Printable View
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426082]Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.
The Democrats have been in 24 years.
66 millions private sector jobs were created.
Pay closed attention now!
The Republicans created 24 million jobs.
And.
The Democrats created [b]42 Million Jobs. [/b]
P. S.
Of all the Countries with Health Care Coverage, not one of them is trying to get rid of it.[/QUOTE]Why and the hell would we want to be like those other countries?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 426049]The Democrat Party has demonstrated again they are just a pack of hypocrites.
You can not enter the vaulted chambers of the Democrat National Convention without a government issued photo I. D, but when it comes to voting they fight tooth and nail against any effort to institute voter I. D. Laws.
Well in the Democrat's minds I am sure they believe their convention is much more important than merely voting for the president, congress and the senate.[/QUOTE]I think there are clear security issues with political conventions that make a strong argument for photo IDs.
Not so for voting booths. The argument here is voter fraud. That sounds like a good reason, if voter fraud was really a problem. But it hasn't been.
So what's the reason this is happening now, in the run-up to a very important election for Republicans? We all know the answer.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426082]Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.
The Democrats have been in 24 years.
66 millions private sector jobs were created.
Pay closed attention now!
The Republicans created 24 million jobs.
And.
The Democrats created [b]42 Million Jobs. [/b][/QUOTE]100% True at Politifact. You don't have a strong economy without a strong middle class.
Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/[/url]
Nothing personal here, but the color for the Republicans is funeral black in November. The debates may cause a swing, but that is not "charismatic" Romney's forte. How will Ryan / Biden play out? They are only a sideshow. The Republican problem is their candidates. Toyman for President in 2016!
Wow! Does Obama look pathetic or what. The only one more pathetic than Obama is Biden. The Obama / Biden song and dance is becoming comedy material.
Esten I know you are quite aware the move toward voter I.D. laws has been going on since before Obama entered office. Obama's DOJ has done everything it can to stifle the will of the people of the several states in the name of 'social justice' but what do you expect from an attorney general who lets blatant voter intimidation slide so long as it is against non-minorities as in the Black Panther case? . Voter fraud you ask, can you say ACORN?
The Voting Rights Act is a relic of the 50's and 60's which should be repealed. What happened to equal treatment under the law? Voter I.D. laws in states outside the umbrella of the Act have been enacted, have been upheld in the courts and have gone into effect. Only states covered by the Act have the additional hurdle of asking 'mother may I". from the DOJ before being afforded the same rights as the other states.
Under this administration equal treatment does not extend to that part of the populace who are white or southern, the only persons deemed to be racists by this administration have white skin; Holder and Obama's mantra is power to the people so long as they are not white.
Do you call this a racist tirade? Change a only a few words and I could be lauded as Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wight, Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee and all the other poverty pimps out there.
Get real Esten, the Democrats don't give a damn about who votes so long as they vote for them. Citizenship and eligibility are a thing of the past so long as they are loyal Democrats. Hell, even the dead get to vote so long as they are Democrats.
[QUOTE=El Alamo;426100]Wow! Does Obama look pathetic or what. The only one more pathetic than Obama is Biden. The Obama / Biden song and dance is becoming comedy material.[/QUOTE]As pathetic as Romneys gaffes on his brief trip to parts of europe. If his elected and thats a huge if, he needs to change some of his advisers, the man came across as a fool.
I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term.
Most of the world needs a healthy, strong US economy, I know here in the UK we are suffering.
I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hoping
[QUOTE=Flexible Horn; 426107]As pathetic as Romneys gaffes on his brief trip to parts of europe. If his elected and thats a huge if, he needs to change some of his advisers, the man came across as a fool.
I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term.
Most of the world needs a healthy, strong US economy, I know here in the UK we are suffering.
I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hoping[/QUOTE]Oh MY God! It is worse than I thought. Obama / Biden and friends are living with Alice in Wonderland
Very rarely one party held the presidency for consecutive 3 terms after WWII. I can only think of Bush senior, who won after Reagan's 2 terms (plus Truman after FDR). Gore won most popular votes but he lost election.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426082]Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.
The Democrats have been in 24 years.[/QUOTE]
Did you check out the new unemployment numbers? Unemployment dropped from 8.3% to 8.1% as 96,000 Jobs were created in August.
The job creation number is not what caused the unemployment rate to drop.
The fact that more than 368,000 people dropped out of the work force is what accounted for the drop in the rate.
