PDA

View Full Version : The official Election 2012 discussion thread...


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9

Rohirrim
01-24-2012, 12:22 PM
You lack reading comprehension.

Great argument. :oyvey:

Tombstone RJ
01-24-2012, 12:39 PM
There's more than just that going on. We don't even talk about what the loss of our industrial base is doing do us:

China, of course, knows exactly what it’s doing. Running down U.S. industrial capacity by means of predatory trade surpluses is a quintuple play for Beijing: it makes an immediate cash profit, builds up China’s productive abilities for the future, reduces a competitor’s abilities, chokes off our tax revenues, and undermines our military power.

One almost has to admire the sheer elegance of their strategy. Didn’t Sun Tzu say that to subdue an enemy without fighting him was the acme of skill?
http://www.tradereform.org/2011/11/curtains-for-the-u-s-military-industrial-base/

This is what happens to a country that hands over the reins of power to corporations. Policy is based on short-term profit, not long term national self-interests. I'll bet there are times the Chinese leaders just sit back and laugh at us.

absolutely no argument here. If people don't understand that wars--all wars and especially the Cold War--is about the economy they are completely ignorant.

I dare say China is waging an economic war on the USA and our weak leadership is bending over to them. Lobbyists are paying our congress to look the other way as our industrial, economic and labor base shifted over to Asia. Companies like Apple are a perfect example of how China is winning the war.

This is why I like Ron Paul, he gets it. It's all about growing the US economy and that means a major shift in how we do business with Asia.

China is at war with the US, it's not a hot war, its an economic war and they aim to win the war. It may take them another 20 years but they are eroding the USA's economic structure, they know we are weak at the top and are bought and paid for by big business that will more than happily set up camp in China if it means higher dividends.

people need to wake the fug up.

alkemical
01-24-2012, 12:45 PM
There's more than just that going on. We don't even talk about what the loss of our industrial base is doing do us:

China, of course, knows exactly what it’s doing. Running down U.S. industrial capacity by means of predatory trade surpluses is a quintuple play for Beijing: it makes an immediate cash profit, builds up China’s productive abilities for the future, reduces a competitor’s abilities, chokes off our tax revenues, and undermines our military power.

One almost has to admire the sheer elegance of their strategy. Didn’t Sun Tzu say that to subdue an enemy without fighting him was the acme of skill?
http://www.tradereform.org/2011/11/curtains-for-the-u-s-military-industrial-base/

This is what happens to a country that hands over the reins of power to corporations. Policy is based on short-term profit, not long term national self-interests. I'll bet there are times the Chinese leaders just sit back and laugh at us.



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3436411&postcount=14


China has in organized method been attacking and stealing secrets from the US and the Western World for over decade. Much of their success in industry has come from those thefts.

http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2009/01/recent_fifth_generation_warfar.php

Fifth generational warfare (5GW) theory is still being studied, not yet having a clear definition. Some terms used have been “unrestricted warfare” or “financial jihad [warfare]”. Interestingly enough, two former Chinese colonels (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui) have written a book named – “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America.” In their book, Liang and Xiangsui state: “unrestricted warfare is warfare that uses all means whatsoever - means that involve force or arms and means that do not involve force or arms; means that involve military power and means that do not involve military power; means that entail casualties and means that do not entail casualties – to force an enemy to serve one’s own interest.”

US Marine Colonel (retired) T.X. Hammes states the following in an article published by Military Review (May-June 2007): “[5GW] will result from the continued shifts of political and social loyalties to causes rather than nations. It will be marked by the increasing power of smaller and smaller entities and the explosion of biotechnology. 5GW will truly be a nets and jets war: networks will distribute the key information, provide a source for the necessary equipment and material, and constitute a field from which to recruit volunteers; jets will provide worldwide, inexpensive, effective dissemination of the weapons.”

The 5GW Educational Institute® offers the following definition for debate: 5GW is an extension of Asymmetrical and Insurgent Warfare, whereby the enemy uses all means – both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons; includes political, religious and social causes; incorporates 21st century Global strategic information operations campaigns (internet and 24 hours news cycle); can be conducted by organized or unorganized groups; may be nation state led or non-nation state led – to disrupt and defeat superior opponents in order to achieve their will.

5GW Educational Institute® intends to precede 5GW theoretical research through operational experience (lessons learned) and analyzing empirical data (academia).


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

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.[1]

Rohirrim
01-24-2012, 02:25 PM
absolutely no argument here. If people don't understand that wars--all wars and especially the Cold War--is about the economy they are completely ignorant.

I dare say China is waging an economic war on the USA and our weak leadership is bending over to them. Lobbyists are paying our congress to look the other way as our industrial, economic and labor base shifted over to Asia. Companies like Apple are a perfect example of how China is winning the war.

This is why I like Ron Paul, he gets it. It's all about growing the US economy and that means a major shift in how we do business with Asia.

China is at war with the US, it's not a hot war, its an economic war and they aim to win the war. It may take them another 20 years but they are eroding the USA's economic structure, they know we are weak at the top and are bought and paid for by big business that will more than happily set up camp in China if it means higher dividends.

people need to wake the fug up.

And as long as the corporate lobbyists who control our government make money from America losing this war, there isn't a damn thing we're going to do about it. I don't see Ron Paul doing anything about this. He supports unmanaged free trade. What we need is some form of protectionism of our markets and some kind of balancing apparatus to protect our industrial manufacturing capability. The ideology of free markets should die right at that point where our national security starts to be eroded.

Once again, we must get rid of Citizens United and K Street.

Drek
01-24-2012, 02:26 PM
Massively ignorant post spoken by someone who likes to make **** up with no real backing to it.
Man, I spent three years as a coordinator of cultural affairs at a major U.S. university, working specifically with a large foreign student body, itself composed roughly of 80% Chinese exchange students. I've worked with the Chinese government on those exchanges and with the individuals, I know a bit about Chinese culture.

If you can't see how Confucius' view of the "father - son" dynamic is directly attached to his view of "state - individual" dynamic, how that view isn't a core tenant of Chinese culture and self-perspective, and how the PRC has used that fact to control their populous then I just don't see how you'll ever understand a damn thing.

If you don't want a real discussion instead of trying to act like some kind of internet authority and making assumptions about other's knowledge you know nothing about then it would be kind of you to withhold worthless comments.

Drek
01-24-2012, 02:39 PM
And as long as the corporate lobbyists who control our government make money from America losing this war, there isn't a damn thing we're going to do about it. I don't see Ron Paul doing anything about this. He supports unmanaged free trade. What we need is some form of protectionism of our markets and some kind of balancing apparatus to protect our industrial manufacturing capability. The ideology of free markets should die right at that point where our national security starts to be eroded.

Once again, we must get rid of Citizens United and K Street.

The problem with fighting back is that you can't truly fight back from a trade regulation standpoint. That cat is already out of the bag and can't be put back in. We can't just start shredding the free trade agreements that do not benefit us.

Instead we can remove the incentive from the enabling corporations. The sticks and carrots approach is easy to apply here. Take away all of the massive tax subsidies we give to the large corporations. That is the stick. These companies are not leaving for Europe as the EU can't provide them the same level of top tier talent the U.S. can, are more heavily regulated, and are only marginally better on the effective tax rate than what the U.S.'s maximum corporate tax rate is. In other words, they've give up our labor pool, eat the move costs, and lose all the protections (IP, trade, etc.) of the U.S. in exchange for more regulations and slightly lower taxes (likely wiped out by the greater regulations and softer working hours throughout the EU).

Then you offer the carrot. Any company that employs more than 75% of their workforce and sub-contractors from within the U.S. start getting tax breaks. When you hit somewhere between 90-100% you get full tax exemption other than payroll taxes. At that point you shift the labor + shipping numbers for Asia being a significant reduction over U.S. labor into a significant increase. Companies rush their work back here knowing that their success will be completely untouched by the U.S. gov't. if they play by these rules.

bendog
01-24-2012, 02:54 PM
I don't disagree, but its completely contrary to the gop agenda of whoring to the Chamber of Commerce, and I don't see the dims findiing the spine to go with populism.

Willynowei
01-24-2012, 04:15 PM
Man, I spent three years as a coordinator of cultural affairs at a major U.S. university, working specifically with a large foreign student body, itself composed roughly of 80% Chinese exchange students. I've worked with the Chinese government on those exchanges and with the individuals, I know a bit about Chinese culture.

If you can't see how Confucius' view of the "father - son" dynamic is directly attached to his view of "state - individual" dynamic, how that view isn't a core tenant of Chinese culture and self-perspective, and how the PRC has used that fact to control their populous then I just don't see how you'll ever understand a damn thing.

If you don't want a real discussion instead of trying to act like some kind of internet authority and making assumptions about other's knowledge you know nothing about then it would be kind of you to withhold worthless comments.

Hahahhahaha.

Oh that's brilliant. Of course you're an academic, I would expect no less.

I can absolutely make assumptions about your knowledge because i can box you in with people of similar conclusions. Your interactions with a culture and people that consciously enclose their motivations from you has lead you to form flawed conclusions in a manner typical of someone trying to understand China's situation from the outside looking in.

PRC controls media, it tries to subtly subdue the populace as any authoritarian regime would with news outlets and movie production companies. They work very hard to get their opinions into films and mass media, yes.

But your original conclusion was not just about the PRC using Confucianism to subdue the populace, rather, it was about the PRC using the philosopher's theory of a man's responsibility to the state to get people to work 12 hours shifts, 7 days a week.

That concept is laughable.

That type of thinking originates from the Soviet Unions successful use of nationalism to rile up industrial workers following WWII, somehow generating economic growth on par with the U.S., without any other incentive but state pride. Personally, I think this is why some academics posited such a theory, and then it just spreads like wildfire.

I mean, its so convenient to just lump China in there, isn't it? The framework is there, the culture is there, heck, the results are there.

But no, that's not how it works, try again.

gyldenlove
01-24-2012, 04:57 PM
http://www.skilluminati.com/research/entry/newt_gingrich_on_using_language_for_social_control/

Newt Gingrich on Using Language for Social Control

Göbbels would be proud - really a quite Machiavellian statement good ol' Newt came up with there.

extralife
01-24-2012, 05:22 PM
I wonder what professor gave willy a grade he didn't like

alkemical
01-24-2012, 07:28 PM
Göbbels would be proud - really a quite Machiavellian statement good ol' Newt came up with there.

indeed.

