/sci/ - Science & Math

Anybody?

Sorry if you hate me for asking this, but I really am concerned and overwhelmed.

Raep

Nothing important in the long run.

find your nearest mormon and steal their preparedness stash

There are too many variables.

In all likelihood, the President will raise the limit himself, saying he has the power to do so. Even if it is unconstitutional, it would take months to be solved in the court system.

terrorists win

The United States will not default. It's unconstitutional. We'll stop playing for every single government program before we stop paying off our bond market obligations.

if we're lucky, the economy will spiral out of control and bring about the worst economic disaster ever which will motivate citizens around the world to demand new economic systems not susceptible to the exploitation that got us here and, if the governments and financial elites refuse to give up their economic power, overthrow them

>>3450913

This.

Fuck the Republicans. Cut spending and raise taxes, but the damn Republicans want to have everything their way with no compromise.

>>3450930

all throughout human history, every economic system and government exploited the masses to the benefit of the few. it won't change, it's our nature.

also, you're ass is going to be the first once to get fucked in a collapse.

>>3450913
To an extent, congress already took care of that. The House passed a budget (a law) proposing that money must be spent. New laws supersede old laws (like the debt limit), and therefore as soon as the Senate passes a budget, congress has already functionally overturned the debt limit.

>>3450931

What are you doing here Mr. President?

>>3450931

No the democrats are the ones with a stick up their asses. Lots of them wont even vote for spending decreases. Lets not forget that the fed is the only true villain here.

>>3450949

Looking for a you-laugh you-lose thread.

I heard /sci/ was the place to find one.

>>3450940
my body is ready.jpg

the worlds economy would go into a deep depression

China would get fucked over the worst

Our credit rating tanks

No nation wants america it default.

>>3450945

Thanks for the info. I've been trying to avoid most of this bullshit, since the whole situation is enraging.

>>3450931
lol you act like this is the republicans fault

obama just keeps printing more and more money out of his ass which you cant do because of inflation

>>3450959

>Democrats agree to $4 trillion in spending cuts
>Republicans refuse to raise taxes on the wealthiest people

Sure is the Democrats being unreasonable.

>>3450966

>mfw inflation is under 2%
>mfw there is no face

>>3450966
First you guys say he keeps stealing money.
Now you say he keeps printing money.
Which is it?

>>3450977

its 3.65%

>>3450966
Obama isn't allowed to print money. That's the Fed.

>>3450931

democrats: we want the debt ceiling raised
republicans: okay, but you have to cut spending
democrats: we want the debt ceiling raised and taxes raised
republicans: okay, we will agree to do it by cutting loopholes and having a more fair, flatter tax rate adjustment
democrats: we want straight tax raises on millionaires and billionaires (anyone making 200,000 a year), and more taxes by cutting loopholes, and the debt ceiling raised
republicans: okay, you would need to take the individual mandate away
democrats: OH MY GOD HOW DARE YOU OPPOSE GOVERNMENT FORCED PURCHASING OF PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE BY ALL PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY
republicans: okay scratch that, we will make sure we get the cuts, so we will do this in two votes
democrats: we have to increase the limit in one vote, and for reasons that are not political, it has to cover us just past the election

As you can see, the republicans are falling all over themselves to compromise.

How does every single fucking country owe money. The funny thing is the USA would go to war and bomb the shit out of countries if they were causing half as much damage as all these cuts, they should just tell the debtors fuck you your not getting it, I mean what are they going to do, these are mostly middle aged Jews, they don't have an army.

The USA shouldn't borrow money , they should just scrap the fed reserve bank and print their own money whenever they need it

>>3450973

If the Democrats agreed to 4 trillion in cuts the deal would be done. Stop talking out of your ass. The economy can't take new taxes right now. Despite trickle down being bs taking money from the rich takes it out of the economy at a time when we can't afford that.

WW3

>>3450989

Core inflation is at 1.6%

>>3451008

>mfw the tax rate during WW2 was 90% and we did just dandy

>>3450997
Right, but that's not how it went down at all. Sure is blatant falsehood fag.

>>3451018

Right if the economy was fine we would be ok taking that much money out of it. You could try reading my post next time instead of replaying with idealistic gibberish.

>>3451030

Nope thats what happened.

hey

hey

what if we raise taxes and decrease military spending?

>>3451054

I work at Lockheed Martin, so no thanks.

>>3451039
The economy was even worse.

>>3451030

True in that the democrats wanted more. Every time the republicans agreed, the deal was changed. Originally Obama wanted to raise the debt ceiling without cuts.

>>3451054
Then there is no problem at all. Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, then raise income taxes to those of the Kennedy era, the most economically successful period in our nation's history, and we start running so huge a surplus that we pay off the whole national debt in less than a decade.

>>3451054

That would fuck the economy.

That would fuck military pay which is already too low.

That does not address social security.

That does not address medicare.

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

>>3451014
your picture needs a more specific timeline
pic related, an edit.

>>3451077

> implying military spending is more than entitlements and welfare

First off, hopenchange hussein loves war. We are still in Iraq, he tripled the troops in Afghanistan, he has bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. The guy makes Bush look like a fake war president.

>>3451079
Military pay isn't where all the money goes.

>>3451094
I ain't arguing that Obama's not gonna do it. I'm arguing that if we just raised taxes and got out of our big expensive wars, there would be no default problem.

Every year, we spend over $30 billion on air conditioning for the war.

For under $1 billion, we build a prototype liquid fluoride thorium reactor by 2015, and have more energy than we know what to do with within another 10 years.

Don't want a prototype reactor in your back yard? That's fine. There's pacific island nations--some of which are US territories--that would jump at the chance to house the first reactor.

How about we implement the smallest tax increase in history, reappropriate funds, or just make the troops turn off the A/C 1 day a month next year, and then bring them home because we no longer have need for any of those oily sandpits they're stationed in.

I'm not sure how capitalism will adjust to suddenly having effectively unlimited energy at virtually no cost, but I can't see things being much worse because of it.

If we got out of the wars, and cut entitlements massively, then default won't be a problem. The deficit for this year is 1.5 trillion, that would be more than the entirety of defense spending and wars. Try again, silly.

sage this thread to the ground

>>3451126

You mean for under a billion the private sector could.

