• 08-30-2012, 11:24 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frenchmon View Post
    I dont know that Neil Borts flat tax is the way...I wish the rich a$$ people would pay there fair share. Stop blaiming Obama for this mess....it extends back well before he got in office.

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "this mess" extends back to Ronald Reagan and his "supply side", "trickle down" economics. By this theory, if you bribe the rich -- the "job creators" -- they'd invest in new business and create jobs. Really? Then how come the median income stop growing about that time and decline in the George W. years. Most of that job creation was in China.

    Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare".
  • 08-30-2012, 11:30 AM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, "this mess" extends back to Ronald Reagan and his "supply side", "trickle down" economics. By this theory, if you bribe the rich -- the "job creators" -- they'd invest in new business and create jobs. Really? Then how come the median income stop growing about that time and decline in the George W. years. Most of that job creation was in China.

    Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare".

    I agree! This is the worst congress I have ever seen....and they all got dog whistles!

    I could have sworn I heard on the radio news that Apple has become the biggest company in the world....and 90% of their employees are over seas but their head quarters are here in the USA.....thats part of the problem with this good old US of A!
  • 08-30-2012, 11:45 AM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Don't kid yourself: it wasn't Obama who began the "class warfare"
    Any body who has been paying attention has seen what has happened in congress. Bills just dont get passed that would benefit the middle class. And they act like all poor people are lazy. The GOP all they do is lie......How in the hell can a car plaint close under Bush and Obama still gets the blame? And Romney is the biggest hipo out there! who in the hell are all these American People they pole every week that they say dont want health care? All the American People I know want it...and need it.
  • 08-30-2012, 01:00 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frenchmon View Post
    .... And they act like all poor people are lazy. .....

    That poor people are lazy is fundamental tenet of conservative belief everywhere in the world, but nowhere more so than in the USA.

    Americans have a long-standing belief in individualism and personal initiative & hard work -- American is a land where anyone can succeed. The flip side of this coin is that those who happen not to are feckless & lazying.

    And then you added the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, (to dignify her notions with that term), whereby greed & selfishness are high virtues, and what do you get? Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan.
  • 08-30-2012, 02:34 PM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    That poor people are lazy is fundamental tenet of conservative belief everywhere in the world, but nowhere more so than in the USA.

    Americans have a long-standing belief in individualism and personal initiative & hard work -- American is a land where anyone can succeed. The flip side of this coin is that those who happen not to are feckless & lazying.

    And then you added the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, (to dignify her attitude with that term), where by greed & selfishness are high virtues, and what do you get? Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan.

    Ryan is a flat out idiot! He lied about every topic last night. Oh I can't wait to see him in debate with Biden...that should be fun. But the sad part about this whole thing....this country has enough stupid people to put these good old boys stupid idiots in the WH....how on earth can you be so stupid to believe in different types of rape and only the the right kind of rape will fight off the sperm and not get the woman pregnant...yes Ryan also shared in that opinion., but is now try to recant....yeah real rape will fight off the sperm.....I guess they forgot about what happened during slavery.
  • 08-30-2012, 03:13 PM
    RGA
    1 Attachment(s)
    Going back the union argument - who do unions hurt? Oh right - massively wealthy businessmen and corporations. Who do they help? The bottom 99%
  • 08-30-2012, 04:52 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    Going back the union argument - who do unions hurt? Oh right - massively wealthy businessmen and corporations. Who do they help? The bottom 99%

    Don't get me wrong: I fundamentally agree. I would prefer that public sector unions (especially) moderate their demands during the current recession cum depression, if for no better reason that their "unreasonable" demands are being used by conservatives as a "wedge issue" to divide the union / non-union workers.
  • 08-30-2012, 11:29 PM
    RGA
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Don't get me wrong: I fundamentally agree. I would prefer that public sector unions (especially) moderate their demands during the current recession cum depression, if for no better reason that their "unreasonable" demands are being used by conservatives as a "wedge issue" to divide the union / non-union workers.

    I guess but I often wonder about unreasonable demands as merely being a ploy by the elite to create a "false" advertised economy.