TheReverend
01-24-2012, 07:32 PM
Göbbels would be proud - really a quite Machiavellian statement good ol' Newt came up with there.

...Goebbles?

That One Guy
01-24-2012, 07:51 PM
Gobble.

houghtam
01-24-2012, 08:22 PM
Gabbert?

alkemical
01-24-2012, 09:10 PM
gabbo!

Requiem
01-24-2012, 09:57 PM
http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/shared/sps/images/shows/southpark/vertical_video/import/season_04/sp_0414_02_v6.jpg?width=480

Drek
01-25-2012, 03:47 AM
Hahahhahaha.

Oh that's brilliant. Of course you're an academic, I would expect no less.


Again your lack of any real insight or facts to support your argument leads you to make attacks based on false assumptions on the person you can't debate on merit.

As I've said on this forum many times before, I'm a private sector geologist. I'm a consultant for large corporations that cover the full spectrum of American industry. Landfill management, mine and quarry management, historic environmental waste remedial actions, current environmental site compliance, etc.. I just happen to be diversely talented enough to have worked in a wide range of fields on my way to my current career, which itself might just be another step along the way to something else.

But sure, keep trying to tell me how actually working with Chinese nationals somehow means I have no clue where they're coming from because I'm an "academic".

alkemical
01-25-2012, 07:58 AM
http://www.disinfo.com/2012/01/vote-fraud-endemic-in-united-states/

Vote Fraud Endemic In United States

Thanks to Gunther Ruckl for the story tip! From BradBlog.com:

The voting systems in use for the nation’s first three all-important electoral contests in the 2012 primary — from Iowa to New Hampshire to Saturday’s South Carolina Primary — go from pretty great to intolerably horrible. And then comes Florida, which deserves its very own special category, thereafter.

The “First-in-the-Nation” caucuses in Iowa allowed voters to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, counted by hand in front of the public at the caucus site, with results announced to everyone right then and there before being called in to GOP headquarters and before ballots were move anywhere. The wonderfully transparent system allowed for Republican voters by the Iowa GOP (which they hypocritically fight against allowing for everybody else in other states, and even in their own during general elections) is just about as close as we general get in this country to Democracy’s Gold Standard. It’s also what allowed reporting errors to be discovered and confirmed by the public after an election with some 122,000 votes counted transparently within an hour or so of polls closing, leading to almost nobody charging “fraud” even though just 34 votes are said to separate first and second place in the certified results of the impossibly, and historically, close election.

As of the “First-in-the-Nation” primary in New Hampshire, however, election transparency for voters and their ability to oversee their own elections began to disappear. While a lucky 10% of voters enjoyed hand-marked, publicly hand-counted paper ballots, the rest of the state’s voters were allowed to vote on hand-marked paper ballots, but forced to tolerate secret tabulation on oft-failed, easily-manipulatedDiebold optical-scan systems programmed by a company (LHS) with a history of criminal behavior and convictions. The results from those 90% of Granite State voters may have been tallied accurately by the Diebold op-scanners or, as seen in the disastrous 2008 Presidential Primary, not…

[continues at BradBlog.Com]

alkemical
01-25-2012, 07:59 AM
“Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here’s American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their ****ing skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America – you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” – Bill Hicks

alkemical
01-25-2012, 08:14 AM
Folks, it's time to evolve. That's why we're troubled. You know why our institutions are failing us, the church, the state, everything's failing? It's because, um – they're no longer relevant. We're supposed to keep evolving. Evolution did not end with us growing opposable thumbs. You do know that, right? There's another 90 percent of our brains that we have to illuminate. - B. Hicks

Willynowei
01-25-2012, 09:11 AM
Again your lack of any real insight or facts to support your argument leads you to make attacks based on false assumptions on the person you can't debate on merit.

As I've said on this forum many times before, I'm a private sector geologist. I'm a consultant for large corporations that cover the full spectrum of American industry. Landfill management, mine and quarry management, historic environmental waste remedial actions, current environmental site compliance, etc.. I just happen to be diversely talented enough to have worked in a wide range of fields on my way to my current career, which itself might just be another step along the way to something else.

But sure, keep trying to tell me how actually working with Chinese nationals somehow means I have no clue where they're coming from because I'm an "academic".

LOL!

You are the one who made the claim, why don't you back it up? I'm doubting your claim; I'm waiting for "any real insight or facts" from you to support the claim.

So far your argument is that you've met a couple students and government "officials" who represent a unknown chinese academic institution in meeting with an unknown American academic institution.

Wonderful insight there.

(Although I will say, coming from such a kickback friendly industry ;) you of all people should relate better to how the Chinese government actually works.)

Willynowei
01-25-2012, 09:17 AM
The problem with fighting back is that you can't truly fight back from a trade regulation standpoint. That cat is already out of the bag and can't be put back in. We can't just start shredding the free trade agreements that do not benefit us.

Instead we can remove the incentive from the enabling corporations. The sticks and carrots approach is easy to apply here. Take away all of the massive tax subsidies we give to the large corporations. That is the stick. These companies are not leaving for Europe as the EU can't provide them the same level of top tier talent the U.S. can, are more heavily regulated, and are only marginally better on the effective tax rate than what the U.S.'s maximum corporate tax rate is. In other words, they've give up our labor pool, eat the move costs, and lose all the protections (IP, trade, etc.) of the U.S. in exchange for more regulations and slightly lower taxes (likely wiped out by the greater regulations and softer working hours throughout the EU).

Then you offer the carrot. Any company that employs more than 75% of their workforce and sub-contractors from within the U.S. start getting tax breaks. When you hit somewhere between 90-100% you get full tax exemption other than payroll taxes. At that point you shift the labor + shipping numbers for Asia being a significant reduction over U.S. labor into a significant increase. Companies rush their work back here knowing that their success will be completely untouched by the U.S. gov't. if they play by these rules.

You just lumped all of europe into one pot and commented on their regulatory environment; you're pretty funny dude!

The beautiful thing about top tier talent is that they are often willing to move ;)

You talk about the switching costs of moving things to Europe, you ever thought about the switching costs of moving factories from Asia?

Of course a massive tax break on US labor is not a subsidy at all LOL

I would be licking my chops if I was a labor union negotiator. Oh boy, they layoff too many Americans, or if too many are unable to work for whatever reason, they **** up their ratio and lose their tax exemption! LMAO!

ludo21
01-25-2012, 09:17 AM
so...... about that state of the union address

does anyone buy that bipartisan seating crap?

bronco militia
01-25-2012, 09:36 AM
so...... about that state of the union address

does anyone buy that crap?

fixed

Paladin
01-25-2012, 09:54 AM
Actually, he had many good points, and the GOP will be hard pressed to do anything but yell: "class warfare!!!!" Mittins was co-optied, and Ginger is going to have to stick with his racist crap. So yeah, Obama gave a very good speech while not crowing about the SUCCESFUL rescue of the American and the Dane in Somalia.

Now that's a Commander-on-Chief. Do you think any repugnican will give him credit for this effort? Probably not. That's real envy right there.....

Pony Boy
01-25-2012, 11:27 AM
Haven't We Heard this Before?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UDDRiGIUYQo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

bendog
01-25-2012, 11:46 AM
Hahahhahaha.

Oh that's brilliant. Of course you're an academic, I would expect no less.

I can absolutely make assumptions about your knowledge because i can box you in with people of similar conclusions. Your interactions with a culture and people that consciously enclose their motivations from you has lead you to form flawed conclusions in a manner typical of someone trying to understand China's situation from the outside looking in.

PRC controls media, it tries to subtly subdue the populace as any authoritarian regime would with news outlets and movie production companies. They work very hard to get their opinions into films and mass media, yes.

But your original conclusion was not just about the PRC using Confucianism to subdue the populace, rather, it was about the PRC using the philosopher's theory of a man's responsibility to the state to get people to work 12 hours shifts, 7 days a week.

That concept is laughable.

That type of thinking originates from the Soviet Unions successful use of nationalism to rile up industrial workers following WWII, somehow generating economic growth on par with the U.S., without any other incentive but state pride. Personally, I think this is why some academics posited such a theory, and then it just spreads like wildfire.

I mean, its so convenient to just lump China in there, isn't it? The framework is there, the culture is there, heck, the results are there.

But no, that's not how it works, try again.

Imo it was less about "state pride" than building a nation that would never be invaded by the West again. Once it became obvious that Germany and the US didn't want to have a go, the inability of the soviets to improve the lives of citizens became a cancer.

I don't see the comparison of Russia to China. Fundamentally different socities and fundamentally different application of communism(one party/totaltarian) and economic systems.

I would agree that there's a bit of a heavy handed application of confusus. You do see parents in china doing things that we would find unspeakable, such as burying babies in sand to serve as daycare (extreme) or to an entire generation having their single baby, leaving it with grandparents, and going to factory dormatories. The Soviets would never have done that willingly. But its not that the chinese are drones. As a result of their cultural history (and confusus) they are incredibly patient, but their end game is a better place for their kids.

gyldenlove
01-25-2012, 12:52 PM
...Goebbles?

For those of you who can't find the umlaut symbol, yes. :P

BroncoBuff
01-25-2012, 04:07 PM
Man, I spent three years as a coordinator of cultural affairs at a major U.S. university, working specifically with a large foreign student body, itself composed roughly of 80% Chinese exchange students. I've worked with the Chinese government on those exchanges and with the individuals, I know a bit about Chinese culture.

If you can't see how Confucius' view of the "father - son" dynamic is directly attached to his view of "state - individual" dynamic, how that view isn't a core tenant of Chinese culture and self-perspective, and how the PRC has used that fact to control their populous then I just don't see how you'll ever understand a damn thing.

That's fascinating. Maybe that same dynamic explains North Korea, how the people meekly accept widespread malnutrition and stunted growth rates despite the fact many of them must know about the bustling first-world metropolis less than 20 miles away. Weeping and howling as Kim Jong Il's funeral procession passed, "Don't leave us Dear Father! Don't go!" That was pretty jarring to watch.