>>3451130
http://about.bgov.com/2011/07/12/august-invoices-show-u-s-treasury%E2%80%99s-limited-choices/
Pretty sure it makes more sense to raise taxes, chief.

>>3451142
>implying it wouldn't be 1 billion in research grants to a energy research company or university
ha ha, oh wow

>>3451145

It always makes more sense to immediately stop the problem. The problem was never too little taxes. The problem was always too much spending.

>>3451148

The U.S. gubbmint could not compete with a chimpanzee, hence why competition is illegal.

>>3451145
Don't talk to liberty.

Just walk the fuck away and don't look at him. He shits himself if you maintain eye contact for more than three minutes.

Then we will not have to pay back the 14 trillion dollars we owe

>>3451079
>That would fuck military pay which is already too low.
Oh go fuck yourself. Seriously. Where else do you get all your living expenses covered and a salary?

>>3451156
If the problem isn't low tax revenue, then why did the debt start to skyrocket under Reagan?

>>3451155

> implying the project is a great idea, and that is why the private sector wont touch it

ha ha, oh wow

>>3451142

Yeah except, guess what? The private sector doesn't want to. Part of the problem is that the cash flow for the nuclear industry comes from yellow cake, enrichment and all that jazz. Thorium eliminates all of that, and on top of that the amounts that would be bought out would be much less than the amounts of uranium that are bought now. Why? Because it's more efficient: 1 ton in, 1 ton's worth of energy out. With uranium it's significantly less.

>>3451126
this. instead of dumping money in healthcare/welfare/SS/medicare/medicaid and other social programs we should be investing a ton of it in scientific research. FUCK green energy, we should pour money into fusion research/stem cell research/etc... In the end everybody in the US will benefit. That would sure as hell beat the shitty idea of taking money from some people and giving it to others.

If there is something we should have learned this past decade is that bankrupcy is the solution to everything

>>3451126
Almost forgot: China is currently building one. Jiang Mianheng is leading the project--an electrical engineer if I recall correctly, and educated in the U.S.

His father is Jiang Zemin. I hope you recognize that name, he kind of ran the country for most of the 90s and early 00s. So I'm pretty sure china is going to throw money at the project until it gets done.

>>3451159

> he shits himself
> i can't talk to him though

>>3451167

Reagan raised taxes 11 times.

>>3451168

It's an amazing idea. Check out Kirk Sorensen, he explains thorium power in a very lucid manner.

>>3451193

AFTER he realized Laffer was full of shit.

>>3451171

If the private sector won't touch it, there is no demand.

Then countries they owe money to will default on their loans as well. Global financial meltdown, everybody is fucked. Another depression would be 100 times better.

>>3451193
that's fucking irrelevant, broski.
just look at how upper tax brackets vanished over his 2 terms

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

>>3451079
Dude, there is absolutely no way around it, the economy is already fucked. Better off doing it now before the problem gets any worse. Better than a global financial meltdown.

>>3451201

> raises taxes
> debt skyrockets
> the problem is tax cuts

Haha.

The Laffer curve is factual, and undeniable. There is a point at which higher taxes decreases revenues. In fact, most every single tax cut has led to more revenues. You don't actually want more revenue though, you just want more taxes.

>>3451214
Being sent to prison results in more sex.

>>3451209

> tax raises are irrelevant
> we need more tax raises

Sigh, are they relevant or not? Pick.

>>3451202
But applying demand in such a way is silly, since the public doesn't really pay for it DIRECTLY unless it's a privately owned power plant. The demand for it would come from the government itself, and of course it has no demand if it's unwilling to fund such a project/contract.

sage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs&autoplay=1

It's pretty simple. The US just needs to not spend more money than it has, slowly make cuts here and there. Gradually pay off the debts over time.

>>3451202

I'm sorry, I should have listened to the poster above, you are truly 'pants on head' retarded. Yes, there's no demand, but the problem is that there's asymmetric information, and that people, simply put, are not rational. Thorium power is a tried, tested, and discarded source only because of the race to build the bomb, and the path dependence that inhabited the nuclear community thereafter.

>>3451189
We can just buy the designs from china!

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?®

>>3451223
You're trolling. I really don't know why I bother with you, but I must really hate idiots or something.

My point was 11 tax raises don't make a fucking difference compared to the loss of any tax bracket above 35%. His net effect was a great tax reduction, bro.

>>3451214

Give me data for these claims.

>>3451225

Government cannot create demand. It can only hinder demand.

>>3451232

What you feel is rational is of course irrelevant. You are not somebody that simply knows more than everyone else with the capital to build. You like the idea based upon your emotions.

>>3451238

While I agree that tax increases reduce revenues, I cannot also agree with you also claiming they raise revenues.

>>3451241

The data for what exactly? Then tell me your position.

>>3451214

For

>The Laffer curve is factual, and undeniable. There is a point at which higher taxes decreases revenues. In fact, most every single tax cut has led to more revenues. You don't actually want more revenue though, you just want more taxes.

This.

I encourage you to go to energyfromthorium and check out everything on there. You probably won't understand the chemistry behind it, which might be problematic for your believing in it, but Alvin Weinberg already built one of these (LFTR's) on a small scale in the 1960s.

>>3451251
So, if you believe in the Laffer curve, what do you think the evidence suggests to be the maximal point, chief?

>>3451274

Inform the entirety of the private sector. Then get back to me.

>>3451275

Less than pre-Bush rates, and more than 0 percent. As taxes were decreased under Bush in 01, and 03, revenues went up.

>>3451283
Revenues generally grow up every year, chief. You're gonna need a little more than that.

>>3451276

I'm done with this conversation. The point is that the private sector actors that would be interested in this are, you know, already running their businesses, and on different models (see the uranium points I made above) such that thorium power wouldn't be worthwhile for them. That being said, thorium power would provide more energy to more people for less. You don't need to respond to this post.

>>3451288

Nope, Chief. They have gone down with hopenchange hussein.

>>3451290

> the private sector is not interested in saving money

haha

>>3451291
I think that "generally" wouldn't include a recession, chief. That's a little special, dont'cha think?

>>3451291
>uses a snarky nickname for political figures he dislikes

opinion discredited

>>3451309

I was under the impression that the recession was done in 2009.