That means while 96,000 found a job 368,000 dropped out of the workforce I. E. The labor department no long counts them.
The U-6 figure, which really reflects the true number of unemployed, is over 14%
Our workforce participation rate is the lowest it has been in 32 YEARS!
Wow, what a great job Obama / Biden have done and they are asking for 4 more years after this performance?
Realistically, I do not see how the president can increase private employment or influence the economy. The federal govt spending only accounts for 1/4th of the national economy. President has no power over the federal Reserve, an independent agency, for monetary policy. For fiscal policy, the president only "submits" the budget to Congress, which enacts appropriations. Anyway, the great majority of the budget is a "mandatory" spending- legally obligated spending, which politicians cannot reduce or increase. Plus, the president is a chief of only one of the three branches of the federal govt, and mostly our govt is divided govt.
[QUOTE=Esten; 426093]100% True at Politifact. You don't have a strong economy without a strong middle class.
Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;426092]The argument here is voter fraud. That sounds like a good reason, if voter fraud was really a problem. But it hasn't been.[/QUOTE]The Democratic Party has a long and rich tradition of voter fraud. LBJ in South Texas, the Daley machine in Chicago for example. And it extends to the present day. A Democratic Supreme Court in Florida almost stole the 2000 election. (The recount by a media consortium, which included the AP, New York Times, WSJ, CNN and others concluded that Bush would indeed have gotten more votes, if the recounts requested by Gore had been completed in the year 2000.) The Democratic Party continues to steal elections in New York, West Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin and other places.
[QUOTE=Flexible Horn;426107]I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term. I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hoping[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, to hell with voter fraud -- who cares. The ends justify the means. Maybe we should do as Flexible Horn suggests and give Obama 4 terms in office, since the country has performed so well during his first term. Median incomes are only down about $4,000 or $5,000 per family during his term. It could have been a lot worse. Venezuela did something similar for Hugo Chavez, virtually making him dictator, er, president for life, and that's turned out really well.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426117]Realistically, I do not see how the president can increase private employment or influence the economy. The federal govt spending only accounts for 1/4th of the national economy. President has no power over the federal Reserve, an independent agency, for monetary policy. For fiscal policy, the president only "submits" the budget to Congress, which enacts appropriations. Anyway, the great majority of the budget is a "mandatory" spending- legally obligated spending, which politicians cannot reduce or increase. Plus, the president is a chief of only one of the three branches of the federal govt, and mostly our govt is divided govt.[/QUOTE]Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:
1. Lower taxes.
2. Reduce regulations.
3. Reduce the size of government (i.e. fire some government employees)
4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
6. Pass a budget!
7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.
8. Overturn Obamacare.
9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
12. Get government out of the fucking way!
Remember, "mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.
Thanks,
Jackson
[b][i]"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."[/i][/b]
[indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent]Gov. Chris Christie[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent]
Sorry, Jackson you did not spell it out.
I listened and watched the both conventions.
Romney said exact what you said, What He WANTS To Do, NOT HOW HE WAS GOING TO DO IT!
If Medicare goes to vouchers, they will run out and leave the retirees and those with needs fucked.
That will also affect our Vets with financial problems.
Oh, yes what did the Republicans say about our troops.
NOTHING!
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426127]Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:
1. Lower taxes.
2. Reduce regulations.
3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees)
4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
6. Pass a budget!
7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.
8. Overturn Obamacare.
9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
12. Get government out of the fucking way!
Remember,"mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.
Thanks,
Jackson.
[b][i]"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."[/i][/b]
[indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent]Gov. Chris Christie[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 426112]Did you check out the new unemployment numbers? Unemployment dropped from 8. 3% to 8. 1% as 96, 000 Jobs were created in August.
The job creation number is not what caused the unemployment rate to drop.
The fact that more than 368, 000 people dropped out of the work force is what accounted for the drop in the rate.
That means while 96, 000 found a job 368, 000 dropped out of the workforce I. E. The labor department no long counts them.
The U-6 figure, which really reflects the true number of unemployed, is over 14%
Our workforce participation rate is the lowest it has been in 32 YEARS!
