming from the mountaintops about freedom and free markets.

That, mon ami, is state government. It's the JV, except that under their lack of accountability they can do real damage to the world we live in.

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

I strongly advise against anyone participating in the above-recommended drinking game unless they want to die from having a blood alcohol content that probably breaks any recorded world record several times over.

[Obamacult]

So far (as of 23 February 2012 16:49 UTC-8), I have counted a total of 489 instances of the word "shit" in this thread, including the two in this post.

One drink everytime Obamacult prefaces a post with "Bullshit"?

I strongly advise against anyone participating in the above-recommended drinking game unless they want to die from having a blood alcohol content that probably breaks any recorded world record several times over.

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

[Nua Corda]

So far (as of 23 February 2012 16:49 UTC-8), I have counted a total of 489 instances of the word "shit" in this thread, including the two in this post.



I strongly advise against anyone participating in the above-recommended drinking game unless they want to die from having a blood alcohol content that probably breaks any recorded world record several times over.

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

A rather inaccurate assessment, actually. 'Twould be more accurate to say;

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is repeating the same entitled, selfish horseshit they always repeat.

While the leftwing has grown bored of disproving said horseshit again and again, and has resorted to attempting to make something good out of the whole shebang, as an alternative to taking a Webley and a bottle of whisky out into the woods.