>>3451314

> someone calls me chief
> i say chief back
> lol you have been discredited

Tell me more, obvious lover of logics.

>>3451290
Just ignore that particular tripfag. I'm totally up for hijacking this further into being a "why thorium would/wouldn't solve all the world's problems" thread.

Main reason I see for the private sector not jumping on it: because fossle fuels are already producing ungodly amounts of money.

If a publicly traded company tried to build a LFTR, it would immediately be bought out and shut down by big oil.

Private investors aren't going to build one, because oil and coal practically hemorrhage money because they make so much of it. It's just not the worth the hassle of dealing with the regulations a nuclear reactor is put under when coal plants and oil refineries can already do pretty much whatever they want.

POLITICS:

Anarcho-communists are correct.

Everyone else is varying levels of wrong.

I would explain why, but you would only read anything I said in an attempt to find a way to prove me wrong, and if you utterly failed to do so, you still wouldn't accept a damn word I said.

Discussing politics is pointless. If and when I get into a position to do so, I will kill everyone who disagrees with me and produce a utopia. Until then, fuck you.

>>3451300
They're more interested in making money, chief. And because most power plants are public, there really isn't any money for them in thorium, without a government contract (which won't happen unless money is put forward towards such a project) There is significantly more money in uranium, because they can be outsourced for waste disposal, ect.

>>3450930
I'm with you. I'd say that we're heading that way and that we won't avoid this.

>>3451324

So they would lose money? Sounds like we found out why they won't touch it.

>>3451318
>>I was under the impression that the recession was done in 2009.

and I was under the impression that revenue has, in fact, gone up since then...

somebody wanna just post a source and clear this up easily?

>>3451323
>uses a snarky nickname for political figures he dislikes
>political figure
>hopechange hussein

You lack even the most base level of reading comprehension.

It would really help if the government deported all the niggers living off welfare.

>>3451332

If the idea was truly much cheaper as one person claimed, they would do it.

>>3451331
And what if I'm not one of these conservatives and that I was genuinely interested by your insight?

I love advertising this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law

Hauser's law shows that regardless of the various tax rates in the last 60 years, the federal tax revenues have stayed very close to 19.5% of GDP

Take that republicans.

>>3451337
They'd make plenty of money. It's just an administrative nightmare--meaning there'd be time between the investment and the profit.

If it doesn't benefit the bottom line by the end of next quarter, it's not going to happen in the private sector.

Seriously, you're arguing AGAINST virtually unlimited, virtually free to produce energy. Whoever does it first would make an absolute killing until someone else builds one next door, and the price war begins.

>>3451338

It went up since the recession? I wouldn't need a source to agree.

>>3451341

Hopenchange was borrowed from Obama. Hussein is simply his middle name. You were saying.

>>3451324

True, but that's why I excluded them from my analysis. The problem is that the nuclear industry doesn't want to adopt it. It will save them money, but it will decrease their profits by MORE than the money they'll save, resulting in a net loss. Kirk Sorensen started a company that I wish I could invest in just on principle. I'm not one to jump on the 'clean energy bandwagon' either. I think wind power is ridiculous, and solar needs significantly more research before it will be feasible en mass. I see it more as an auxiliary, along side geothermal and hydro, to a nuclear powered future, until a point where we may or may not come up with even better methods of energy distribution.

>>3451349
You'll get a chance to show it if/when what I think actually matters. I have no delusions of import.

>>3451354

Sounds like a good argument for lowering taxes.

>>3451356

> thinking r&d is only used if the profit is seen within 3 months

haha

>>3451274

The goal of taxes is not to collect revenue, but rather to regulate and control the money supply (and to compensate for the public cost of externalities). Raising taxes allows for a larger government influence without inflating the value of the currency. Whether or not they actually receive more currency from individuals/companies, who lose productive utility from the higher taxes, is irrelevant. Hopefully, the additional government influence allocates resources more efficiently.

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

hey guys there's a wikipedia page about this lol

>>3451367

I should specify: They'll lose money in the short-run, and run the risk of being pushed out of an oligopolistic market by predatory pricing and other strategic pricing initiatives.

>>3451367

Like Nuclear Fusion?

>>3451377
My observation has been that, if publicity from the R&D work doesn't appear to increase the value of the stock in the company by a large enough amount, the research is canceled.

At least, for any publicly traded company I've looked at that's actually remained in business for long.

>>3451382

> government
> efficient

The fuck am i reading?

>>3451392

The cost to hire a good press agent would be almost negligible then.

Let me help the thorium fags get a point to libertyuberfag. Thorium reactors would produce less revenue than uranium due to many different factors, including the system of disposal of waste and other things, that's why the private sector will not touch it, but the government should. Why the government should : It would provide a very large amount of power very cheaply, this would cause the economy to skyrocket.

>>3451393
Not efficient in that it makes no benefit (and that is good) and that it makes deficit when it shouldn't if managed right.
It's efficient in the sense that it doesn't seeks to make extra profit wherever it's possible, even if unreasonable, like how private sectors do with safety measures, systems and equipments. Safety doesn't seem to be profitable enough for the private sector.

>>3451389

>Ctrl-F Thorium
>1 result found in links
>mfw

>>3451393

You'd be surprised how inefficient companies can be (especially when public cost is factored in, though it's not always the primary cause).

>>3451392
uh obviously you're wrong because the free market leads to perfectly efficient corporations so

if it hasn't been done yet then it must just be a bad idea

>>3451408
[/sarcasm]

>>3451403

> implying the natural monopolies in the power sector would not take a cheaper source of energy and adjust prices to stay in line with what was there before

I seriously hope you are not doing this.

>>3451403

I've already said all of this, and the response was still nonsense, so don't get your hopes up.

>>3451404

Profit is basically efficiency defined.

>>3451406

I am well aware of the inefficiency of companies forced to account for massive amounts of regulations and the tax code.

>>3451408

As efficient as possible, sure.

>>3451414
That price would have to be almost non-existant, otherwise they would have to dump energy, and they would see a huge drop in profits in the shot run, untill the market adjusted, trying to fix this by keeping the prices the same would cause them to have to dump energy and ... . To further explain the point : If price of energy droped very sharply, the market would take time to adjust demand, untill then they would see a loss in revenue, they don't want that since there is no point, and it would cost them in building new equipment.