    I guess I need it explained to me hat there is limitless money to be spent in BC on Olympics, road builds for the rich (freeway to Whistler where only the rich can afford to go) and 50% salary increases for themselves within 5 years.

    Unions raise the bar for pay and benefits for competing shops or careers/jobs to follow. The place I worked for based my Accounts Payable salary increases on the "market" which included government workers (thank to statistician God for that because that's how I got annual 10% pay increases).

    The typical A/P job at non union shops was between $11-$15 an hour in the mid 90s. The A/P job at BC Housing was $19.07 an hour. Not sure where they came up with the .07 but whatever.

    I worked for Firestop, Seagate Software, NCompass Labs (bought by Microsoft the day I started working there) and a few others. Now the actual workload at BC Housing was higher and more demanding than the private sector positions - so you do considerably more actual work in public sector than private sector. I would also say the job is more "frustrating" in the public sector because they're zealots on double and triple checking everything and crossing every T and dotting every i. Private sector doesn't really have to live up to those standards just have to minimally meet enough standards to pass an audit should there ever be one.

    Still, the point is people would complain and say - the government worker gets paid more - and I would say - instead of complaining that you don't make as much as them - why not ask why your Rolls Royce driving company owner with his private jet isn't paying you the same? Or better yet - if the government worker has it so easy then why don't you quit and get a job in the government?

    At least in the government you get hired on merit not who you know. And if someone does hire someone on a "who you know" basis and they find out the person is immediately fired and everyone involved is also immediately fired. It happened in my dad's office - he worked for Veteran's Affairs - and a guy there hired his son in law and fixed the test results. It was found out - he was canned - the son in law of course was also canned - and the head of the department was canned because he knew and didn't do anything.

    Sexual harassment case also had zero tolerance. Man harassed a woman - she complained to the supervisor - who told her not to follow through with charges and he would do something - he didn't do something. After 30 years they fired the harasser and they axed him for not doing anything (enough) about it.

    Don't get me wrong - I hate BC Housing with a passion - the paperwork was obscene with the checking and rechecking and the multiple forms and the levels of sign off ability etc. In retrospect though at least there was less chance of crooked stuff going on - and if there was any there is a paper trail if the right people look for it.

    There used to be a saying where if you were a lazy butt you could go work in the government - but man by far was that the toughest Accounts payable job I had by a mile. Just trying to wade through their application process is no small feat.

    I looked at the teacher salary demand - 15% increase over 3 years. So 5% a year. I just don't see the problem with that - recession or not.
  • 08-31-2012, 02:34 AM
    thekid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Yes, and to incentivize them, our nations need to adopt fossil fuel taxes that will raise the price of gas to a level were includes the "negative externalities", principally harm to the environment, pollution, and urban congestion.

    Practically speaking fossil fuel taxes will need to be phased in overtime but the process should start now.

    We are going to have to make a choice regarding the use of gas for fueling automobiles. We are either going to develop alternative methods for fueling cars or we are going to make a cultural shift to mass transportation. I don't see the later occurring because of a variety of factors. The search for an alternative fuel for automobiles is going to have to be a public/private venture in my opinion. The market at the moment makes it too easy to discourage development of alternative fuels. You just have to look at the sales of the Prius when gas was over $4 and what they were once it dropped back down to below $3.
  • 08-31-2012, 06:59 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thekid View Post
    We are going to have to make a choice regarding the use of gas for fueling automobiles. We are either going to develop alternative methods for fueling cars or we are going to make a cultural shift to mass transportation. I don't see the later occurring because of a variety of factors. The search for an alternative fuel for automobiles is going to have to be a public/private venture in my opinion. The market at the moment makes it too easy to discourage development of alternative fuels. You just have to look at the sales of the Prius when gas was over $4 and what they were once it dropped back down to below $3.

    This all true. People would flock to buy Prius if gas were $6/gal. This is exactly the effect a fossil tax would create. By the same token, if producers could get a $5/gal. equivalent for alternative fuels, they would flock to produce them.