Your China explanation would explain North Korea ... the inborn, naturally accepted hierarchy of a father-child dynamic applied like a template to citizen-state relationship.

BroncoBuff
01-25-2012, 05:19 PM
lost it's edge? we exported the edge, because it's not an "edge" at all, it's a neurosis, the inevitable side effect of hegemonic forces designed to dominate cultural discourse for their own gain. in a post industrial (and particularly global) society, those forces are transformed from a fixation on production to a fixation on consumption. screwing a piece of glass onto a piece of plastic for twelve hours a day is not working hard, it's working stupid. our "hard work" is the mental rigamarole of actually justifying the existence of this huge mound of garbage that drives the global debt economy. the chinese don't do their part because they are hard workers, they do it because the collusion of their government with ours will literally kill them if they don't. we don't do ours because we are lazy, we do it because we have been systematically told that our desires and beliefs are ideal desires and beliefs. to glorify this slavery as some sort of ideal, idiotic ethical code is to give up.

Great great post. It takes courage for an American to wipe the flag out of his eyes and look at his country with anything resembling objectivity. We're neither angels nor villains, but right now we're the winners. And winners don't just write the history books, they also impose their own goals and values as the one and only paragon for mankind. While at the same time dismissing any other needs and values, and the suffering of those whose needs are trampled.

What a great thread.

Willynowei
01-25-2012, 07:17 PM
Imo it was less about "state pride" than building a nation that would never be invaded by the West again. Once it became obvious that Germany and the US didn't want to have a go, the inability of the soviets to improve the lives of citizens became a cancer.

I don't see the comparison of Russia to China. Fundamentally different socities and fundamentally different application of communism(one party/totaltarian) and economic systems.


I would agree that there's a bit of a heavy handed application of confusus. You do see parents in china doing things that we would find unspeakable, such as burying babies in sand to serve as daycare (extreme) or to an entire generation having their single baby, leaving it with grandparents, and going to factory dormatories. The Soviets would never have done that willingly. But its not that the chinese are drones. As a result of their cultural history (and confusus) they are incredibly patient, but their end game is a better place for their kids.

Bolded Part: Yes.

Italicized: I'm guessing others made the connection to lead to Drek's theory, personally, I don't find the situations comparable.

Last part: Broadly speaking, this seems like an okay assessment. The driving factor is not state propaganda, but rather the aspirations and values of individuals and families.

I'd mostly agree with what you've posted here.

houghtam
01-25-2012, 07:27 PM
Great great post. It takes courage for an American to wipe the flag out of his eyes and look at his country with anything resembling objectivity. We're neither angels nor villains, but right now we're the winners. And winners don't just write the history books, they also impose their own goals and values as the one and only paragon for mankind. While at the same time dismissing any other needs and values, and the suffering of those whose needs are trampled.

What a great thread.

True dat. It takes a greater patriot to say America has flaws than it does to say America is great. It takes an intelligent person to realize that America can be great while still having flaws, and a realistic person to say that America's biggest flaw is, well...Americans.

BABronco
01-25-2012, 07:55 PM
We can be sure Ron Paul's answer—zero percent—is truthful for the simple reason that he's been saying it his entire career, not just after Gingrich's answer. The Tax Policy Center estimates $956 billion was collected through individual income taxes alone in 2011, meaning this nonexistent rate fits perfectly into Paul's larger "Plan to Restore America," which will cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year in office.

Critics seem to forget that while $1 trillion seems like a lot of loot to the average American family, the amount is pocket change for a government that steals so much from us each year. Think comparatively about these reductions—Obama requested $3.73 trillion for expenditures in 2012, so Ron Paul's "draconian cuts" will leave us at the same spending levels we had in 2005.

Rest of article http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/one-trillion-and-counting-1.2689972

Cito Pelon
01-25-2012, 08:36 PM
My middle class family paid 16.6% Federal income tax last year on our gross. Mitt paid 15.4% on $42 million gross.

There's something seriously wrong there. I can't vote for a President that wants to keep that the same.

Cito Pelon
01-25-2012, 08:54 PM
Grover Nordquist IMO has really f'd up the GOP. Because all those GOP legislators have signed up with him they painted themselves into a corner where they cannot vote for bipartisan legislation.

They vowed to not increase taxes anytime, anywhere. And that's just foolish.

houghtam
01-25-2012, 08:59 PM
My middle class family paid 16.6% Federal income tax last year on our gross. Mitt paid 15.4% on $42 million gross.

There's something seriously wrong there. I can't vote for a President that wants to keep that the same.

But, but...he's creating jobs.

Cito Pelon
01-25-2012, 09:17 PM
Interesting story - Douglas Bruce, super anti-tax guy in Colorado, is currently convicted for tax evasion. Turns out all his leadership for anti-tax legislation was just a front to manipulate the tax code for his own personal gain.

And this is kind of typical for the GOP leadership. They manipulate the tax codes for their own gain, even though they they're already top income. And to top it off, the wealthiest in this country are the biggest tax cheats. They've managed to get their tax percentage down, but they still cheat on their taxes. Amazing middle class people vote them into office. They're not even gonna throw the middle class a bone with a little meat on it, they're gonna pick it clean before it gets away.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 06:32 AM
Problem is Cito - is that it's not just one side of the aisle weilding the law for their own benefit. In fact...

I more or less see the two party system as a form of marketing. Play the ends against the middle - divide & conquer.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 07:50 AM
The Westboro Baptist Church "Endorses" Obama


http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-westboro-baptist-church-endorses-obama


In an interview with the Huffington Post, Timothy Phelps had this to say about the Republican candidates and President Obama:
"

He's a liar, thief, and adulterer... that's Newt Gingrich, the so-called "champion" of the conservative party. These people claim to be Christian, New Gingrich and Mitt Romney and some of them others. They aren't pure followers of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't trust [any] of them with a handful of change to go get me some bubble gum. There's nothing of any value in [any] of those human beings. I would rather have Obama.
"

BroncoFanatic
01-26-2012, 08:14 AM
Interesting story - Douglas Bruce, super anti-tax guy in Colorado, is currently convicted for tax evasion. Turns out all his leadership for anti-tax legislation was just a front to manipulate the tax code for his own personal gain.

And this is kind of typical for the GOP leadership. They manipulate the tax codes for their own gain, even though they they're already top income. And to top it off, the wealthiest in this country are the biggest tax cheats. They've managed to get their tax percentage down, but they still cheat on their taxes. Amazing middle class people vote them into office. They're not even gonna throw the middle class a bone with a little meat on it, they're gonna pick it clean before it gets away.

I am no supporter of the GOP, as my previous posts show. However, this is typical class warfare drivel from the Democrat talking points.

7 of the top 10 richest in congress are democrats. Manipulation, lying, and cheating work for them too.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/seven-of-the-ten-richest-congressman-are-democrats/

In my opinion, government worked a lot better for the people when we had citizen legislators, rather than "professionals". By and large, legislators from both parties seek to line their pockets rather than serve the public.

If someone earned their money the honest way, THEN NO ONE HAS ANY CLAIM TO IT. Don't hate, get off your ass and earn your own.

houghtam
01-26-2012, 09:06 AM
I am no supporter of the GOP, as my previous posts show. However, this is typical class warfare drivel from the Democrat talking points.

7 of the top 10 richest in congress are democrats. Manipulation, lying, and cheating work for them too.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/seven-of-the-ten-richest-congressman-are-democrats/

In my opinion, government worked a lot better for the people when we had citizen legislators, rather than "professionals". By and large, legislators from both parties seek to line their pockets rather than serve the public.

If someone earned their money the honest way, THEN NO ONE HAS ANY CLAIM TO IT. Don't hate, get off your ass and earn your own.

Depends on what you consider honest, I suppose.

As far as professional legislators, my brother is a single term voter. He votes against the incumbent, no matter who it is. You get your 1st term to fix the problem and then move on. Interesting idea, though if you think nothing gets done now, I wonder what would happen if you had a bunch of schmoes in there for 2-6 years ONLY.

BroncoFanatic
01-26-2012, 09:12 AM
Depends on what you consider honest, I suppose.

As far as professional legislators, my brother is a single term voter. He votes against the incumbent, no matter who it is. You get your 1st term to fix the problem and then move on. Interesting idea, though if you think nothing gets done now, I wonder what would happen if you had a bunch of schmoes in there for 2-6 years ONLY.

Yeah, term limits is a double-edged sword. A perpetual lame duck congress might be more likely to say "f* it" and try & get what they can for themselves.

I figure that, with citizen legislators, if they don't get paid much for being in DC, this would only attract people who (presumably) actually wanted to serve their constituents, rather than themselves. No incentive for the corrupt to go there. It doesn't look like we are going in that direction, I'll grant you.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 09:14 AM
Yeah, term limits is a double-edged sword. A perpetual lame duck congress might be more likely to say "f* it" and try & get what they can for themselves.

I figure that, with citizen legislators, if they don't get paid much for being in DC, this would only attract people who (presumably) actually wanted to serve their constituents, rather than themselves. No incentive for the corrupt to go there. It doesn't look like we are going in that direction, I'll grant you.

I thought of tying congresses pay scale to some metric based upon performance - I just haven't figured any good way of doing it - but who knows.

Maybe we should 1099 'em and save cost on full pension/healthcare.

BroncoFanatic
01-26-2012, 09:28 AM
I thought of tying congresses pay scale to some metric based upon performance - I just haven't figured any good way of doing it - but who knows.

Maybe we should 1099 'em and save cost on full pension/healthcare.

I'd offer up "Constitutionality of voting record" as a metric, but really, I think that is more grounds for recall and public flogging if they stray from it. And yeah I'm dead serious on the flogging.

gyldenlove
01-26-2012, 09:52 AM
Problem is Cito - is that it's not just one side of the aisle weilding the law for their own benefit. In fact...

I more or less see the two party system as a form of marketing. Play the ends against the middle - divide & conquer.

That is exactly what the two part system is, it is a completely static system with no room for change - the two sides will always seek to publicly differentiate but ultimately they will work to serve the same interests since it is the same money and the same lobbyists who control them.

There is almost no room for actual idealism, no room for compromise.