>>3451425
Nope. Profit is based on efficent ways of generating more profit. It is not to be confused with efficiency = self sustaining system that doesnt require creation of profit.

>>3451425

>Profit is basically efficiency defined.

My Behavioral Economics friend would beat your ass for saying that (or implying it, as I learned).

>>3451429

You are basing your arguments on the emotional want that what a company pays is what the customer pays. You are also basing your argument on the emotional ignorance of supply and demand. Basically you have not taken am economics class above 101.

>>3451431

Profit is tied to efficiency.

>>3451434

Your friend is silly.

>>3451414

If they would do that, then why do you have some companies drilling for oil in ways that's expensive as fuck, and others doing it much cheaper? I thought all natural monopolies were the same and abide by your magic rules. This is not first year economics you trolltastic goatfucker. Do you realize how many seasoned, nobel prize winning economists disagree with your analysis of the energy industry right now? Please, for the sake of your enlightenment and my blood pressure, go read some books on this that aren't written by Mankiw as a subject preface.

>>3451440
No I've taken a college level economy class, fucking classic medical system forces me to.Please show me where I related what a company pays to what a customer pays, also you happen to not understand what physically happens in supply and demand, electrical energy demand adjustment would require huge restructuring , in domestic and factory settings.

Profit is bad. Period.

A simplified version:

What happens if a businessman undercharges? He goes broke, starves, and dies.

What happens if a businessman overcharges? The consumer goes broke, starves, and dies.

The ONLY sustainable system, in the long term, is one where net exchange is equal for all parties.

>>3451447
>>3451453
NOPE NOPE IT'S ALL FREE MARKET CORPORATE MAGIC

>>3451447

Different companies have different amounts of capital, are run by different people, have different wants, are differently equipped, and have different pressures.

Disagree with what exactly?

>>3451453

So it would cost a lot of money? Would you say the money it would cost makes the profit less than what is currently used?

...and to think, we used to have a whole board like this.

>>3451461

Haha.

Profit is proof your product or service is wanted.

Also it would be almost impossible to sell a product or service at cost. Having just enough to survive is for the lower brained animals. Humans understand there is a future.

>>3451465

The corporation is the child of thew state. Free markets require no states. There would be no corporations in the free market.

>>3451474
I am >>3451453 btw
You fail at understand.I said restructuring on the part of the demanders, however yes, it would cost the company money, without increasing revenue(actually decreasing it untill demand caught up).

>>3451446
>Profit is tied to efficiency.

You aren't refuting my claim. Does this mean that you were wrong ?

>>3451493
>Humans understand there is a future.
But apparently not that there won't be a future if you take out more than you put in.

>>3451496

So the idea would cost money?

>>3451500

It directly refutes it.

>>3450827
>What will happen if the United States defaults?
>if the United States defaults
>United States defaults
The US is a country a country can not default because it is compromised of many parts: Companies, government, organizations and the general public. Most of these people are still paying their debts what could happen is the the US GOVERNMENT defaults which is a very different thing.

>>3451504

You would be right if the world as exists currently did not exist. There is no zero sum game, silly.

>>3451516
The universe is a zero sum game.

>>3451518
Thank you. It really bothers me that so many people don't understand this.

>>3451518

Nope. Everything would need to be at max use now for that to begin to be even close to possible.

>>3451518
Technically true, but practically false.

Humanity will never, ever, consume galactic levels of resources, much less universal levels. Even if we survive as a species for three billion years.

If we go get them, we have functionally infinite supplies of everything ever.

>>3451523
You don't understand logic. You are too dense.

>>3451531
>Humanity will never, ever, consume galactic levels of resources

Of course we will, silly....

>>3450827
The World Bank bails it out then the US gives up a lot of its sovereignty to a new world body.

>>3451532

I would not even insult you by pointing out your lack of understanding regarding logic. I can simply point out that you think if i were to eat an apple it denies an apple to someone else.

>>3451537
>>implying people give a shit about food

>>3451531
>Humanity will never, ever, consume galactic levels of resources
You can't know that. Only a couple hundred years ago it was inconceivable that we could ever consume planetary levels of resources yet here we are well on track to do just that.

>>3451543

> implying food is not wanted

>>3451523
You don't get it. Its not only possible but inevitable.

>>3451505
Is the fact that it would cost not evident?Really?
Yes,yes it would, without bringing in more revenue, it would actually bring in less revenue untill demand adapted.

>>3451531
I doubt we ever would, but that's not the point. I was merely proving that zero sum games exist.

Even if the sum isn't zero, if it's fixed at a finite value then it behaves the same way. There's a finite amount of new energy being added to the earth (mostly from solar radiation). Lots of resources are finite. Water is expensive enough to desalinate that it might as well be finite.

Any finite-sum game retains the essence of the zero-sum game: for you to benefit, someone else has to either be harmed or is at least subject to a more restrictive maximum benefit. That's not a philosophical argument, it's simple physics.

>>3451553

But certainly is not now.

>>3450827
there is no reason that the US would default, unless it was to prioritize budget items over paying for the interest on the debt.

it would be equivalent to skipping out on paying your mortgage so you could go buy a new car. actually, our government is that retarded, so it might happen.

>>3451548
Comparatively, you are telling me that because you worked yourself up from jogging ten feet to jogging eleven feet, you can conceivably work yourself up to jogging around the planet at the equator a billion times without stopping.

I don't care how optimistic you are about the future. You're talking about harvesting the supplies of 400 billion stars, when we haven't even completely consumed the supplies of 1 planet orbiting 1 star, yet.

Get a sense of scale, man.

>>3451558
And I repeat that while you are technically correct, that's like stating that solar power isn't renewable because there are a finite number of stars in the universe. Seriously? Scale, man. SCALE!

>>3451566
Don't you that there is some massive media defending this system? Don't you think it conspicious that the same individuals who control the media are the same guys who sell you the product? It's pretty obvous that people buy what the media tells them to buy, so it's not a fair game.

It wouldn't be a problem if the republicans weren't so fucking stupid and greedy.

>>3451581
Solar is limited to how much you can actually gather in a practical way. But that's not the point--we gather very little of it anyway, because we have other sources of power (for now).