    Culture can change people especially where there's economic incentive. When Henry Ford produced the $500 Model T, people flocked to buy them which in incentivized road construction and the whole suburban life style & culture of the '50s.
  • 08-31-2012, 12:50 PM
    thekid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    This all true. People would flock to buy Prius if gas were $6/gal. This is exactly the effect a fossil tax would create. By the same token, if producers could get a $5/gal. equivalent for alternative fuels, they would flock to produce them.

    Culture can change people especially where there's economic incentive. When Henry Ford produced the $500 Model T, people flocked to buy them which in incentivized road construction and the whole suburban life style & culture of the '50s.

    The difference with your analogy on the Model T is the cost of the Model T relative to other forms of transportation at the time was that it was actually cheaper or at least comparable which is why people flocked to it. If you suddenly taxed gasoline it would in the short -term create a fair amount of economic damage and the public perception of taxes would not allow a fuel tax to be politically sustainable.The so-called "sin taxes" which have a similar purpose behind them like what you would look to achieve with a fuel tax are sustainable because it does not affect a large portion of the population.
  • 08-31-2012, 02:14 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thekid View Post
    The difference with your analogy on the Model T is the cost of the Model T relative to other forms of transportation at the time was that it was actually cheaper or at least comparable which is why people flocked to it. If you suddenly taxed gasoline it would in the short -term create a fair amount of economic damage and the public perception of taxes would not allow a fuel tax to be politically sustainable.The so-called "sin taxes" which have a similar purpose behind them like what you would look to achieve with a fuel tax are sustainable because it does not affect a large portion of the population.

    I hear you; and you're likely right about the public refusal. I only wanted to demonstrate that it would be a market-based way to motivate people and businesses to reduce usage.

    Basically you're saying that there is no solution until the hurricanes and sea level rises wash away Florida and the Gulf Coast or supply just plain runs out. (I guess the former thanks to the discovery of frackable gas & oil.)
  • 08-31-2012, 05:14 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    Who is going to pay more for health care so those mandated to get it do?

    We are already paying for those without insurance via Emergency room visits. This is why premiums keep going up year over year. The more people that are uninsured, the higher those premiums go. While ACA is not perfect, it will at least slow the costs of premiums, bring more people into the system at a lower cost, and take the pressure off of emergency room as care and maintenance facility.


    Quote:

    Who is going to pay more for cars in 12 years because of his latest 54MPG rule?
    The same people that will eventually pay $5 or $6 bucks a gallon anytime somebody mentions war in a oil producing country. Or when a hurricane rolls through the Gulf of Mexico, or when there is a refinery fire. Because of increased fuel efficiency, our country is using less and less oil. We have got to get off oil, so we can stop transferring wealth to people who hate our guts.

    Quote:

    Who pays all the time in order for those less fortunate? The Middle Class always foots the bill while Billionaires find all the tax loopholes and never seem to pay their share in accordance to what the middle class pays.

    Flat Tax is the only fair way. No Loopholes, no special protection, no excuses.
    I would say a progressive tax with no loopholes, no special protection and no excuses is probably a better solution. Admittedly, I am a one percenter but I paid at tax rate of 35% on my earnings. If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.
  • 08-31-2012, 06:49 PM
    thekid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Basically you're saying that there is no solution until the hurricanes and sea level rises wash away Florida and the Gulf Coast or supply just plain runs out. (I guess the former thanks to the discovery of frackable gas & oil.)

    No. I think the solution is a public/private partnership. Private industry will not seriously explore alternative fuel/electric vehicles until the market guarantees an immediate return on investment. Governments overseas pick industries they want to support in order to maximize their resources and create markets for their products. If a public/private venture could perfect an affordable vehicle that used alternative fuels (bio?) we could maintain manufacturing jobs here, increase exports and reduce carbon emissions.