Wow, what a great job Obama / Biden have done and they are asking for 4 more years after this performance?[/QUOTE]With all due respect, I think there are quite a few factors that you are not willing to include in your post. Amongst them, service jobs are the first to go & last to come back. Our manufacturing jobs were already long gone before the meltdown. If you lost your job and you are of a certain age, iti is hard to be hired back to the same level or profession. Many enterprises found out that they can actually be more lean and still be effective. Most companies are healthy but not hiring due to low demand for their goods and services. Many technical / scientific jobs cannot be filled by Americans due to educational deficiences. And last, your expectation that the US can bounce back in 4 years from near self.immolation is not realistic or fair. We are doing so much better than the UK and Europe in the same time frame.
My neice who has 2 Master's degree was laid off twice by LA Unified District because of low position in the totem pole. What did she do? She found in a job in Kuala Lumpur teaching pre-school, paying $60+ housing / car allowances. All tax free. Being single, she is jetting around on long weekends and blowing her money. Malaysia probably has the most public holidays in the world. In today's global economy, you should be trained and be willing to work anywhere in the world. Big demand for English teachers in Bangkok. There are all kinds of qualified & unqualified english teachers here, some with Scottish and South African accents that you cannot understand 50& of what they say. My friend's son turned his English teaching job in Tokyo to being a sales representative for one of Napa's famous wineries.
So whether we are for Romney or Obama, I for one will fully support the winner, at least until their policies are fully clarified.
First, I am not sure how these items are related to the issue proffered by my post (President has no power over state and local govts and the legislative and judicial branches in the Federal govt.) Secondly, some of these agendas are contradictory. For instance, lowering taxes would "increase" the deficit / debt. Border patrol / deporting aliens will "increase" regulations and the size of govt.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426127]Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:
1. Lower taxes.
2. Reduce regulations.
3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees)
4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
6. Pass a budget!
7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.
8. Overturn Obamacare.
9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
12. Get government out of the fucking way!
Remember,"mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.
Thanks,
Jackson.
[b][i]"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."[/i][/b]
[indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent]Gov. Chris Christie[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426150]First, I am not sure how these items are related to the issue proffered by my post (President has no power over state and local govts and the legislative and judicial branches in the Federal govt.)[/quote]Your questions was how can the president create jobs.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426150]Secondly, some of these agendas are contradictory. For instance, lowering taxes would "increase" the deficit / debt.[/QUOTE]Not true. Historically, lowering taxes increases business activity and results in higher tax revenues.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426150]Border patrol / deporting aliens will "increase" regulations and the size of govt.[/quote]Enforcing existing regulations is not an "increase" in regulations.
Read My Additional Quotes`to his Uneducated Remarks.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426127]Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:
1. Lower taxes.
[i][b]For the Rich.
To Do That, Take $2000 of my Middle Income Money. Fuck You.[/i][/b]
2. Reduce regulations. [b][i]Give The Banks more money, are you that dumb? they stoled enough From You and Me already! They Fucked You and Me Once, Why Again"[/b][/i]
3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees).
[b][i]He Has done that by the Thousands of Jobs. What Reports are listened Too and Not Reading? Oh Yes, I Know KFOX the Republican Miss-information Station.[/b][/i]
[b]How about the Congress that Gets Free Health Care and Full Wage Retirement after they retire, or their term Ends. Put them on Medicare and see What Happens to Medicare, No Problems?
How about cutting the do Nothing Congress's pay, as you say, No Work No Pay![/b]
[b]The Most Listened to Station about the Political Conventions the most watched was MSNBC.
That is why you were stuck with KFOX, the Republican station.
I Know You Can Not Get Our American Channels In South America, where some You Expat's Live.
That is why Jackson is missing what is happening to His Life.
[/b]
4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
[b]Your are Right Reduced Benefits to the Rich, he did not say what those where. "Standard Oil get $5 billion a Year."[/b]
5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income).
[b]Meaning when your Mother's Vouchers run out Romney or Paul Plan they will not pay for them, they will pay for only their Mothers Needs. It Also Means that ours Troops in Need Will Be Fucked[/b]
I hope your Mother is not alive to say what will to Happen to Her, after You can not afford to pay for her under these Rich Man goals to get more money for themselves, and Not You.
Jackson, As I said You to Travel More and See the World.
6. Pass a budget!
[b]Their [his] Budget will not work Mathematically.
See my previous post. Not Mine, but the ones that can Count. [/b]
7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.
[b/That Was Proposed, but was Turned Down By the Republican Congress.[/b]
8. Overturn "Health Care For All in the USA" aka Obamacare.
[b]But of Course Jackson does Not Care, Because He Lives free Medical Care in Argentina, under their Health Care System"[/b]
[b]The Countries that use It Do Not Want to Get Rid of It. I Used it with no problems in Argentina, I took a Number and Waited, just Everyone else Did, I waited less than a half hour.