There's plenty of things we do have a shortage of. We ration water all the time. If there's a drought, and some prick in arizona decides to illegally fill his pool, then regardless of any fines he may entail, that's still less water for the rest of the city.

>>3451592

> republicans are greedy
> they want less of others money

Wait, what?

>>3451604
They want everybody's money, they call those clients.

>>3451608

> they want everybody's money
> they support lower taxes

Wait, what?

>>implying republicans haven't increased obligated government spending more than the other party since Reagan.

The military is a beast and a violator of liberty across the world. Shut the fuck up "liberty". I've been lurking and reading your posts and you half-heartedly play partisan politics while feigning to hold belief consistent with the concepts of liberty.

One Giant Fail

>>3451581
Let me do the math for you.

If we say that the universe averages 1 planet for every 10 stars, and our solar system is just the most freakishly mutant place ever with a fuckhueg horde of orbiting objects, and that the Earth is the standard size of a planet, and we're just talking about consuming planets to the point that we've currently consumed the Earth, that's 1/40,000,000,00 that we've completed over the course of our species' life, of about 1,000,000 years.

So, we can reasonably expect to finish up the Milky Way in just 40,000,000,000,000,000 years. That is, 40 quadrillion years, or approximately 28,000 times the current age of the universe.

Like I said, functionally infinite.

>>3451604
No, they want more of other people's money. The Republicans are the ones who would be paying the lion's share of the taxes, you see, but they want to KEEP all of that money they stole from their unsuspecting "customers"!

>>3451614

Deficit under Bush 6 trillion in 8 years. Obama, 5 trillion in 2.5 years.

Wait, what?

>>3451604
Like every politician, they want to get re-elected, so they can get more tax payer money.
They do that by being politically greedy, which is blatantly obvious, and I'm a politically retarded shut-in. I'm going to assume you're a troll, and not just an idiot or underage.

>>3451614

I do not support any state ever. None of my statements have been anti-Liberty in any way.

>>3451617
And let's hear how many of those planets we are currently capable of mining.

...one?

Well, damn, looks like our resources are pretty finite after all.

>>3451623

More greedy than democrats how?

>>3451604

Republicans want less of other peoples money?

Are you fucking serious?

Wake up, son.

>>3451621
again, you dumbass, ignorant fuck. Obligated spending. Congress from 2008-2010 has been obligated to continue massive war spending (trillion+ a year) That covers two and a half of those trillion. It wouldn't be hard to find the other two and a half if you didn't have partisan blinders on. What's offensive to me is that you play this bullshit under the title and banner of "Liberty", a concept I believe in whole. You are a walking hypocritical contradiction. You type bullshit and expect people to believe it. And you likely believe in it too. Fuck off.

>>3451617
We've also accomplished nearly all of the consuming within the last few hundred years. It will only get faster. And the rate at which it gets faster, gets faster.
You are assuming linear growth in a situation which isn't close to linear.
Exponential growth curves, how do they work?

>>3451629
When did I ever say they were more greedy?
I was pointing out how you're being an idiot or a troll by constantly misquoting or misinterpreting obvious statements, not trying to make a point about politics.

>>3451635

To be honest I am only basing that on bills they have passed and authored. These bills call for lower taxation, and lower spending. But yeah, they want more, and democrats want less.

>>3451627
Realistically, we could be mining the solar system for resources within 10 years if we felt like giving NASA even 10% of our current military spending.

I shit you not. We have the capability.

>>3451639

Congress yes, Obama no. Obama could pull out troops tomorrow, if he wanted to. He does not want to though.

What part of my statement is anti-Liberty? Obama has kept the Iraq war alive, tripled the troops in the Afghanistan war, and has bombed Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. Obama loves war and killing foreigners.

>>3451640
Yeah, yeah.

I'm also assuming humanity has the wherewithal to spread past our own solar system. You didn't call THAT into question...

>>3450973
Democrat budget cuts are spending growth rate reductions not actually cuts. In their logic, if you have a program with a 10% growth rate every year and you cut the growth rate down to 3.5%, the Democrats claim that they have cut the program by 65%.

>>3451668
Maybe we will in the future, but we don't presently, which means our resources are quite limited at the moment... As a result, profit is not sustainable.

Once more resources become available, we can think of allowing profit again. For now, we need to focus on rationing our resources.

>>3451669
If the growth rate is lower than the inflation rate, it IS a spending cut for all practical purposes.

>>3451669

In the new democrat proposed bill, they count 1.2 trillion dollars in cuts by saying the wars will end. This means before this bill was presented they had expected the wars to last forever. Pretty telling.

Also the alleged cuts Obama agreed to were not cuts, he counted increased taxes as cuts to spending. He is under the impression that you can count money you never received as revenue you spent. In short, hopenchange hussein lacks the ability to understand simple logic.

Remember that the Great depression started in the US before you start dancing on our grave

>>3451681
>He is under the impression that you can count money you never received as revenue you spent.
Sounds like wallstreet logic.

I believe it was primarily the republicans who planned on allowing the wars to never end. But hey, probably a few greedy, defense money bought democrats as well.

>>3451688

The one person to end the wars right now refuses to end the wars. He only looks for more ways to engage troops in wars.

>>3451695
Iraq? over.
Afghanistan? He's been pushing for that to end.
Libya? The spice must flow, brotha. Carter Doctrine. No president can stop intervention without taking huge economic risks.

We just need to start the Second American Revolution, overthrow the super rich, and distribute their wealth to the nation.

It's really the only way.

>>3451698

I will agree once he brings the 50,000 troops home.

He tripled the troops there. How is that ending it?

He has bombed Libya, Yemen, Somalia, etc.

>>3451700

haha

The first one had nothing to do with the hilarious alleged class war. A second one will not be towards a bugger socialist state.

Raise taxes raise spending = Deficit goes nowhere
Lower taxes and lower spending = Deficit goes nowhere
Raise taxes and lower spending = Deficit goes down

I love it when combining the two political parties ideas produces a solution. Democrats have already agreed to $4 billion in spending cuts, but the Republicans still push back.

>>3451716

maintain taxes, decrease spending = deficit goes down

You left that one out, turbo.

>>implying the rich in the US didn't get there by infringing on others rights.

Redistribution

>>3451711

You are completely insane.