    My main point is that relying solely on the market or market forces has what has delayed the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles. Instead of innovation we get slogans like "Drill Baby Drill". That is not an energy plan unless the plan ecological extinction.
  • 09-01-2012, 04:36 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thekid View Post
    No. I think the solution is a public/private partnership. Private industry will not seriously explore alternative fuel/electric vehicles until the market guarantees an immediate return on investment. Governments overseas pick industries they want to support in order to maximize their resources and create markets for their products. If a public/private venture could perfect an affordable vehicle that used alternative fuels (bio?) we could maintain manufacturing jobs here, increase exports and reduce carbon emissions.

    My main point is that relying solely on the market or market forces has what has delayed the introduction of alternative fuel vehicles. Instead of innovation we get slogans like "Drill Baby Drill". That is not an energy plan unless the plan ecological extinction.

    Well no & yes.

    The discovery of "frackable" gas & oil is a huge bananza and has the potential to keep these fossil fuels cheap enough that feasible government subsidies will not make alternatives cheaper than traditional fuels.

    Yes, market forces have delayed alternatives fuels -- and will continue to do so: see above. However if the "negative externalities" of coal, oil, and gas were included in the price, alternative energy types would be very competitive. This is why I like the idea of a tax of fossil fuels.

    This not to say there is no place for government subsidy of alternative fuels, on the contrary. I also think there is plenty of room for mandating vehicle mileage standards.
  • 09-01-2012, 11:39 AM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    We are already paying for those without insurance via Emergency room visits. This is why premiums keep going up year over year. The more people that are uninsured, the higher those premiums go. While ACA is not perfect, it will at least slow the costs of premiums, bring more people into the system at a lower cost, and take the pressure off of emergency room as care and maintenance facility.




    The same people that will eventually pay $5 or $6 bucks a gallon anytime somebody mentions war in a oil producing country. Or when a hurricane rolls through the Gulf of Mexico, or when there is a refinery fire. Because of increased fuel efficiency, our country is using less and less oil. We have got to get off oil, so we can stop transferring wealth to people who hate our guts.



    I would say a progressive tax with no loopholes, no special protection and no excuses is probably a better solution. Admittedly, I am a one percenter but I paid at tax rate of 35% on my earnings. If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.

    Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

    frenchmon
  • 09-01-2012, 12:49 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frenchmon View Post
    Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

    frenchmon

    I think you can take Sir T at his word. Note he says 1%'er should be paying a lot more.
  • 09-01-2012, 02:34 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frenchmon View Post
    Sir Terrence the Terrible;....Are you saying you are a 1%er as in the concentration of income and wealth among the top earning 1%, in America?

    frenchmon

    I make just a hair over the minimum standard for what is considered a 1 percentor. I sure don't feel like one.
  • 09-01-2012, 03:05 PM
    thekid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    If the truth is told, the top 10% paid 71% of all taxes last year. However, they have benefited far more than anyone in the last three decades, and are the only group to see their income rise over that period. We should be paying more...a lot more. In the times when we had, the entire country benefited. I pay my full taxes. No loopholes. I take only standard deductions, and do not seek to cheat out the country that has been so good to me financially.

    I appreciate and applaud your decision to not take advantage of the many loopholes that are probably at your disposal. The statistic that you cite regarding the top 10% is one that I often hear people use to defend why those in the higher income brackets already "pay more than their share". On its own it sounds quite reasonable but as with other statistics you have to put it in context. Saying they paid 71% of all taxes is not the same as saying they paid 71% of their income in taxes which is how is is often portrayed by those who quote it. The Super Rich pay millions in taxes but because of the tax loopholes available to them those millions actually represent a smaller percentage of their actual income as compared to most people.

    The use of numbers like that kind of reminds me of a baseball trivia question.

    Can you name the tandem of brothers who have hit the most Home Runs in baseball history?
  • 09-01-2012, 04:33 PM
    frenchmon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    I make just a hair over the minimum standard for what is considered a 1 percentor. I sure don't feel like one.

    Cool! Can I get a loan? I need a new amp!......Just kidding. lol!