SonOfLe-loLang
01-26-2012, 10:15 AM
By the way, did we see this **** with Jan Brewer yesterday? This is why we can't have nice things. How can we have rational conversations when entire groups of people put someone like that retard into a major public office.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 10:37 AM
I'd offer up "Constitutionality of voting record" as a metric, but really, I think that is more grounds for recall and public flogging if they stray from it. And yeah I'm dead serious on the flogging.

Earlier in this thread, i linked a story about how montanna voters are working to recall congress reps.

This is the sort of accountability we need to hold to our elected officials. This is a level of participation missed on most people.

It's the fundamental part of WE THE PEOPLE. Democracy requires participation, and the utmost investment in your local community.

BroncoFanatic
01-26-2012, 10:43 AM
Earlier in this thread, i linked a story about how montanna voters are working to recall congress reps.

This is the sort of accountability we need to hold to our elected officials. This is a level of participation missed on most people.

It's the fundamental part of WE THE PEOPLE. Democracy requires participation, and the utmost investment in your local community.

Freedom is NOT a spectator sport :thumbs:

A tidbit of history from where I am living...

Back in the 1800's, a toll booth was put up on a bridge over the Perkiomen Creek. Once the bridge was paid off, the local government wanted to keep the toll. The locals would have none of that, lit the toll booth on fire and pushed it over into the creek.

That was back when the average citizen UNDERSTOOD who has the real power: the citizenry.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 10:43 AM
That is exactly what the two part system is, it is a completely static system with no room for change - the two sides will always seek to publicly differentiate but ultimately they will work to serve the same interests since it is the same money and the same lobbyists who control them.

There is almost no room for actual idealism, no room for compromise.

Not to mention, you have industries devoted to capitalizing on this failed dynamic (boingboing.net/2011/03/07/glenn-becks-syndicat.html) - that are basically creating a self-perpetuating system of brain-washing (programming isn't just a time slot (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=52978)) - so we have an industry that has built sustainability - delivered on content meant to keep a galvanization of thought & opinion.

Compromise = weakness to a swath of people. What they're missing is that self-serving principles - are short term. It presents a prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) which is then exploited (divide/conquer (http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Delphi_Change_Agents.htm)).

ludo21
01-26-2012, 11:01 AM
By the way, did we see this **** with Jan Brewer yesterday? This is why we can't have nice things. How can we have rational conversations when entire groups of people put someone like that retard into a major public office.

if the govt tried to even do their job down on the border she wouldnt have to push him so hard.

*brewer isnt my fav, but Im glad she is trying to uphold the integrity of our border

gyldenlove
01-26-2012, 11:23 AM
Freedom is NOT a spectator sport :thumbs:

A tidbit of history from where I am living...

Back in the 1800's, a toll booth was put up on a bridge over the Perkiomen Creek. Once the bridge was paid off, the local government wanted to keep the toll. The locals would have none of that, lit the toll booth on fire and pushed it over into the creek.

That was back when the average citizen UNDERSTOOD who has the real power: the citizenry.

Voter appathy means the people have lost any semblance of power - politicians know that only a few precious demographics matter, the rest of you get nothing.

BroncoFanatic
01-26-2012, 11:31 AM
Voter appathy means the people have lost any semblance of power - politicians know that only a few precious demographics matter, the rest of you get nothing.

If the people would wake up from their induced mental slumber, they would realize that their power is still there, as embodied in the Constitution. The Constitution defines limits on government, all powers not enumerated are reserved to the States and the People. This whole concept of a "living breathing" document is garbage designed to get people to accept their loss of liberty and authority. It is a literal document, and is only interpreted by people who want to throw off those limits.

alkemical
01-26-2012, 12:38 PM
Voter appathy means the people have lost any semblance of power - politicians know that only a few precious demographics matter, the rest of you get nothing.

Those demographics don't matter either (see the article about voter fraud within the last few pages).

now, they just need enough voters, to make it "look good".

BroncoInferno
01-26-2012, 01:29 PM
Ochocinco tweets Boehner

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/chad-ochocino-mocks-house-speaker-john-boehner-during-state-of-the-union-address-012512/

NFL wide receiver Chad Ochocinco has added House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to his ever-expanding litany of intriguing Twitter posts.

The Patriots wideout befriended Boehner after expressing concern over the Speaker's apparent unhappy demeanor during President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.

"Anybody notice the guy over Obamas left shoulder doesn't seem very happy and he's not smiling. He's not clapping with joy," Ochocinco wrote during the president's address.

After one of the colorful wideout's followers help him identify Boehner, Ochocinco decided to reach out to the Speaker.

"Just read some of your tweets and you seem pretty angry kind sir," the six-time Pro Bowler wrote in a post directed at Boehner. "I can see you on tv but you're not smiling. Hope you're ok."

Ochocinco, 34, then decided to check in on Boehner Wednesday morning, writing, "Hello Mr. Boehner, hoping you are in better spirits today. If all else seems bad in life just remember I love you kind sir."

Boehner, a representative from Ohio's eighth district, not far from Cincinnati where Ochocinco spent the first 10 years of his NFL career, responded to let the receiver know he appreciated his concern and to wish him luck in the Patriots' upcoming Super Bowl clash against the New York Giants.

"Thanks & good luck in the @SuperBowl we'll see you in the playoffs next year," Boehner posted. "Go #Bengals."

The exchange drew the ire of at least one follower, who wrote, "wtf ocho..you didn't even know who he was until last night dummy."

"Well now we are friends you ******* Pansy," 11-year NFL veteran responded.

Rohirrim
01-26-2012, 01:30 PM
By the way, did we see this **** with Jan Brewer yesterday? This is why we can't have nice things. How can we have rational conversations when entire groups of people put someone like that retard into a major public office.

On the Right, treating the president with disrespect scores you points with the base.

TonyR
01-26-2012, 02:14 PM
Romney versus Obama will be a snoozefest, mainly because Romney elicits no passion from anybody. Newt versus Barak [sic], however, could be vastly entertaining. Two really smart guys, both of whom are good speakers, and both of whom will be at least affecting being really pissed off at the other and the other's base. If the Newt who tore into John King the other day shows up at the debates, they will be truly great TV. Since I don't think anybody in Washington or running to be in Washington can fix the problems we face, why not vote for the circus?http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2012/01/the-gingrich-temptation.html

LOL

bendog
01-26-2012, 03:10 PM
The more "conservative" posters appear to have moved on. Newt at one time showed a bit of spine with Norquist. But the reality is that the gop has to oppose because of ideology, not economics, any effort to broaden the tax base by removing tax incentives for corp jets and oilwells and thereby reduce the deficit, even when the dims are willing to leave rates alone to get a deal. The only way for Obama to win is for the tea party to self-immolate, and they seem ready and willing.

Pony Boy
01-26-2012, 03:27 PM
30113

This bumper sticker approved by Tim Tebow

That One Guy
01-26-2012, 03:35 PM
Interesting story - Douglas Bruce, super anti-tax guy in Colorado, is currently convicted for tax evasion. Turns out all his leadership for anti-tax legislation was just a front to manipulate the tax code for his own personal gain.

And this is kind of typical for the GOP leadership. They manipulate the tax codes for their own gain, even though they they're already top income. And to top it off, the wealthiest in this country are the biggest tax cheats. They've managed to get their tax percentage down, but they still cheat on their taxes. Amazing middle class people vote them into office. They're not even gonna throw the middle class a bone with a little meat on it, they're gonna pick it clean before it gets away.

So, back when Ds had the presidency and congress, did they do something to change this? If it's so clear and the Rs are the villains, surely the Ds saw it and saw the opportunity to pounce and ensure Americans saw the Rs for what they are, right?

No... Obama made good on a pledge to ensure gays could wave their rainbow flags in the military.

You say Rs are the guilty party but the Ds aren't changing anything. They had 2 years to do whatever they wanted and what you speak of wasn't on their list of things to worry about. Keep blaming one side.

Paladin
01-26-2012, 04:34 PM
Tune in tonight!!!!

On CNN:

The Clown Circus with Wolf Blitzer.

Go Ginger, Go Mittins.

This should be ever so much fun!!!!

TonyR
01-26-2012, 05:00 PM
Republicans have buried their differences by assaulting everything Mr Obama supports, and because Mr Obama is a pretty middle-of-the-road politician, that includes a whole lot of things that many Republicans used to support. They are disenchanted with their candidates because their candidates are incoherent, but their candidates are incoherent because the base is incoherent. If the GOP wins this election, the party's leaders are going to be confronted with that incoherence pretty quickly. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/republican-nomination-9?fsrc=gn_ep

Paladin
01-27-2012, 12:30 AM
Well......

Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest and Confused wrapped it upped. I am disppointed, They didn't get to fisticuffs. Jebus. What a choice they have, eh?

Ginger has struck out, I think, and neither Paul nor Santroum have much left. Mittins is learning from his personal "debate coach", and has learned how to loie more efficiently and without squinting. More of Mittins' money as been found.

The circus may not last much longer after Florida, although Colorado and Nevada might bring in a couple of clowns..........

It's possible there may be an open convention and Mittins may have to face off against (gag!) Jeb Bush.......

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 05:23 AM
The problem with the R party right now is there's so many people fighting to rule under the party name because of the two party environment. If it were all equal, the Rs could be split into at least 2-3 parties. They really need to find a way to figure that system out.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 05:34 AM
This kinda shows the major flaw in current campaigns. Just hitting the streets to get your message out doesn't appear worthwhile. You have to be able to reach mass markets effectively or you're wasting your time. For the candidates, it means money is needed to campaign. For the citizens, it means there's no way to affect change unless you happen to have the reigns of a high traffic website or something. Rather than stay in town and try to garner votes, Santorum basically said there was nothing more he could do and went home.

Rick Santorum is tired, almost broke — and going home.The former Pennsylvania senator is leaving Florida just days before the Tuesday primary that even he expects to deal him a third consecutive loss.
Santorum says he would rather spend his Saturday sitting at his kitchen table to do his taxes than campaigning in a state where the race for the Republican presidential nomination has become a two-man fight between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.
The cash-strapped candidate acknowledges that he simply can't keep up with the GOP front-runners in Florida.
"We're going to talk about the Constitution and talk about being a strong conservative," Santorum said at an event here this week. "And that's all we can do."
Outside advisers are urging him to pack up in Florida completely and not spend another minute in a state where he is cruising toward a loss.
Santorum seem to be listening. He has yet to announce his primary day schedule but says it was a mistake for him to remain in South Carolina on its primary day.
"We can't let grass grow," he told reporters Thursday. "South Carolina Election Day was sort of a wasted day for us."

http://news.yahoo.com/tired-broke-santorum-heads-home-taxes-084655933.html

bendog
01-27-2012, 09:35 AM
So, back when Ds had the presidency and congress, did they do something to change this? If it's so clear and the Rs are the villains, surely the Ds saw it and saw the opportunity to pounce and ensure Americans saw the Rs for what they are, right?