Try it before you Judge![/b]
9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures).
Uhm, gee do I know Someone Like That? [b]Obama has deported more than More Than Bush!!![/b]
10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures.)
[b]Obama has deported more than More Than Bush!!![/b]
11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
[b]That has been Done by Assholes in the the Right To Work States.
That is why there are fewer Middle Class Working People.[/b}
12. Get government out of the fucking way!
[b]Obama has been laying off those Government jobs, that is why there are less Jobs.[/b]
[b]The Government has not been creating Government Jobs.[/b]. [b][i]As Your Lie ing Assholes Say they have been doing.[b][/i]
[b]Jackson where the Fuck have you been? I know getting Laid in Argentina in more important to You, and not giving a shit about your brother Americans that need Your Support![/b]
[b]Jackson, You Do Not Live In The United States, Like most of us do; You Live In Argentina. So why do You Give a Shit? Expat Traitor! [/b]
Your are a groupie Republican, Send them some bucks. Try a million and see what their answer is? Better Yet, Send me the bucks and i will Vote for You!
Your are not in Romney's Class, as is the rest of you dummies Posting and think you are the privileged few.
"The Rich do not Need to Read this Thread to Get Laided."
[b]What about The Argentine Government? [/b]
As I said you and Your Dumb Republicans will not understand that you are not Rich and they Do Not give a fuck about your $100. Donations.
They will not answer your emails, Try It. I did Get one from Governor Diane.
Remember, "mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.
WTF do you Mean?
Romney says that are Enemy is Russia, is he stuck in the Cold War?
He wants a War on Iran and Syria?
We do not need more Sarah Palins, but It looks like We Might Be Stuck With Two More of Them.
What about bringing the Troops home in 2014, Romney says they should stay Longer. Can You Afford That?
I will file Bankruptcy under O'Romney.
WTF?
Will he send his sons and daughters to War for bucks, Fuck No. He has Money, but your sons and daughters will go, In Our case, Our Grand sons and Daughters will die for his $$.
Not that it is any of his concern.
[b]JACKSON[/b]
[b][i/]Tell as What Secretes Romney Told You And Not The Rest of The Rest Of His REPUBLICAN PARTY PLAN?
On how he will do all his Bull Shit Plans?[/b][/i]
"In my history I remember if you tell a lie enough times it becomes a Truth. I Think that was said by a Military Person in Hitler's Army (Killers army).
No Thanks.
Kill for Money is that Okay?
Not Killing really, but Starving, or steeling , slave labor would be close to their point.
Seems Like it is Okay with some of you groupies?
Thanks,
Jackson.
[quote/]
Your have shown how you really feel about the people that contribute to your Site.
I told you it was not good thing to to Do.
Only You to Want to Be the Groupies to the Rich, not Us Not So Rich People.
Like I said the Rich do Not Need this Site, unless they are dumb.
[b][i]"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."[/i][/b]
[indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent][indent]Gov. Chris Christie[/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/indent][/QUOTE]And you Smoke too much shitty Weed.
Yes I had a Little wine, but I am smart enough to know that you all need some History Lessons. It makes me remember all the real hard times, But it these Assholes get back in control, I feel really sorry for your family, children or your parents."Learn From The Pass" as has been quoted in the Old History of the World. China was here a long time before us. They are the Oldest Country.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;426156]Jackson, You Do Not Live In The United States, Like most of us, You Live In Argentina. So why do You Give a Shit. Traitor![/QUOTE]WT,
You have no justification for calling me a "[i]Traitor[/i]".
You can post your apology at any time.
Thanks,
Jackson
Do you agree with Romney selling American Jobs to Overseas Companies?
If you do not I stand Corrected?
But, along with selling the Companies, can go Manufacturing Secrets.
Which would be a Traitorous act against the United States.
Of which I think these bastards would do with the only thought would be about making Money, No Regards about people like you or me.
Like I said you are not in their Class.
They would have no remorse about doing it.
Are these are the People that you want to watch your pocket book?
Come On, think about it?
They have no plans for us not Mega Rich.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426157]WT,
You have no justification for calling me a "[i]Traitor[/i]"
You can post your apology at any time.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Technically his slander seems to cover all of us that lives abroad or had in past.