    Ok...I've done a little research and for some reason I though the 1%ers where all millionairs....I see that I was completely wrong....and in the process found out I was in the top 5%. lol! And I can tell you I don't feel like that at all...why am I always broke!
  • 09-01-2012, 04:53 PM
    RGA
    There was an article on Yahoo that had top 1%

    343,927 earnings or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. Or A net worth of $8 million

    But if you earn $250,000 you're in the top 3% so don't feel bad.

    It's funny but I met several people on a train called the West Coast express that would take you from the burbs to Vancouver. One guy had earned top 1% money for over a decade in his job. He was bankrupt. He lost his job. But I could not understand how anyone who earned that much money for a decade could possibly be broke. He lived it up and was in a heavy mortgage and had a big truck and fancy car etc etc.

    The same with the people who blow their lottery wins in a couple of years. With a fixation on having to have the best does people in. I could spend a lot lot more on the things that I buy - and when I go over my budget it's not obscenely so.

    George really puts it all into perspective George Carlin Talks About "Stuff" - YouTube
  • 09-02-2012, 07:10 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thekid View Post
    I appreciate and applaud your decision to not take advantage of the many loopholes that are probably at your disposal. The statistic that you cite regarding the top 10% is one that I often hear people use to defend why those in the higher income brackets already "pay more than their share". On its own it sounds quite reasonable but as with other statistics you have to put it in context. Saying they paid 71% of all taxes is not the same as saying they paid 71% of their income in taxes which is how is is often portrayed by those who quote it. The Super Rich pay millions in taxes but because of the tax loopholes available to them those millions actually represent a smaller percentage of their actual income as compared to most people.

    The use of numbers like that kind of reminds me of a baseball trivia question.

    Can you name the tandem of brothers who have hit the most Home Runs in baseball history?

    No Kid, we absolutely should be paying more since when have been the most benefited in the last couple of decades or more. When we paid more, the country boomed which meant we made more money.
  • 09-03-2012, 08:47 PM
    natronforever
    Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

    Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.
  • 09-03-2012, 09:02 PM
    JohnMichael
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

    Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.



    It is how he made his money and who suffered in the process. We also need to consider what he wants to destroy when he takes office. In case you have not noticed greed and deregulation has done this country no good. He is out of touch with the needs of this country and is only concerned about the wealthy and obeying the Koch brothers.
  • 09-04-2012, 02:31 AM
    thekid
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

    Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.

    I think you have to separate the man's personal actions from his public policies. American political history is full of contradictions between the private/public actions of individuals. The negative ads on Romney are often over the top but I chalk that up to the Democrats desperation given the state of the economy. It is easier for the public to understand negative attacks than a serious debate on public policy. I wish it were different.

    However you do have to look at his public history. When he was governor he apparently followed more mainstream policies. However like McCain in 2008 in order to secure the nomination he swung hard to the right. And like McCain in 2008 you have to be concerned about his VP pick though for different reasons. I think it is fair to say that his change on positions and his VP indicate that if he elected he would follow the lead of the House. There is a reason that the House of Representatives has a 10% approval rating by the public. Through the primaries and in the general election there is no evidence that he would stand up to the more conservative elements of the House. Their own speaker could not control the Tea Party faction on key legislation such as the debt ceiling issue which is why we have the looming fiscal/political crisis coming in December.
  • 09-04-2012, 04:51 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    ...
    Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. ...

    Yours seems to be the typical, anti-liberal view. For a start it is simplistic: "government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes" just doesn't state position most liberals hold. I'm a liberal and a "progressive" in the sense that word was used in the USA 100 years ago -- someone who believes that government can take an active role to improve the lives of citizens of all economic classes.

    As for notion that liberals want to seize the wealth of the (innovative, hard-working, deserving) rich and hand it over to the (lazy, feckless, undeserving) poor. This again is simplistic.

    Consider rather that the Republican policy since Reagan has been frankly the opposite. To reduce taxes on the rich and regulations on business -- on the theory that thus encouraged they would invest generously in the economy. But this isn't what has happened.

    Instead we have seen manufacturing take flight from North American and with it most high-paying jobs for working people. We saw the median income stale in the '80s and '90s and actually decline in the '00 (even before the crisis of '08). Also we see crumbling infrastructure and weakening schools and public services in general. We see increasing poverty while the top 10% has scooped the virtually all the benefits that remain to be had, and the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.001% progressively larger portions of that.