No... Obama made good on a pledge to ensure gays could wave their rainbow flags in the military.

You say Rs are the guilty party but the Ds aren't changing anything. They had 2 years to do whatever they wanted and what you speak of wasn't on their list of things to worry about. Keep blaming one side.

I'm no obama fan, but imo you can't put that on the dims. There's at least 60% support in the public at large and near universal support from elected dims that taxes on the wealthiest should rise, and even some in the gop were admitting that in 2008. Obama squandered his supermajority on Obamacare and porkulus rather than addressing more populist issues.

And now, if it were not for Norquist and Delay, we'd have a deal cutting trillions in spending in exchange for a few hundred billion in additional revenue. If you want change, there's only party to vote for. If you want status quo, Mitt's your guy. And the dims won't be able to do squat unless they retake the House despite Obama's and Pelosi's incompetence.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 09:59 AM
I'm no obama fan, but imo you can't put that on the dims. There's at least 60% support in the public at large and near universal support from elected dims that taxes on the wealthiest should rise, and even some in the gop were admitting that in 2008. Obama squandered his supermajority on Obamacare and porkulus rather than addressing more populist issues.

And now, if it were not for Norquist and Delay, we'd have a deal cutting trillions in spending in exchange for a few hundred billion in additional revenue. If you want change, there's only party to vote for. If you want status quo, Mitt's your guy. And the dims won't be able to do squat unless they retake the House despite Obama's and Pelosi's incompetence.

In back to back sentences you say Obama squandered his opportunity then say vote for him to get change. It appears we should expect the status quo from either.

bendog
01-27-2012, 10:31 AM
In back to back sentences you say Obama squandered his opportunity then say vote for him to get change. It appears we should expect the status quo from either.

Obama is not opposed to altering the tax code, and all goper candidates are opposed. In fact, any goper who is open to any alteration will be terminated by Norquist and DeMint. Is that clear enough?

Drek
01-27-2012, 12:45 PM
In back to back sentences you say Obama squandered his opportunity then say vote for him to get change. It appears we should expect the status quo from either.

Obama's problem even when the dems had congress and the senate is that the democratic party is a varied group with wide ranging political views, and therefore control doesn't mean a blank check.

I can't recall who it was but I recently heard an interview with a politico talking about how the real issue in Washington is that the most liberal republican is still extremely far right from the most conservative democrat. A little over a decade ago the most right democrat was more conservative than the most left republican. This change wasn't both sides pulling away from the middle. It was one side moving itself extremely far to it's side while the other remained largely in place.

This is the division in politics that keeps bi-partisan work off the tables. Obama for whatever reason didn't believe this and spent a good chunk of his first two years trying to reach bi-partisan consensus on issues when the entire GOP refused to even talk about it. Hell, Obamacare has less federal control over the day to day operation of health care services than Nixon's own proposal for comprehensive health care.

Richard freaking NIXON was further left than the entire GOP right now. He actually worked with Ted Kennedy to try and push through universal healthcare. But now that **** is apparently a far left demon used to subjugate us under the governmental yoke.

A party who's constituency refuses to give any credence to contemporary scientific theory (evolution and climate change) in favor of what makes them feel better, leading to a political stable of ideologues. That isn't middle America.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 12:51 PM
Obama's problem even when the dems had congress and the senate is that the democratic party is a varied group with wide ranging political views, and therefore control doesn't mean a blank check.

I can't recall who it was but I recently heard an interview with a politico talking about how the real issue in Washington is that the most liberal republican is still extremely far right from the most conservative democrat. A little over a decade ago the most right democrat was more conservative than the most left republican. This change wasn't both sides pulling away from the middle. It was one side moving itself extremely far to it's side while the other remained largely in place.

This is the division in politics that keeps bi-partisan work off the tables. Obama for whatever reason didn't believe this and spent a good chunk of his first two years trying to reach bi-partisan consensus on issues when the entire GOP refused to even talk about it. Hell, Obamacare has less federal control over the day to day operation of health care services than Nixon's own proposal for comprehensive health care.

Richard freaking NIXON was further left than the entire GOP right now. He actually worked with Ted Kennedy to try and push through universal healthcare. But now that **** is apparently a far left demon used to subjugate us under the governmental yoke.

A party who's constituency refuses to give any credence to contemporary scientific theory (evolution and climate change) in favor of what makes them feel better, leading to a political stable of ideologues. That isn't middle America.

LOL

In what world have Ds not become more liberal over the last decade? Rs went right, Ds went left.

BroncoInferno
01-27-2012, 01:04 PM
LOL

In what world have Ds not become more liberal over the last decade? Rs went right, Ds went left.

Give specific examples of how the views of the Democrats have gone further to the left. Give us a policy that the Democrats are more liberal on than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Drek offered healthcare as an example where both Republicans and Dems have shift to the right (the GOP much further right than the Dems, obviously). Let's see your examples.

alkemical
01-27-2012, 01:57 PM
LOL

In what world have Ds not become more liberal over the last decade? Rs went right, Ds went left.

“It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.”

Robert Anton Wilson quotes (American sci-fi Author, b.1932)

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 01:59 PM
Give specific examples of how the views of the Democrats have gone further to the left. Give us a policy that the Democrats are more liberal on than they were 15 or 20 years ago. Drek offered healthcare as an example where both Republicans and Dems have shift to the right (the GOP much further right than the Dems, obviously). Let's see your examples.

Gay rights.

I win.

alkemical
01-27-2012, 02:01 PM
Gay rights.

I win.

Is that like Women's rights, or Equal Rights?

I mean, that's a pretty liberal idea.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 02:03 PM
Obama is not opposed to altering the tax code, and all goper candidates are opposed. In fact, any goper who is open to any alteration will be terminated by Norquist and DeMint. Is that clear enough?

I thought I responded to this but apparently it didn't go through.

Saying Obama will enact change and then saying what you meant was that he's "not opposed" to it is quite dishonest.

The fact is that Obama had a chance to enact what he felt was important and he chose Obamacare and gay rights as his priorities.

Wouldn't tax reform that'd change the way the country operates be more important than a couple thousand people (if even that high, of course) who have gotten discharged from the military over the last decade?

So which is it? Is Obama not that concerned with tax reform or does he just have really crappy priorities?

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 02:04 PM
Is that like Women's rights, or Equal Rights?

I mean, that's a pretty liberal idea.

Gay marriage then, if you'd prefer?

Don't waste my time playing semantics.

BroncoInferno
01-27-2012, 02:07 PM
Gay rights.

I win.

Economically speaking (I think you knew that's what I meant).

Paladin
01-27-2012, 02:11 PM
BI, he's just spouting idiology and Faux Noise bs. All righties throw stuff out there, but when they are asked to document, they wilt like a two-dollar suit in a ho house.....

In fact, the Affordable Healthcare Act was actually pilfered from the Heritage Foundation, a Righty Organization. And Romney took that and did it in Mass. Did you know Obama's proposal was based entirely on using the private health insurances, and there is NO government run health care services in it? The $500 million removed from Medicare was actually the savings from the highly successful medicare capitation efforts known as the Medicare Advantage Plans. Seniors have not lost a bit of their health care under Medicare, and have gained significant preventive services (Silver Sneakers program, early detection evaluations, case management for illness and followup,and call-in nurses for medical advice, and annual chaeckups, Diabetes care and a slue of others) and savings in medication benefits. That last was originally a Backroom deal by Bushie to stem the Seniors' moves to import meds from Canada (Go BIG PHARMA. You are saving me a helacious amount of money). Too bad Bushie didn't pay for it. But it got folded into the Affordable Healthcare Act and is being paid for now. And yes, Seniors pay a small premium and low co-pays for phsycian and hospital services in the capitated programs. Don't believe me? look it up and talk to a Senior in your neighborhood.

Obama offered BONER a deal to cut $ 4 TRILLION dollars in the debt, in exchange for a very modest increase in taxes on millionaires. But Boner walked away. How about Military spending (the rate of increase has been slowed, not cut), and how about drilling, baby?. Did you hear that Obama is opening up a lot more or the Gulf for explorations? Did you hear his message on the use of Natural gas for cars and trucks. Did you hear that UPS has gone Natural and has a new refilling station in Las Vegas? They can move stuff from Long Beach to SLC on Nataural gas. We may see incentives for teh establishment of Ntural gass stations along teh highways before long, and in the cities. Natural Gas and electric motor cars.... WOW!!!! Did you know that American dependance on foriegn oil is less than 50% compared to a few years ago? Did you know that American businesses have created 3 million jobs last year alone? These were not governemt jobs, guys. American business. Do you suppose that Pakistan sees Obama as soft on terriorists? Bin Laden is gently rolling along at the bottom of the sea, and 29 Al Queda leaders have been dispatched to date. Do you think that Quaddafi is resting comfortably in a hole in the desert? And I would think that Somali pirates are having Pavlovia resposes to the sounds of helicopters about now. Man, I think Obama is ruthless against terrorists.

He sounds like a liberal Republican to me.

If you believe that he is a socialst, how about you look at the European countries to which Mittens like to refer fondly? They are socialist governments. Know what? They are trying to deal with their deficits by cutting expenditures, and taking away benefits. How's that working out? Obama wants to use a combination of methods: Some modest increases in revenues, some restructuring of Medicare, Medicaid and other health servies, and other reductions in the Military and (like cutting the double engine stuff in Boner's district).

I think that the Tighty Whitey Righties around here are full of crap and just lose their cookies over Obama because he is "not like them". Yep. The whole food stamp crapola is the clencher.

Don't believe any of this? Look it up, but don't distort the facts..

Obama/Biden 2012..