And from his latest reply below, seems like from that line in Princess Bride, I don't think traitor means what he thinks it means. Throws that out for a bizarre range of things, including it seems pure envy at people that has wealth.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426157]WT,
You have no justification for calling me a "[i]Traitor[/i]".
You can post your apology at any time.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
The tax cut in 1981 and 2001 reduced the tax revenue while the tax increase in 1993 increased the revenue. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 426155]Not true. Historically, lowering taxes increases business activity and results in higher tax revenues.[/QUOTE]
Why are the Job Creators sitting on that much money and not Creating Jobs?
They had their taxes reduced to help them Create Jobs.
A lot of propaganda here about taxes and such without anything to really back it up.
WT, you accuse Jackson of not being specific in his list, and state two items that come right out of the Democratic propaganda. Without ANY specification of where you get your data.
As far as taxing the "rich" and those poor, poor people who are so under-trodden in the US, raising revenues and paying off the federal debt and so on, try looking at real data and forget the propaganda. There are enough good data out there to give a reasonably clear picture of reality, no matter how much which side wants to spin data or outright lie.
[url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/[/url]
Just take a look at that, which, according to the author was compiled with sources both "right" and "left." Actual revenue compared to percentage of GDP has remained steady throughout the last 60 years, at around 18-20. It doesn't matter whether tax RATES are raised or lowered. Spending is causing the problem, not revenue. Investors WILL find ways to not get taxed on things like capital gains because they can control when to sell, as an example."Taxpayers adapt to higher rates" as one section calls it.
Currently, ON THE AVERAGE (I. E, specific cases are a different story under this idiotic tax code that "lawmakers" make to allow themselves and their buddies NO MATTER WHICH "side" they're on to benefit) , poor people pay either nothing or a significantly SMALLER portion of their taxes than "rich" people do. The "crossover point" where share of income earned vs share of federal taxes paid begins at around $100K earned per year. Is that rich? Anyone who thinks that is out of their minds. I've made that previously in my life (when the dollar was WORTH MORE) , and I can guarantee you I wasn't a rich investor hiding my money from people and grinding the poor beneath my boot heels.
Another link:
http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues
The point everyone seems to be missing is that two competing political philosophies in a country as diverse as the US is ridiculous.
The US federal government has become a tyrant. People scoff at people like Ron Paul because he has such "extreme" ideas, without even understanding the basis behind them. Does anyone who scoffs at him even understand why, for example, he wants to get rid of the Fed? Aside from those who simply believe the government must control every aspect of life, including the economy. With the number of regulations, requirements, taxes, etc, arising throughout all of the federal government, does no one question why things aren't improving?
WT, I wonder, truly, if you've ever bothered to look into anything beyond the Democratic power propaganda? You call Jackson uneducated (someone who I personally know to be actually quite the opposite) and yet you spout ideas right out of the Democratic play book without explaining them as if the words themselves justify their speaking and sense as "obvious".
This basic feeling from the left particularly, and from the right at times, that the government is any kind of a solution, and the growth of the government to take care of these things in particular, is quite naive in face of the reality that is there once you get away from the general idiocy that BOTH parties spout.
The US is a behemoth controlled by two parties who spout differences, fight amongst themselves and do everything they can to aggregate more power to themselves and the corporations and other public and private entities who support them. Both sides want the same thing and don't stray too far from the "center" (until presidents like Obama get in office after presidents like Bush [right or wrong. Too many wanted a "change without even understanding what is really going on]) The problem is, the "center" is a steadily increasing line on a graph of authoritarianism that has NOTHING to do with what's actually good for the population of the people.
Take one myth, for example, that both sides (the left way more than the right though) have professed to be against. Monopolies.
WT. You are so gung-ho for all the "do-gooders" on the left who ***** about this stuff, but answer me one thing. Show me a SINGLE monopoly that has existed in the US that has been successful. WITHOUT intervention from the government to support that monopoly? If there are no cases of this, tell me how these kinds of fears raised particularly among the left, and sometimes supported by the right, that have brought this overwhelming need for so much anti-monopoly legislation in the past and what good that has actually done. Except to break up competition for "approved" monopolies?
WT. You want my money in taxes taken at gunpoint, you want to put so many restrictions on how, even as a small entrepreneur, I can do my business, even penalize me for not paying my employees' medical expenses. All so you and people like you can give my money to people who have learned how to "game" the system (either intentionally, or as what they perceive as their own real need because that's how they've been raised) and you DARE to call anyone who is against such things a TRAITOR because, for example, I came to Buenos Aires for cheap labor because I couldn't make money in the States any more?