    What Romney wants is a continuation of the above. This is the inevitable conclusion one must draw based on the policies he and likes of Paul Ryan espouse.
  • 09-04-2012, 05:13 AM
    RGA
    1 Attachment(s)
    Here is a Republican poster from 1956.

    This used to be the Republican Party perspective and should still be for any half way intelligent person. If that poster came out to today the current nutbar right wing would call it commie lefty socialist doom is upon us.
  • 09-04-2012, 05:22 AM
    Hyfi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA View Post
    Here is a Republican poster from 1956.

    This used to be the Republican Party perspective and should still be for any half way intelligent person. If that poster came out to today the current nutbar right wing would call it commie lefty socialist doom is upon us.

    Now it would say

    Worst prosperity in history even with several wars we should not have been in
    Over 66,000,000 UN-Employed
    Lower Take-Home Pay in history
    Least amount of Job Security
    Least amount of Job Opportunities
    More time lost because of Unionized Strikes
    Social Security all but dead

    Vote Republican to keep these the same as usual
  • 09-04-2012, 12:47 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney. I'm no fan of President Obama, but at least I don't foam at the mouth spewing my discontent. I'm almost offended on his behalf to hear people assume that he cares nothing for other people - especially the poor. Even a hasty glance at his non-political past is enough to debunk such a ridiculous claim. I went to college with his youngest son. He was my next door neighbor for a couple of years. Great guy. I'm just some small town Idaho boy. His father could have built him a mansion to stay in during college, but instead he slummed it up with us commoners. So his dad has lots of money. So what?

    What this tells me is your bias is showing more than your common sense. It is not about Mitts wealth IMO, it is about what he intends to do with the middle and lower class that concerns me. It is what he intends to do to the poor and least among us that concerns me. Mitt is probably a great guy, and so it Obama as I have met him once on his book tour. But those that guide and influence both are evil as hell in their intentions, but I think Romney more so that Obama.


    Quote:

    Why do people think that the government holds the solution to all their collective and individual woes? Belittling a person because of his/her wealth is covetous and backwards-thinking. We should be happy for the successes of others, shouldn't we? Taking more from "rich people" only sates the interest of the jealous. It does nothing to improve your circumstance. Happy people are happy because they don't let some politician, media outlet, or some outside circumstance dictate their outlook and feelings. Life is tough, sure, but life is good.
    This statement wreaks of BS. The government plays a pretty significant role in all of our lives. The interstate freeway you travel on, that is the fed. Social security and Medicare(two very VERY popular programs) are the federal government. Disaster Relief, the federal government. Consumer protection, now the role of the feds thanks to Obama. The very idea of free market is a corroboration of many pieces, the private sector, the public sector, consumers, judges, and I could go on. You don't have to be jealous to understand that our government as conspired against the average citizen, and for the rich and corporation in this country. The statistics spell this out pretty starkly.

    Statistics spell things out pretty clearly. If you were born poor, you will most likely die poor, If you were born middle class, there is a huge probably that you will remain middle class, or fall into the lower class. if you were born rich, then you will most likely die rich. So don't think that just because a rich person tells you that hard work can make you rich, it can't. That fallacy has been studied, and profoundly debunked.
  • 09-04-2012, 03:45 PM
    thekid
    One of the things that amazes me in regards to all the talk of big government is that governement spending on social programs such as Medicaid-Medicare etc. are examples of how government mismanages money because of the amount of fraud that occurs in these program.

    However when comes to Defense department and defense spending somehow those same arguements are not made. We have seen the IG's reports of waste (fraud?) over in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also are aware of the $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats.