>>3451716
>>3451716

Also the alleged cuts Obama agreed to were not cuts, he counted increased taxes as cuts to spending. He is under the impression that you can count money you never received as revenue you spent. In short, hopenchange hussein lacks the ability to understand simple logic.

>>3451723

Positive rights are not actually rights.

>>3451724

You are not human.

>>3451725

>Liberty
>Hopenchange Hussein

Wow. So eloquent. Don't you have a Sarah Palewhorse book to go out and get?

>>3451730
>irony, thy name is liberty.

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury

>>3451716
Tax reform would help too. There are CEOs who pay less in taxes, as a dollar amount (not a %), than their secretaries.

>>3451730
Not the person you're replying to, but if you claim to be human, then I want no part of it.

>>3451734

> 2011
> using the word evil as an argument
> not knowing it is hilariously subjective

I hope you don't do this.

>>3451730
>>positive rights are not rights
I wasn't talking about those. How many individuals are grossly rich because of cronyism?

I can name one. Our former Vice President Dick Cheney. Another? Rumsfeld.

Redistribution

>>3451735

47 percent of americans pay no income tax. Try fixing that massive loss first.

>>2011
>>not recognizing a Jon Stuart Mill quotation when using liberty as ones title
>>I fucking hope you aren't this stupid.

>>3451748
Alright. Killing 47% of Americans sounds like a good idea to me.

>>3451749
JS Mill was half a commie anyway, I don't understand how he was put in with the likes of Locke and Rousseau

>>3451748
47% Americans who don't pay income tax still pay a large portion of their income in taxes.
Since they make so little and most of their purchases are fuel/food/etc.

Man this guy is ridiculously stupid. Still spouting out talking points

>>3451746

That would be a positive right, and thereby not real. You are telling me the problem is the state while telling me the solution is the state. I disagree, as does everyone else.

>>3451716
care to link to a story that breaks down SPECIFICALLY what these cuts are? i think you will notice obama has been deliberately vague on that one, and yes, he is counting 'revenue increases' as spending cuts.

it's hilarious, you never see news stories outlining this, but you also don't see anyone in the media demanding obama actually show exactly what he is going to cut.

it's pretty obvious that his only goal is to put off any real decision until after the election. if you are going to call the republifags out on anything, it should be on them being gigantic pussies and not simply giving the choice saying no to any increase on the ceiling and forcing the government to become solvent overnight or getting all the cuts they want with no increase in the nominal tax rates.

"Liberty" is Glenn Beck. It all makes sense now.

>>3451749

> 2011
> thinking Liberty has anything to do with Mill

I hope you don't do this.

>>3451755

The bad spending habits of those unders is of no concern to me.

>>3451757
rights were infringed when their wealth was built. It is the duty of the state to apply justice.

>>3451766

Beck is a statist, so that would be impossible.

>>3451767

Liberty has nothing to do with John Stuart Mill?

You, sir, are an ignorant troll.

Finit

>>3451771

The positive right of others not being able to attain wealth is of course not logical, reasonable or rational.

>>3451778

Liberty existed well before Mill. The mere fact that he wrote about it does not change Liberty. Plus utilitarianism is not Liberty.

Liberty is not the freedom to hurt others without recompense.

I think you are confusing liberty with thievery.

>>3451791

"Hurting" others is laughingly subjective.

Oh hey guys what's going on in this thread? Oh, some idiot claims to know about liberty and has never read Mill? Fucking /sci/.

>>3451796
Yes, all morals are. What's your point?

>>3451802

I have of course read On Liberty but prefer reading those that support actual Liberty, or get close to it.

>>3451812
Pray tell, is "Ayn Rand" one of your preferred writers?

>>3451803

Liberty has nothing to do with your personal opinions on what "hurting" someone is.

>mfw this clown show

Thanks for the entertainment, "Liberty"

>>3451816

I don't read Rand.

>>3451821
Presumably you believe that we /ought/ to have a system that gives us liberty. This /ought/ is just as subjective an arbitrary from any other /ought/, (for this particular context and understood meaning).

That is, you want liberty as you define it, and other people want liberty like Mill defined it. Both desires are equally subjective.

>>3451824

Hello, anti-Liberty.

>>3451836

Nope, not in the slightest.

>>3451839
Oh? You're going to appeal to some absolute-morality bullshit now, eh?

>>3451839
Hello, anti-intelligence.

>>3451845

Morality plays no part in my argument.

>>3451847

Hello, non-human.

>>3451851
>Morality plays no part in my argument.

Explain to me again why your liberty is "better" or "less subjective" than Mill's "liberty".

>>3451854

I do not argue for better or less subjective anything.

>>3451860
>I do not argue for better or less subjective anything.

Remember:

me: >Yes, all morals are [subjective]. What's your point?
you: >Liberty has nothing to do with your personal opinions on what "hurting" someone is.

me: >That is, you want liberty as you define it, and other people want liberty like Mill defined it. Both desires are equally subjective.
you: >Nope, not in the slightest.

Please try to at least be consistent.

>>3451860
Yes, he argues only truely subjective things.

>>3451867

I argue for logic of Liberty only.This of course has nothing to do with subjective anything.

>mfw Murrican domestic slapfights fuck the global economy

Know what's funny? >>3451126
I still don't see a good argument against the idea.

>>3451875
Does the "logic of liberty" imply that we /ought/ to have a society of liberty? Then that's subjective. See Hume's Is-Ought Problem.

>>3451883

Nobody that can build it wants to. That is perfect.

>>3451884

Of course not. I am not a non-suggestive ought person.

>>3451884
I know you mean well, but if you truly are a scientist, then you should realize that part of science is knowing what you can easily ignore.

Liberty is one of these things.

>>3451888
Nobody in the private sector was both willing and able to get to the moon. They still struggle reaching orbit.

>>3451896

There are no scientists on this board. We know this because the board generally supports theft of labor,

The US would file for bankruptcy
Which is planned by the NWO/Illuminati
Once we usher in a new form of currency,
we'll lose all freedoms and become a true oppressive dictatorship

China allies with Russia
United states now ruled by a red fist
Denizens of the former America now casted from their homeland
Head to south america, europe and japan
WW3 between two newly formed super powers
Russia and China = Red Sun
South America, Europe, Former America and Japan = Righteous Hand

War continues on for 2 generations and ends in a stalemate
While the Red Sun controls the 3/4 the world still, the Righteous Fist bides its time until it can muster its strengths once more and take back what was originally theirs

Bring it.