Please.
The US is too big. The wants and desires of 300+ million people in the US are way too diverse to be controlled on a federal level, at the level to which they are trying to be controlled, for the "greater good." You want to take from the rich and distribute to the poor because you feel those poor people can't do anything for themselves? Ok, that's a vast difference in belief from what I, and many others like me, believe. I am intellectually and emotionally opposed. 100, to that.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT except for the right people some 220 years ago gave to their descendants, while warning directly against what is happening today, which is a tyranny of the masses, not a government who is concerned about making the playing field level for all and in that allowing everyone to exceed according to their own abilities.
This is the heart of MY belief. The US is too big and too powerful. It must break up. Let the welfare state followers find their Utopia in their own country, let the free market people do the same, and so on. Let the original experiment the founders of the US originally intended continue by allowing competing systems, instead of continuing along the lines the true traitors to the original concept have followed in oppressing the people overall, without most even being aware of it.
If things keep going the way they have been for the last 100 years or so, just look at Argentina. You want to live like that? Maybe so. But I DON'T.
You want to encourage small entrepreneurs like me to create jobs in the US instead of taking them overseas? MAKE CONDITIONS MORE FAVORABLE TO BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT and provide opportunities to people instead of taking those opportunities from them. Don't expect people like me to "take one for the team" and invest stupidly because you say taking my money and making my life difficult is fair and I'm a traitor.
You want a president to CREATE JOBS? It's NOT something that the president can do. He's not a businessman (while in office at least. I'm talking about any president but Obama is a special case in that he has no idea how to run a business to begin with) he's a politician. HE (or she one day) will NEVER produce a single productive job by adding federal jobs and regulations and laws and taxes. Hell, he can't even create or remove existing laws. He's the PRESIDENT, not a congressman. The BEST he can do is lead, and veto stupidity that comes across his desk (in economic terms. He does have quite a bit of leeway with the military, but that's another discussion).
Get the hell out of the way and let business run itself, without creating so many damned social programs and forcing people into shapes they don't belong in, in the name of "helping" people who shouldn't need help to begin with if things were running right, and people will have more opportunities than they know what to do with. Let the government enforce a simple set of laws and quit trying to influence the economy (often for their own ends, or their buddies') and you won't have the need for such confusion and idiocy. But the politicians won't have so much power either.
I want Texas to secede from the Union. I would hope that such an event would cause other states to break away as well. Let the behemoth become a bunch of smaller, fairer (to their own population) countries.
We had a discussion about this the other night. Romney's words are much closer to my beliefs than Obama's. Obama is so far out there to me that I can't stomach the thought of voting for him. But Romney is a member of the same fraternity and the only thing I see with him is the possibility of slowing down the inevitable. Some think we need Republicans to fix things, but I don't think the problem can be fixed because it is inherent in how too many people (the masses who are voting themselves MORE and MORE) think nowadays.
So for me, if Romney is going to slow things down, and Bush and Obama (Obama more so) both put so many future debt obligations on the backs of the US population who pay for it (poor people and politicians sure as hell don't) , maybe I SHOULD vote for Obama to allow things to progress even faster if he wins.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426162]Why are the Job Creators sitting on that much money and not Creating Jobs?
They had their taxes reduced to help them Create Jobs.[/QUOTE]I thought the president was supposed to create jobs? (heh.)
They are not doing so because most of them are very uncertain about what's going on. Again, look at the extreme of Argentina. Why do people not invest here and hold their money in real estate and under the mattresses? Because Argentina is not a friend of investors and is unstable in that regard. Money goes where it is allowed to flow, just like water.
[QUOTE=El Queso;426171]you DARE to call anyone who is against such things a TRAITOR because, for example, I came to Buenos Aires for cheap labor because I couldn't make money in the States any more?[/QUOTE]This is what I don't understand about WT69. He claims not to be racist or prejudiced. But he believes only certain people are entitled to a living wage. If you live in China or Mexico or even Texas (remembering his comments about the Keystone pipeline) then you shoudn't have a good job. He passes it off with the regular union BS about how those people don't have decent working conditions, they work long hours, etc. I don't think he's a bad person. But I don't think he's learned much from his travels. If he had, he'd know that globalization has improved living standards immensely in third world countries. Like you I've invested and done business in developing countries. While I did it for profit, I'm proud of the small part I've played in providing jobs to people who REALLY need them. As a result they have better diets and health care. I'm proud to be a traitor by WT69's definition. The people that WT69 thinks he's trying to protect, the USA middle class, are among the most blessed in the world. The reason I say "thinks" is because his ideas would hurt the majority of Americans, not just the wealthy who he despises.