Drek
01-27-2012, 02:46 PM
Gay rights.

I win.

I thought republicans were proud to be the "acceptance" party? After all, it was the party of Lincoln and many of your civil rights champions were republicans.

Being a bigot doesn't restrict you to either side of political ideology.

Drek
01-27-2012, 02:49 PM
Obama offered BONER a deal to cut $ 4 TRILLION dollars in the debt, in exchange for a very modest increase in taxes on millionaires. But Boner walked away.

To be fair Boehner was on board, he just couldn't get any republicans in the house to go with him.

Paladin
01-27-2012, 04:47 PM
I don't diasgree. However, his remarks later placed the blame on Obama for the failure. Remember he kept saying that "I can't deal with him"? Basically, BONER is a liar. He cannot deal with his own caucus, and prefers to put the blame somewhere else rather than be a man about it. How about: "I think it is a good proposal, but the caucus (read Cantor and Ryan) will not approve it." Honesty and job performanace are not his strong suits.....


To the gay marriage issue: some nutjob is carping about that. Does that nutjob understand that marriages are controlled and defined by the States? That was one of those tricky items in the Constitution that reserved authority to the States. Interesting that the Constitution is used or ignored as the Tighty Whitie Righties want. Right Alinsky?

Who said it: "The Constitution says what a judge says it says" ?

Cito Pelon
01-27-2012, 06:44 PM
I am no supporter of the GOP, as my previous posts show. However, this is typical class warfare drivel from the Democrat talking points.

7 of the top 10 richest in congress are democrats. Manipulation, lying, and cheating work for them too.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/seven-of-the-ten-richest-congressman-are-democrats/

In my opinion, government worked a lot better for the people when we had citizen legislators, rather than "professionals". By and large, legislators from both parties seek to line their pockets rather than serve the public.

If someone earned their money the honest way, THEN NO ONE HAS ANY CLAIM TO IT. Don't hate, get off your ass and earn your own.

But those Democrats are willing to increase the tax rate on themselves...

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 06:54 PM
Economically speaking (I think you knew that's what I meant).

I honestly didn't consider only economics. That part didn't click.

Considering how close they were to a balanced budget amendment in the early 90s, I'd say there were plenty of Ds on board then. Now you mention BBA and the Ds take up arms. Is that not a shift?

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 06:55 PM
I thought republicans were proud to be the "acceptance" party? After all, it was the party of Lincoln and many of your civil rights champions were republicans.

Being a bigot doesn't restrict you to either side of political ideology.

You thought wrong?

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 06:57 PM
To the gay marriage issue: some nutjob is carping about that. Does that nutjob understand that marriages are controlled and defined by the States? That was one of those tricky items in the Constitution that reserved authority to the States. Interesting that the Constitution is used or ignored as the Tighty Whitie Righties want. Right Alinsky?


This is where nutjobs like Epic and I differ. He screams state's rights in one argument then screams for federal regulation in the next. I'm perfectly fine with states legalizing it. I just want no federal money to go to a person that wouldn't go to two single men or two single women. Beyond that, marry to your heart's content. There will remain conservative enclaves and that's all anyone can ask for.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 06:59 PM
But those Democrats are willing to increase the tax rate on themselves...

People say Ron Paul would get things put in bills and then vote against it because he knew he could maintain his ideological stance and get the benefits as well.

If a D doesn't increase taxes when they could've passed it but as soon as Rs get a majority, they start screaming for those tax raises... isn't it possible a similar thing is happening? Isn't it possible they waited on tax reform until they knew it wouldn't pass?

BroncoFanatic
01-27-2012, 08:01 PM
People say Ron Paul would get things put in bills and then vote against it because he knew he could maintain his ideological stance and get the benefits as well.

If a D doesn't increase taxes when they could've passed it but as soon as Rs get a majority, they start screaming for those tax raises... isn't it possible a similar thing is happening? Isn't it possible they waited on tax reform until they knew it wouldn't pass?

Ron Paul has been consistent for 20 years, and his voting record is consistent with what he says. Whoever these "people" are that you mention are clueless or liars, take your pick

Spider
01-27-2012, 08:01 PM
Anyone here that votes rep is a ****ing Idiot , cant put it any clearer then that ..yeah the Dems have their problems and far from perfect , but they are light years ahead of the pedophile party ( got proof see my thread in the WRP forum some reps Idea of family values) ..........Ron Paul is a joke . Always has been always will be ......And MHMJ and the rest of you yahoos dont hand me no faux news talking points I dont want to hear them ...

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 08:09 PM
Ron Paul has been consistent for 20 years, and his voting record is consistent with what he says. Whoever these "people" are that you mention are clueless or liars, take your pick

I used it as an example of a theory. Whether he does it or not is really immaterial.

Cito Pelon
01-27-2012, 08:17 PM
People say Ron Paul would get things put in bills and then vote against it because he knew he could maintain his ideological stance and get the benefits as well.

If a D doesn't increase taxes when they could've passed it but as soon as Rs get a majority, they start screaming for those tax raises... isn't it possible a similar thing is happening? Isn't it possible they waited on tax reform until they knew it wouldn't pass?

IIRC there was so many deals trying to be made between the two parties because the economy was in such a horrible mess the Bush tax cuts were left alone, tabled to be dealt with later.

You have a point, sure. IIRC, as issues came up later a bipartisan deal was struck where the Bush tax cuts would stay in effect, and in return the GOP agreed to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

I'd like to see more bipartisan deals struck like that, some give and take. As mentioned above Obama/Boehner struck a nice deal to reduce the deficit and increase some taxes, but the Tea Party stood in the way and Boehner was furious with them, but he had to stick with the party line quite a bit.

The bottom line is I'd like to see that bipartisan deal get done to decrease spending and at the same time increase some taxes here and there. Boehner stuck his neck out to make a really, really nice bipartisan deal, so did Obama, and the Tea Party and Norquist f'd it up.

We'll see what happens, but I sure hope the Dems and GOP can get some give and take going so we can move forward instead of bicker and stagnate.

That One Guy
01-27-2012, 08:22 PM
IIRC there was so many deals trying to be made between the two parties because the economy was in such a horrible mess the Bush tax cuts were left alone, tabled to be dealt with later.

You have a point, sure. IIRC, as issues came up later a bipartisan deal was struck where the Bush tax cuts would stay in effect, and in return the GOP agreed to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.

I'd like to see more bipartisan deals struck like that, some give and take. As mentioned above Obama/Boehner struck a nice deal to reduce the deficit and increase some taxes, but the Tea Party stood in the way and Boehner was furious with them, but he had to stick with the party line quite a bit.

The bottom line is I'd like to see that bipartisan deal get done to decrease spending and at the same time increase some taxes here and there. Boehner stuck his neck out to make a really, really nice bipartisan deal, so did Obama, and the Tea Party and Norquist f'd it up.

We'll see what happens, but I sure hope the Dems and GOP can get some give and take going so we can move forward instead of bicker and stagnate.

There shouldn't be this many differences in opinion between the parties. They can't (and shouldn't) be compromising on everything. Most of government should be common sense. Things like tax rates can be a compromise but running a deficit that risks our credit rating shouldn't really be left to compromises...

Cito Pelon
01-27-2012, 08:41 PM
There shouldn't be this many differences in opinion between the parties. They can't (and shouldn't) be compromising on everything. Most of government should be common sense. Things like tax rates can be a compromise but running a deficit that risks our credit rating shouldn't really be left to compromises...

Yeah, I'd like to see some more moderate sensibilities from both sides, but we have ultra-leftwing people busting Obama's chops to do this and do that, then you have ultra-rightwing people busting out on the GOP leadership to do this and do that.

Those ultra-wing nuts on both sides have to be placated to some degree. I'd like to see the wings neutralized, that's the ultimate object to me.

BroncoFanatic
01-27-2012, 10:46 PM
Anyone here that votes rep is a ****ing Idiot , cant put it any clearer then that ..yeah the Dems have their problems and far from perfect , but they are light years ahead of the pedophile party ( got proof see my thread in the WRP forum some reps Idea of family values) ..........Ron Paul is a joke . Always has been always will be ......And MHMJ and the rest of you yahoos dont hand me no faux news talking points I dont want to hear them ...

Oddly enough, there are people who think you are a total ***ing idiot too. Go figure.

lonestar
01-28-2012, 01:07 AM
But those Democrats are willing to increase the tax rate on themselves...

Wana bet?

Just like their heathl care and pensions. Just like yours and mine. RIGHT?

lonestar
01-28-2012, 01:15 AM
Oddly enough, there are people who think you are a total ***ing idiot too. Go figure.

Yep. Count me as one who think that way.

How anyone can vote for a jackass party is beyond me..

TonyR
01-28-2012, 10:49 AM
[T]he terms of the Grand Bargain—entitlement cuts in exchange for higher taxes on the wealthy—remain the crux of our paralyzed deficit-reduction politics. Even if Obama loses in November, Democrats in Congress are going to continue insisting on those terms. And with the power of the routine filibuster on their side, as well as public sentiment in favor of hiking taxes on the rich, Democrats won't need control of the White House or either house of Congress in order to hold out for the Grand Bargain.http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2012/01/25/obama-win-or-loss-deficit-fix-will-still-require-a-grand-bargain

Spider
01-28-2012, 10:52 AM
Oddly enough, there are people who think you are a total ***ing idiot too. Go figure. voting against your best interest is what morons do , I dont do that you ****ing idiot .......

Spider
01-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Yep. Count me as one who think that way.

How anyone can vote for a jackass party is beyond me..

And I have seen what you want to do with the Elderly and sick .... Kick em out in the cold and let em die ..... You are pretty worthless kiddo

Paladin
01-28-2012, 11:56 AM
<IFRAME style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; TOP: -9999em" id=twttrHubFrame tabIndex=0 src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.html" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8493041 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8493041)
"I am confident with the leadership and the backing of the American people, President Obama will turn this country around," McCain said.

WOWZA!!!!!
<IMG style="DISPLAY: none" id=poke alt="Tracking Image" width=0 height=0>

That One Guy
01-28-2012, 11:58 AM
<IFRAME style="POSITION: absolute; WIDTH: 10px; HEIGHT: 10px; TOP: -9999em" id=twttrHubFrame tabIndex=0 src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1326407570.html" frameBorder=0 allowTransparency scrolling=no></IFRAME>http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8493041 (http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/politics&id=8493041)
"I am confident with the leadership and the backing of the American people, President Obama will turn this country around," McCain said.