    If people are going to make an argument for reduction of government spending they need to be consistent and that is not what we see. I live in an area which is basically dependent on military spending. Paul Ryan was just here assuring everyone that they will not have to worry about any cuts in the defense spending under a Romney/Ryan administration.
  • 09-04-2012, 04:31 PM
    dingus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    Strange to read so much rancor against Mitt Romney.

    strange that you find it surprising. see KB Toys, Hertz, Dunkin, American Pad and Paper, and his dealings with junk bond king Mike Milken are just a few reasons to despise the scumbag.
  • 09-04-2012, 05:24 PM
    natronforever
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible View Post
    This statement wreaks of BS.

    This statement reeks of illiteracy, which in turn has wreaked havoc on your spelling.

    Glad to know you got to know President Obama so intimately at a book signing.

    Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.
  • 09-04-2012, 05:35 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thekid View Post
    One of the things that amazes me in regards to all the talk of big government is that governement spending on social programs such as Medicaid-Medicare etc. are examples of how government mismanages money because of the amount of fraud that occurs in these program.

    However when comes to Defense department and defense spending somehow those same arguements are not made. We have seen the IG's reports of waste (fraud?) over in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also are aware of the $200 hammers and $600 toilet seats.

    If people are going to make an argument for reduction of government spending they need to be consistent and that is not what we see. I live in an area which is basically dependent on military spending. Paul Ryan was just here assuring everyone that they will not have to worry about any cuts in the defense spending under a Romney/Ryan administration.

    I've never fully grasped the fraud argument against government -- nor the waste & mismanagement argument either.

    Do these happen? Of course. They happen in private businesses too, where executives and managers work their own organizations for personal advantage.

    The solution for government is the same as for business: proper oversight. This isn't one-time reform but continuous process. Seek out the relatively honest & well-informed politicians. Yes, relatively: supporting politicians is always a matter of selecting the least bad.
  • 09-04-2012, 09:26 PM
    dingus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    ...don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.

    and also not required to do any thinking or decision making for yourself. such is life inside a cult.
  • 09-05-2012, 01:17 AM
    RGA
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dingus View Post
    and also not required to do any thinking or decision making for yourself. such is life inside a cult.

    Precisely what Hitler needed - and ultimately got. Spread fear and do it long enough and you can convince people to go with a cult leader no matter what sinister act he has planned. Attacking countries for no good reason (ahem Iraq) for example.

    From a Republican President smarter than the entire Right wing republican party COMBINED.
  • 09-05-2012, 07:07 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    ...
    Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? ...

    Trust me: that I haven't noticed.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    ...
    Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.

    God bless American indeed. It's sad to watch while a great nation transitions from a democracy to a plutocracy.

    The LDS Church is the almost as big a scam as Scientology. (But only slightly worse than most other flavors of religion.)
  • 09-05-2012, 09:34 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by natronforever View Post
    This statement reeks of illiteracy, which in turn has wreaked havoc on your spelling.

    Yes, I am just illiterate enough to poke holes the size of Texas in your thoughtless points.

    Quote:

    Glad to know you got to know President Obama so intimately at a book signing.

    Is there some correlation between audiophilia and liberalism? Perhaps were I to upgrade my very modest gear I'd become embittered toward "crony capitalists" and surrender to lazy statistics that limit my life's status to that into which I was unwittingly born. Haha. God bless America. I'm happy to provide a touch of dissension. Plus, don't forget that as a Mormon myself I'm pretty required to vote for Gov. Romney.
    So based on that last statement, you Mormons are not allowed to think for yourself. God does not want Robots, but the Mormon Church does. I wouldn't last ten milliseconds in the Mormon Church, and somehow that makes me really happy.

    Maybe your name should be Robby instead.
  • 09-05-2012, 09:38 AM
    Hyfi
    Steel Cage....here we come
  • 09-05-2012, 10:58 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post
    Steel Cage....here we come


    Nooooooooooooooooo its cold in there.
  • 09-05-2012, 10:58 AM
    dingus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    ....God bless American indeed. It's sad to watch while a great nation transitions from a democracy to a plutocracy.

    The LDS Church is the almost as big a scam as Scientology. (But only slightly worse than most other flavors of religion.)

    the stupidity of the masses is even worse than that. the religious right would have a Christian based theocracy, but they dont understand that Mormonism is a cult and not a Christian faith.