Americans do not realize that their daily lifestyle is all about convenience and waste. They have grown up in the land of plenty with many choices of where to live and work. Food and oil were downright cheap until the 70s / 80s. But now they have competition for the same goods and commodities from all over the world. Bubbles, easy credit and marketing have created an illusion of the American Dream, and instant gratification is the normal mindset of the masses. The more we make, the more we spend. For me, there was always one more shoe to buy and one more trip to make. It never ends.
Legal immigrants come in the thousands every day, and the majority will be middle class within 3-10 years. I see the spending habits of my co-workers and the difference between Americans and immigrants is mind-blogging. The cafeteria would have to be closed down if it depended on the immigrants to eat there. And that is just one area of spending. It is not difficult to see where the problems are. By the way, I don't question people's spending as long as they have the cash.
And the poor will always be with us, and good or bad, so willl the rich. Will the middle class be always with us? It is the middle class that is the power / engine of the American economy.
Ramprant's post, #1168 on August 31 was the origin of my prior post. Somehow, the "reply with quote" is not working for me.
I Apologize to Jackson and All.
My reasons for my anger are:
I have always believed in the truth and fairness to all.
But when I listen to the lies that Romney, Ryan and the Republican Congress put out, it drives me up a wall.
I can't believe that you believe in those lies, when the New York Times and other Newspapers reported that they were not the Truth.
I have always supported the Democratic Party, because they always been fair to the working class.
I have worked for the Employer as Foreman and for the Union as Shop Steward.
I have always worked what I can make and hourly wages.
I have worked selling papers on the corner of Haight and Ashbury. Funny, that was before the hippies.
I had delivered papers to the doors of people.
My High School Printing teacher got me a job in a print shop, which led to a Union Job.
I got a degree, taught at Stanford. Finished my apprenticeship and traveled working across the states, New York, Connecticut, Montreal and back home to California.
Back in San Francisco I worked in Financial Printing as a foreman for 20 years. So I do know a little about finance and management. I helped the workers, and did not bully them. They put out more work that way. After that I worked at the Newspapers, for a few years, as a Forman again in one of the Newspapers.
Next I worked for the University of California, Berkeley. I started in the '90s at $14 an hour. Low wages for that time. I was the shop steward for 13 years. I negotiated on contracts for the Union with the University. The University had special labor provisions granted by the State Government, they were exempt from some Labor Laws; a State within a State. They allowed us to negotiate so 'Long as it didn't interfere with the Running of the University'. In part we were not allowed to strike. We sort of had a Gun in negotiations with No Bullets. So, we took what they gave us.
Meanwhile their Institutional leaders kept getting their raises and Golden Retirement Packages, while asking cut backs from their workers.
So, when the Super-Pacs can buy our Government, us Workers will always be fucked.
Now you know why I am pissed at those that believe the lies.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426188]But when I listen to the lies that Romney, Ryan and the Republican Congress put out, it drives me up a wall.
I can't believe that you believe in those lies, when the New York Times and other Newspapers reported that they were not the Truth.[/QUOTE]I took you up on your challenge and watched a couple of episodes of the Newsroom. You should take me up on mine and watch Stossel. Try reading the editorial page on the Wall Street Journal, which is to the right what the New York Times is to the left. Also some neutral sources like the Washington Post. Finally take a look at El Queso's excellent post below. If you do this, you'll see that both parties lie. Pelosi and Reid are as bad as any. Reid's claim that Romney didn't pay income taxes for 10 years was a doozy. IMHO while Romney has changed positions more than most, he tells far fewer outright lies than most Washington politicians.
I'm not asking you to do anything that I don't. I watch MSNBC and read the NYT.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 426188]I Apologize to Jackson and All.
My reasons for my anger are:
I have always believed in the truth and fairness to all.
But when I listen to the lies that Romney, Ryan and the Republican Congress put out, it drives me up a wall.
I can't believe that you believe in those lies, when the New York Times and other Newspapers reported that they were not the Truth.
I have always supported the Democratic Party, because they always been fair to the working class.
I have worked for the Employer as Foreman and for the Union as Shop Steward.