WOWZA!!!!!
<IMG style="DISPLAY: none" id=poke alt="Tracking Image" width=0 height=0>

Wow...

Another reason for term limits. So senile old men don't maintain the position through name recognition even after their brains start to rot.

Paladin
01-28-2012, 11:58 AM
How anyone can vote for a jackass party is beyond me..

Because elephants leave more shyt behind?

Bronx33
01-28-2012, 11:59 AM
Wow...

Another reason for term limits. So senile old men don't maintain the position through name recognition even after their brains start to rot.


Those beatings in the hanoi hilton took their toll along time ago.

Drek
01-28-2012, 12:01 PM
You thought wrong?

Great. So if the GOP aren't the party of acceptance at this point, by your own admission, then doesn't that just underscore my original point of the GOP retreating further and further from anything perceived as middle?

I mean, you just admitted that the current GOP is far less accepting of others than the party was in the 60's and 70's when many of the party were proponents of universal suffrage. How is that anything but a massive shift away from the middle?

Its no longer the party of Teddy and Abe. Hell, it isn't even the party of Eisenhower and Nixon now. Its a bunch of scared, uneducated hillbillies believing every stupid line the financial nobility they worship feed them as long as its slathered with a thick coat of "Gawd and Jeezus bless Amuricah!" jingoism/xenophobia.

BroncoFanatic
01-28-2012, 12:12 PM
voting against your best interest is what morons do , I dont do that you ****ing idiot .......

My best interests are freedom and independence FROM government. You clearly don't have 2 working brain cells to rub together to figure that one out, so you vote for the nanny state. You'll be a good slave to the system, no doubt

bendog
01-28-2012, 12:13 PM
I thought I responded to this but apparently it didn't go through.

Saying Obama will enact change and then saying what you meant was that he's "not opposed" to it is quite dishonest.

The fact is that Obama had a chance to enact what he felt was important and he chose Obamacare and gay rights as his priorities.

Wouldn't tax reform that'd change the way the country operates be more important than a couple thousand people (if even that high, of course) who have gotten discharged from the military over the last decade?

So which is it? Is Obama not that concerned with tax reform or does he just have really crappy priorities?

I'm not sure why you can't track on this. Obama has ALWAYS BEEN FOR RAISING REVENUES FROM THE TOP EARNERS. ALWAYS. CONSISTENT. However, he used his legislative agenda to push universal healthcare (he promised Ted in exchange for an endorsement) and Porkulus. He had a two year window. Once the gop took the House any real econ reform on the debt and revenues became impossible for Obama or God for that matter.

And be very careful accusing me of dishonesty as I have not yet done so to you, though its getting very close.

ps. A problem the dims have is this need to "soak the rich," when that shouldn't be the issue. The gop no longer has moderates who would so what Reagan did and simply increase the amt of gnp that is taxed while keeping rates low.

houghtam
01-28-2012, 12:19 PM
My best interests are freedom and independence FROM government. You clearly don't have 2 working brain cells to rub together to figure that one out, so you vote for the nanny state. You'll be a good slave to the system, no doubt

Keep hiding behind that American flag, chum.

Bronx33
01-28-2012, 12:22 PM
As usual we are stuck voting for the lesser of the to evils i am sick and tired of this endless circle of presidential idiots the voters need to start taking control of this process by making a statement that forces them back into the sane world YOU KNOW WORKING FOR US THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THE BILLS.

now what would that be?

Paladin
01-28-2012, 12:24 PM
If Mittens "wins" Florida (BTW: who counts the chads?), could we see a third party movement? Maybe to that Intenet Party stuff? ( I disremember the name or details of that "group".) The gop "establishment" is reputed to be actively engaged in a campaign against Ginger. Extraordinary. Eating their own? Of course, Ginger is trying to be aguerrilla-type fighting teapublican. That would never do. Does that also mean that the 'establishment" is going to discourage teapublicans in local and State elections?

To be more objective, it is really extraordinary to see a political association beat up on itself. One issue is that Ginger exposed some soft underbelly issues for the well-to-do, and the prospect of a real populist movement agaisnt the gop is possible.

Must. Stomp. Ginger. Now. Can't have any of that honesty and truthfulness., And Gordon Gecko is the man for all Republicans, at least until he shat himself.....

There was a time when the Rrepublicans actually had some decent ideas. Now, I think they are bankrupt and are being herded by a few richie riches and the oil companies and big Coprorations and Big banks and BIG MONEY. Now that is American Exceptionalism, folks.

That One Guy
01-28-2012, 12:42 PM
I'm not sure why you can't track on this. Obama has ALWAYS BEEN FOR RAISING REVENUES FROM THE TOP EARNERS. ALWAYS. CONSISTENT. However, he used his legislative agenda to push universal healthcare (he promised Ted in exchange for an endorsement) and Porkulus. He had a two year window. Once the gop took the House any real econ reform on the debt and revenues became impossible for Obama or God for that matter.

And be very careful accusing me of dishonesty as I have not yet done so to you, though its getting very close.

ps. A problem the dims have is this need to "soak the rich," when that shouldn't be the issue. The gop no longer has moderates who would so what Reagan did and simply increase the amt of gnp that is taxed while keeping rates low.

First, I don't know you well enough to say you're a dishonest person but I did take your point as being dishonest. Obama had a chance to affect change and it just wasn't high enough on his list of priorities to get done. If it is truly the answer to fixing our financial situation as some would say, it should've been higher on his list of things to do.

At this point his reform is all talk and no action. He had his chance, he chose not to pursue it. So, again, while you may be one of the most honest people alive, to say Romney would be the status quo and imply that Obama WILL make changes is dishonest because when he had the opportunity to in the past, Obama did not make those changes despite him now claiming that it's the answer to all our woes.

Bronx33
01-28-2012, 12:55 PM
Hearing obamas state of the union managed to piss me off again and what really got me going is obamas willingness to assume voters are morons that refuse to find the facts themselves.

Example obama boasted Ener1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57367228/obama-backed-car-battery-maker-goes-bankrupt/) electric car battery company and they got $118 million stimulus grant from the Energy Department in 2009 part of the stimulus and renewable energy . Obama and his economic advisers know full well how their stocks are doing over this time or maybe they don't but we then find out Ener 1 filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Thursday and obama still throws it in his speech as an accomplishment.

Then theres “Beacon Power, which manufactures flywheel energy storage technology, received a $43 million loan guarantee from the same stimulus program that funded Solyndra. “Despite having used $3 million marked for loan repayment to continue funding its daily operations, Beacon filed for Chapter 11 in November.”

BroncoFanatic
01-28-2012, 01:56 PM
Keep hiding behind that American flag, chum.

So in your mind, voting for big government is patriotic? Some old dead dudes would disagree with you, and I agree with them:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the Tranquility of servitude better than the Animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.- Samuel Adams

EDIT: I'd like to add that, as I have maintained throughout this discussion, that the establishment Republicans are just as guilty of violating Constitutional principles as the Democrats. I would like nothing more than to encourage people to see past the false left/right paradigm that so many are still caught in.

Spider
01-28-2012, 02:09 PM
My best interests are freedom and independence FROM government. You clearly don't have 2 working brain cells to rub together to figure that one out, so you vote for the nanny state. You'll be a good slave to the system, no doubt

slave to the system that feeds your ass , Interstates Bridges , water , sewage , police , fire , all of that is the system you idiot .... News flash your local store just doesnt produce food out of thin air , it has to be shipped in , that takes infrastructure , I paid more in Taxes then you could ever phantom , from my IFTA tax ( the right to buy fuel) to my 1049 tax ( heavy haul tax) to my base plate etc ..... you have no ****ing Idea what the system is or how you use it every ****ing day ...... next time you take a shiat , find a hole dont use the toilet retard , the toilet is part of the system

Spider
01-28-2012, 02:13 PM
I paid 1,100 a month in a road use tax, thats just for the right to drive a truck on the interstate ....then each state has a different charge , and that is also applied for heavy haul and the 1049 tax and if I can pay that tax and make it a ****ing billionaire can cough some coin also ...... you dont have a ****ing clue

That One Guy
01-28-2012, 02:14 PM
So in your mind, voting for big government is patriotic? Some old dead dudes would disagree with you, and I agree with them:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the Tranquility of servitude better than the Animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.- Samuel Adams

EDIT: I'd like to add that, as I have maintained throughout this discussion, that the establishment Republicans are just as guilty of violating Constitutional principles as the Democrats. I would like nothing more than to encourage people to see past the false left/right paradigm that so many are still caught in.

Even if the lady in your avatar can't salute, you make a great point. It's interesting how many claim to not be affiliated with any party yet defend it to the death. They obviously see the issues but refuse to break free.

When I was younger, a Christian friend used to love the line, "If you were put on trial for your religion, would there be enough evidence to find you guilty?" and that can be used here, as well. There's so many that claim not to be a part of a party but then never take any opposing stance. There's very few that if put on trial to see whether they were republican/democrat wouldn't be found guilty. Yet we all try to deny it in name.

Spider
01-28-2012, 02:27 PM
goofy bastard seen the matrix 1 to many times

BroncoFanatic
01-28-2012, 02:39 PM
slave to the system that feeds your ass , Interstates Bridges , water , sewage , police , fire , all of that is the system you idiot .... News flash your local store just doesnt produce food out of thin air , it has to be shipped in , that takes infrastructure , I paid more in Taxes then you could ever phantom , from my IFTA tax ( the right to buy fuel) to my 1049 tax ( heavy haul tax) to my base plate etc ..... you have no ****ing Idea what the system is or how you use it every ****ing day ...... next time you take a shiat , find a hole dont use the toilet retard , the toilet is part of the system

I paid 1,100 a month in a road use tax, thats just for the right to drive a truck on the interstate ....then each state has a different charge , and that is also applied for heavy haul and the 1049 tax and if I can pay that tax and make it a ****ing billionaire can cough some coin also ...... you dont have a ****ing clue

Most, damn near all, of the infrastructure you mention is done at the state and local level, not the federal. Even the roads were not under federal oversight until the interstate highway system was created. I am against large FEDERAL government, and I am against INTRUSIVE AND/OR OPPRESSIVE government at ANY LEVEL.