>>3451900

This is because there is no true demand for it.

>>3451901
And because people still argue with you.

>>3451883
>>3451126
Yep, that we're not doing the molten salt thorium reactor is one of the biggest "crimes" of our time.

>>3451908

I would hardly call emotional wants hurled at me as arguments.

>>3451914
>>3451901
You are an asshat. You continue to argue that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. This is making a normative claim - equivalently an "ought" claim. All such claims are subjective.

>>3451914
>>3451901
You are an asshat. You continue to argue that anyone who disagrees with you is morally wrong. You are claiming that the right answer is no theft of labour. This is making a normative claim - equivalently an "ought" claim. All such claims are subjective.

>>3451920

If you were to tell me that the earth was flat, me saying you are wrong is not an ought statement. It is simply a statement of fact.

>>3451921

Pointing out that a person who supports theft of labor is not a scientist is not an ought statement, it is simply the statement that a person who supports theft of labor is not a scientist.

Objectivism is a political philosophy with a name which only makes sense if you happen to be in the midst of a psychotic episode.

Discuss.

>>3451925
You argue in bad faith. You have been arguing that (your) liberty is the best solution. This is a moral claim.

>Pointing out that a person who supports theft of labor is not a scientist is not an ought statement, it is simply the statement that a person who supports theft of labor is not a scientist.
Oh pray tell, how is it mutually exclusive to support theft and be a scientist? This is flagrantly wrong.

>>3451929

> implying i am an objectivist

I certainly hope you are not doing this.

>>3451934
I'm not implying anything. Just pissing into an ocean of piss.

>>3451929
There's nothing to discuss, that's a fact.
Objectivism is a form of egoism, which is itself the most base form of subjective morality.

>>3451934
Your political philosophy seems to consist of "I've got mine, so fuck you!" which captures the essence of the philosophy quite well.

>>3451933

I made no such claim.

I was joking of course, since the person I was responding to was offering nothing logical.

>Liberty: Hurr let's take all the power away from government and give it to massive corporations!

>>3451942

Your personal and emotional want for me to be an objectivist is, well, a personal and emotional want not based in reality, rationality, or logic.

>>3451933
>>Oh pray tell, how is it mutually exclusive to support theft and be a scientist? This is flagrantly wrong.

lol
I would love to hear the libertarian definition of "scientist" that somehow makes this association correct

>>3451951
>herpderpadee
oh

>>3451947

The corporation was created and maintained by the state. Remove the state, the corporation fails. I thereby do not support corporations.

>>3451951
I never said I wanted you to be an objectivist. You've done nothing but put words in my mouth this whole thread.

All I said was that the statements you've made are consistent with those an objectivist would make. You're the one implying conclusions from that observation.

>>3451956

> huuuuuuuuuuuur derp the state is needed

Why?

>>3451957

What do you want, then? Anarchy?

>>3451959
Wait... are you an anarchist? You believe that the state is not required for a reasonable and functioning society?

>>3451959

Enjoy your Somalia.

>>3451958

Now that you have gone back and said you only think I say things objectivists say, does that make one a objectivist?

>>3451963
Maybe a closeted one.

>>3451960

Of course not, I do not support rape, theft, or murder.

>>3451962

Why would I enjoy a location that is inhabited by several

>>3451961

Anarchists believe in the state, I do not.
states?

>>3451778

it really isn't.

Provided that people are rational beings.

>>3451963
The political views you've expressed are consistent with those of the objectivists I know.
You could very well have different reasons for having those views. You'd fit right in at their parties.

>>3451967
>Anarchists believe in the state

No. The definition of anarchist is not believing in any state.

>>3451972

I have yet to meet an objectivist that supports Liberty.

An anrchist believes in freedom (absolute), or in other words, they support doing whatever they want. Rape and murder falls into that category.

>>3451967
>Anarchists believe in the state
Another trip to add to the list.

>>3451984

> implying you know what anarchism is

>>3451978

What is the difference between freedom and liberty?

>>3451978
No. Anarchy is, again, by definition, a lack of belief in the state. That's it. No more, no less.
By. Definition.

this entire thread
>taking politics at face value
>doesn't understand the Binary Opposition rape fest

BRB racketcopter

PS:
NOPE.

>>3451904

Actually this can be happen. Look at the facts; No jobs, Only debt all around, China getting stronger, Japan Practically dead, SouthAmerica seduced by Chavez, Mexico Derp... My friend this could be read bad but... Europe looks the only power to hold all this dirty scenario... Oh no wait.. It can´t due Italy and Greece... Damn!! The end of western culture pherhaps???

What the hell do I know?? I'm just a PhD in MechEng.

>>3452004

What happened to Japan?

>>3451992

Liberty is restricted freedom. Freedom is of course unrestricted.

>>3451995

Anarchism is simply freedom. Freedom is doing whatever you want. That can include rape and murder. Rape and murder are punishments for breaking regulations. The state regulates and punishes. Anarchism is the state.

>> people in this thread actually think that capitalism would work without massive, intangible amounts of debt

You know what's a great idea everybody? Let's just put everyone in so much debt that they have to work perpetually to get out of it!!!!

>>3451345
no they wouldn't and that is why objectivism fails on a basic level

> people in this thread think socialism/communism can exist without capitalist states

>>3452010
That is some interesting abuse of the English language. It also borderlines on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

>>3452009

Not sure if troll or stupid... What have you been doing the last 8 months?...

>>3452010
>Liberty is restricted freedom

If it's restricted, it isn't freedom.

>>3452016

I agree that objectivism, which is partly a hate of Liberty, does not work.

>>3452010
You're confusing propoganda anarchy with the definition of anarchy.

Hell, I'll just quote wikipedia since you're obivously not going to research it:

>Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by a lack of a State or libertarianism.[4]

The important part:
> "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government
>anarchy may[3] or may not[4] imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society

It's like monarchy. Mon(o) archy = one ruler
An archy = no ruler.
That's the definition of the word. It's not up for debate. If you want a political system based on rape and murder, derive a new word or go make one up.

>>3452026

Exactly, that is why Liberty is not freedom.