I have always worked what I can make and hourly wages.
I have worked selling papers on the corner of Haight and Ashbury. Funny, that was before the hippies.
I had delivered papers to the doors of people.
My High School Printing teacher got me a job in a print shop, which led to a Union Job.
I got a degree, taught at Stanford. Finished my apprenticeship and traveled working across the states, New York, Connecticut, Montreal and back home to California.
Back in San Francisco I worked in Financial Printing as a foreman for 20 years. So I do know a little about finance and management. I helped the workers, and did not bully them. They put out more work that way. After that I worked at the Newspapers, for a few years, as a Forman again in one of the Newspapers.
Next I worked for the University of California, Berkeley. I started in the '90s at $14 an hour. Low wages for that time. I was the shop steward for 13 years. I negotiated on contracts for the Union with the University. The University had special labor provisions granted by the State Government, they were exempt from some Labor Laws; a State within a State. They allowed us to negotiate so 'Long as it didn't interfere with the Running of the University'. In part we were not allowed to strike. We sort of had a Gun in negotiations with No Bullets. So, we took what they gave us.
Meanwhile their Institutional leaders kept getting their raises and Golden Retirement Packages, while asking cut backs from their workers.
So, when the Super-Pacs can buy our Government, us Workers will always be fucked.
Now you know why I am pissed at those that believe the lies.[/QUOTE]All you need is a good SS check & move to Thailand. You don't have to be rich to be contented, just have enough. Some of this shit, you really can't do much. At least, in our generation. The American Spring is still quite aways. Obama is not the Messiah, he is John the Baptist.
I forgot to mention that we used to print for all of Cal's 9 University Campus' and did some of the State of California printing.
That was then, but now the University decided to close the Printing Department and Farm Out the work.
[QUOTE=Matt Psyche;426161]The tax cut in 1981 and 2001 reduced the tax revenue while the tax increase in 1993 increased the revenue. Thanks.[/QUOTE]Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.
The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, [i]"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut."[/i], none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.
Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue
[url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---[/url]
Under Bush, the Council of Economic Advisers, two chairs of the CEA (Greg Mankiw, Ed Lazear), and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson all refuted the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves (let alone, that they increase revenues). Their statements in the article below are clear.
Hey Mitch McConnell, Bush Economists Said Tax Cuts Did Grow the Deficit
[url]http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/hey-mitch-mcconnell-bush-economists-said-tax-cuts-i-did-i-grow-the-deficit/59728/[/url]
John Quincy Adams and John Adams on my mothers side. Her Maiden Name was Adams.
Now you know why I am really pissed. The Declaration of Independence. They hated England not each other.
Now you all know why I have such deep feelings about where our Country is headed.
Must have been why I became a Printer. Uncle Ben.
[QUOTE=Sidney;426198]Ryan is my man. We are distant cousins. My mothers name was Ryan. I believe that I will receive many entitlements![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten; 426200]Agreed. The notion that tax cuts pay for themselves, is an ideological fallacy that few economists subscribe to.
The IGM economic experts panel was created to explore the extent to which economists agree or disagree on major public policy issues. When asked about the proposition, [i]"A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut."[/i], none of the panel's 40 economists agreed. When responses were weighted by the confidence respondents expressed in their answers. 96% disagreed and 4% were uncertain.
Economists Agree: Tax Cuts Cost Revenue.
[url]http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/29/economists-agree-tax-cuts-cost-revenue---[/url][/QUOTE]From your article:
"The economists were asked a second question, about whether cutting income taxes right now would lead to higher gross domestic product in five years. Here 43 percent agreed it would. 48 percent were uncertain, and 9 percent disagreed (on a confidence-weighted basis)....we can conclude that there is widespread agreement among expert economists that, in a weak economy, a stimulus package of both tax cuts and more spending will increase growth and reduce unemployment."
Translation: Lower taxes = stronger economy = more prosperity for all. That's of course assuming that the politicians have enough sense not to spend us into oblivion, like Greece.
There is little doubt that taxes collected do not increase in proportion to increases in tax rates, especially for businesses, people in higher tax brackets, and taxes on capital gains and dividends. Anyway, is this an issue? I don't believe Romney is proposing to cut taxes. He's proposing to cut marginal rates on all taxpayers and eliminate loopholes and deductions, especially loopholes that benefit higher income taxpayers. Tax collected from upper income taxpayers would not go down.