>>3452034

So Liberty is some term you use to describe being able to do whatever the hell you want so long as it doesn't directly hurt anyone?

>>3452020
American Indians did pretty well without capitalism.

>>3452033

I see this problem a lot with silly people. The removal of a centralized state is not the removal of all states.

>>3452039
Yeah... no.

>>3452026
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

>>3452042
Anarchy means the removal of /all/ publicly recognized and efficacious states.

Of course, such a thing exists for all of, say, 5 minutes, before people start organizing again. But that is what the word means.

>>3452029
alright, then it is why pure capitalism fails on a basic level in benefiting any but the few

>>3452042
At no point does this statement address anything said in >>3452033
Anarchy = no organized government.

>>3452037

Liberty is indeed freedom without initial acts of aggression.

>>3452043
yeah actually. They lived full lives reproducing in a world with clean air and mostly plenty of food, besides tribal wars to ensure bison supplies, other things

>>3452055
>implying that they lived as long as us
>implying that the mortality rate among children was comparable to us
>implying that their free time was enjoyable as us

Only in our culture do we have pansies who have the time and option to choose to not eat meat. That is an artifact of the great material wealth we have because of our society. It simply wasn't thought about before because it wasn't practical.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

WE ALL DIE

>>3451967
Hey Liberty in response to your Revenue discussion how do you explain pic related.

>>3452045

Every single anarchist supports initial acts of aggression. This is what any and all states do.

>>3452047

While I agree that the welfare state (what you call capitalism) fails, I do not agree that capitalism actually fails.

>>3452052

A state is any person or group of people that regulate and punish. Public recognition is not needed to be a state.

>>implying wealth is the goal
They lived more happily than us I guarantee.

>>3452068

I said Bush tax cuts raised revenue. This chart confirms it.

>>3452078
>implying correlation proves causation

>>3452077

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

looks like repubs trying to destroy the government
and doing a pretty damn good job at it.

>>3452083

Same to you.

>>3452078
looks like it raised it for a few years before it dropped....again

I guess starting two wars and using infrastructure revenue/SS to pay for them didn't pan out

>>3452085

> implying lowering the debt would destroy the country
> implying raising the debt would help

I seriously hope you are not doing this.

>>3452095

I do not support the state, this include their wars.

>>3452084
>>implying you aren't ignorant
are you happy?

>>3452095

Yes, it raised until the housing crash.

>>3452072
>Every single anarchist supports initial acts of aggression.
There's no logical connection between these things.
There have been PLENTY of anarchist communities throughout human history. Most of them have done just fine until another culture comes along and conqueres them.

The moment someone seizes authority, it's no longer anarchy. By definition. It becomes a monarchy, most of the time, when that happens.

Anarchy is an inherently unstable social structure, or lack thereof. But you're still obviously ignorant of the topic.

>>3452100
For the purposes of future discussions, when you say "the state" without qualification, this is equivalent to saying "government in general". Thus, you just said
>I do not support having a government, at all, this include their wars.

>>3452078
You also (noticeably) didn't provide a refutation of the fact that it's a general trend for revenue to increase(as did taxes).

Nor did you provide a refutation of the fact that revenue had and still has a direct relationship with tax increases.

Laffer curve sure is going down the drain.

You have showed partisan support
you supported the wars.
You also paid taxes
You supported the wars.

>>3452078
>>I said Bush tax cuts raised revenue. This chart confirms it.

wait what are we looking at the same chart here
because it kind of looks like, you know... all the tax cuts accompany revenue decreases

what part of it are you seeing differently exactly

>>3452102

> implying the ignorant indians lived better lives

>>3452103

I do not care about the utopian definitions of anarchism. I look at the logic extension of their beliefs. Always a state. Always initial acts of aggression. EVER an absence of the state.

>>3452108
You know what is a great idea? If we lower the taxes on the very rich maybe we can get more tax revenue!!!!
>>dumbest idea ever

>>3452116
Then say "anarchism always leads to acts of aggression".

Stop redefining the English language at your whim. It makes you an asshat.

>>3452112

2003, Bush tax cuts. MASSIVE increase in revenue. See the dark blue?

>>3452118

Dumb for you personally, smart in that it pans out in practice.

>>3452121


No, because anarchism NEVER includes no state.

>>3452132
You know, I probably will bother to get something to filter people, just so I don't have to see you.

I wasn't implying they lived better lives. I was pretty explicit.

Things don't make better lives. There are people in the world who can't walk because they are too fat. There are LOTS of obese Americans. Depression in the US is rampant. We sit around to be entertained all day. They smoked and danced, fought honorable battles axe on axe instead of hiding behind electromagnetic waves and remote controlled warplanes.

>>3452133

I always commend people for giving up when they know they are beat. Kudos.

>>3452126
Getting revenue to barely reach what it was before the cuts isn't a raise in revenue.

0/10 for ignoring the masssive drop in revenues the second time (partly because of mal investment of public resources in non-renewable energy thefts)

>>3452126
>>2003, Bush tax cuts. MASSIVE increase in revenue. See the dark blue?

um... these tax "cuts" here? accompanying the revenue increase?

>>3452143

It clearly tops the former high. This is even better than you know precisely because the unemployment level was higher during the Bush years. More revenue with lower rates and more unemployment.

>>3452152

Are you referring to the housing crash?

>>3452126
2003 coincidentally coincided with a period of economic expansion (largely due to huge Defense debt expenditures) Prove me wrong.

>>3452155
clearly != for a year.

>>3452166

What are you sadly trying to say? Tax cuts, massive increase in revenues. Then you seem to be referencing the housing crash for some reason.

>>3452155
>>It clearly tops the former high.

yet just as clearly falls below the trendline

>>3452157
>>Are you referring to the housing crash?

actually, no
I'm referring to the increase in revenue that I assume you were talking about
which... mysteriously seems to be accompanied with an increase in taxes

is this clearer?

>>3452172

Increase in taxes? The tax rates were lowered in 2003, and have stayed there since then.

>>3452171
No. The recession following an era of reaganomics was not casued solely by a housing crash. Tell me, why were people losing their jobs in such numbers that they couldn't afford their mortgage payments? The housing crisis was first a symptom before it was a cause.

>>3452182
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Don't cry. Just accept the loss.