Clear enough for you there Einstein?

As for the rest of your rambling, foaming at the mouth rant, I DON"T GIVE A SHIAT for your whining about what you pay in taxes, we all pay them. Smaller government would allow us all to pay lower (or no) taxes. Perhaps you don't like that idea, you like getting financially raped by big government?

Spider
01-28-2012, 02:42 PM
Most, damn near all, of the infrastructure you mention is done at the state and local level, not the federal. Bullshiat , they get fed money .. you really need to learn what your yapping about
when you learn what your opining your cork sucker about look me up

Tombstone RJ
01-28-2012, 02:43 PM
I paid 1,100 a month in a road use tax, thats just for the right to drive a truck on the interstate ....then each state has a different charge , and that is also applied for heavy haul and the 1049 tax and if I can pay that tax and make it a ****ing billionaire can cough some coin also ...... you dont have a ****ing clue

that sucks...

Spider
01-28-2012, 02:47 PM
that sucks...

yeah it does , but we do more damage , we are on the road alot more ;) so I guess it is fair

BroncoFanatic
01-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Bullshiat , they get fed money .. you really need to learn what your yapping about
when you learn what your opining your cork sucker about look me up

Federal subsidies are a relatively recent phenomenon, in terms of our country's history. The last 40-50 years, as a quick guess. Started small, has now gotten much larger, of course. The feds use these subsidies as leverage to control the states.

You come across as very arrogant. Ignorant and arrogant are a bad combination. Is your high post count attributable to this? People IRL can't stand you, so you just post your rantings here?

Spider
01-28-2012, 03:19 PM
Federal subsidies are a relatively recent phenomenon, in terms of our country's history. The last 40-50 years, as a quick guess. Started small, has now gotten much larger, of course. The feds use these subsidies as leverage to control the states.

You come across as very arrogant. Ignorant and arrogant are a bad combination. Is your high post count attributable to this? People IRL can't stand you, so you just post your rantings here?

you are so full of shiat ...... seriously stop trying to justify your stupidity ...... I dont give a rats ass how I come off , Last thing I am worried about is what some retard on the internet thinks ....... you was wrong about the Feds and the highway system , you are wrong about the feds and the city infrastructure , now you answer with this bullshiat ......

Paladin
01-28-2012, 03:36 PM
[QUOTE=BroncoFanatic;3478818]
You come across as very arrogant. Ignorant and arrogant are a bad combination. QUOTE]

What's your point?

I think you probably over-react too much, and when the argument goes against you, you look for the teacher to help you out, like Rummy: "Anderson, Anderson, it's my turn".....

To be fair, Spider is probably a bit arrogant - he's a Knight of the Road, for Cris'sake - but he is not ignorant.

Okay, maybe un-schooled a bit. Well, maybe academically challenged. But life experience is a bit more important than you using big words and dumb assumptions.....

Just saying, you fail....

Bronx33
01-28-2012, 03:51 PM
Federal subsidies are a relatively recent phenomenon, in terms of our country's history. The last 40-50 years, as a quick guess. Started small, has now gotten much larger, of course. The feds use these subsidies as leverage to control the states.

You come across as very arrogant. Ignorant and arrogant are a bad combination. Is your high post count attributable to this? People IRL can't stand you, so you just post your rantings here?


Hes not arrogant his skull is extremely thick :~ohyah!: he means well and we probably would agree on a lot of stuff but he wont budge on anything you say even if your right.

BroncoFanatic
01-28-2012, 04:07 PM
What's your point?

I think you probably over-react too much, and when the argument goes against you, you look for the teacher to help you out, like Rummy: "Anderson, Anderson, it's my turn".....

To be fair, Spider is probably a bit arrogant - he's a Knight of the Road, for Cris'sake - but he is not ignorant.

Okay, maybe un-schooled a bit. Well, maybe academically challenged. But life experience is a bit more important than you using big words and dumb assumptions.....

Just saying, you fail....

Overreact? Maybe a tad, but when someone's argument is all insult and no substance, I take exception.

My "dumb assumptions" are from studying history, but whatever. I have no problem debating with the hard left progressive types like you and some of the others, when it is actual debate, rather than insults. I'm closing in on 50, been around the world, served in the military. Life experience is not in short supply.

Rummy = Rumsfeld? Worst of the worst of neocons. Not sure where I ever "looked for the teacher to help out", that sounds a bit patronizing, and not warranted imo. Whatevs...

My political philosophy comes from the founding documents. Some of you guys sound like your philosophy came from Karl Marx, to be honest.

10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, all of which revolve around heavy control by central government:



Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


Just sayin'...

fdf
01-28-2012, 07:23 PM
Why the hell would American unions give 2 ****s about Chinese workers? They care about their members, that is who pays them.

Not really. They have it set up so the union members have no choice but to pay them. Also the non-union members in a lot of places. Unless it's a right to work state, you have to give the union its payola in order to work in any place that is unionized, even if you don't belong to the union and even if you can't stand how the union spends the money.

Union leaders care about the politicians they have bought. Those are the folks who keep them in power, not their members. Of course, those politicians also care very much about the union leaders. That's about 3/4th's of Californias deficit and unfunded pension liabilites right there. Politicians who love union leaders too much and union leaders who love their politicians too much.

Paladin
01-28-2012, 07:36 PM
Do you include all the amendments to the "Founding Documents", or are you counting man black as a 3/5th person. Do you allow women to vote on your little planet? How about Booze? It was forbidden in the Constitution at one time and them repealed. Which side do you stand for? There are some trappings in the Constitution, sport, and it has been amended a bunch of times. Maybe it is more of a living document than you give it credit for. Why, I understand that a group of scalawags want to amend the Constitution to include a Balanced Budget Amendment. How dare they? That was not in the original Document. If you live only by the Consitution, watch out!!! It can change on you .......

About those "planks": 2 and 10 have some merit, don't you think? Now can you tell us why Marxism failed? Can you tell us how this current economic system is under duress? Tell us, o 50 year old military cook world traveler.

houghtam
01-28-2012, 07:47 PM
Not really. They have it set up so the union members have no choice but to pay them. Also the non-union members in a lot of places. Unless it's a right to work state, you have to give the union its payola in order to work in any place that is unionized, even if you don't belong to the union and even if you can't stand how the union spends the money.

Union leaders care about the politicians they have bought. Those are the folks who keep them in power, not their members. Of course, those politicians also care very much about the union leaders. That's about 3/4th's of Californias deficit and unfunded pension liabilites right there. Politicians who love union leaders too much and union leaders who love their politicians too much.

It's true.

It's also interesting to hear what That One Guy said about being on trial for being a party member. Obviously in such a trial, anyone found guilty of agreeing with ANY viewpoint held by a particular party would be found guilty, but I submit to you that I am fairly consistent on quite a few things. For example I am anti-abortion (in nearly every case), yet am also anti-death penalty. I find it humorous and revolting that a person could say that an unborn fetus cannot be killed out of one side of their mouth while condemning a criminal to death out of the other. Pro-life my ass.

BroncoFanatic
01-29-2012, 08:55 AM
Do you include all the amendments to the "Founding Documents", or are you counting man black as a 3/5th person. Do you allow women to vote on your little planet? How about Booze? It was forbidden in the Constitution at one time and them repealed. Which side do you stand for? There are some trappings in the Constitution, sport, and it has been amended a bunch of times. Maybe it is more of a living document than you give it credit for. Why, I understand that a group of scalawags want to amend the Constitution to include a Balanced Budget Amendment. How dare they? That was not in the original Document. If you live only by the Consitution, watch out!!! It can change on you .......

About those "planks": 2 and 10 have some merit, don't you think? Now can you tell us why Marxism failed? Can you tell us how this current economic system is under duress? Tell us, o 50 year old military cook world traveler.

The 3/5 clause was not measuring a person's worth, it was to establish representation based on population. You'd know that if you did a little reading.

You are citing later amendments, some of which were good, some bad (16th and 17th are horrible)

It's not the amendments that I refer to, it is the abuses of the "general welfare" clause and the "commerce clause". Abuses are legion by politicians when it is convenient for them.

Marxist point 2 and 10 do not "have merit", no. Government used to, and could still, fund itself without an income tax. It would just require some self discipline by out legislators (...waits for laughter to die down...).

That "free" education is not free, and you know it. Our children were getting a far better education before the government stepped in and took over. The government mandates all the politically correct crap, and focuses less on actual learning. It is really more of an indoctrination than an education now. Critical thinking is discouraged.

Just like old Karl had in mind

Paladin
01-29-2012, 11:12 AM
BF, you are such a boor, not worth reponding to, so I wont.

In reading the papers this morning, I remain impressed that President Obama had proposed a number of ideas to implement his view of the future. Mittens was quoted again attacking Obama. There were a number of articles Oboma's proposals about moving forward on tax code reform and infrastrucure needs. Mittens attacked Obama again. There was an article about Gingers' misuse of the "elite" tag when referring to the media. He aslo said that other candidates lied, and did not have a vision like going to the moon. Mittens attacked Obama again. I discern a pettern here.

Mittens does not have a proposal. I guess he wants you to trust that he will have one right after the "Strategy Meeeting", and before the "Acquistion Targets" Meeting. While talking with the press, he will attack Obama again. But not propose anything.

Mittens will learn that he cannot repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act. So he will say, "Darn it", and attack Obama again for putting that in the Constitution.

I have noticed a serious lack of ingenuity and intelligence in the "Debates" largely because they want to attack Obama, each other or the media. What is it they wish to accomplish over the next four years besides attacking Obama? I can see Mittens going to his grave attacking Obama. Not a new idea will he have spewed.

The big Quesiton: Can a multimillionaire capture the Presidential election by just attacking Obama? No new ideas, just attacking Obama.

Bronx33
01-29-2012, 11:49 AM
Is holding obama accountable for his actions since 2008 acceptable?

Paladin
01-29-2012, 02:17 PM
Accountable is different from attacking. Mittens never says what he would propose differently. No, these are not efforts to have "accountability". These are attacks.

Again, What would Mittens do differently? What would he propose to deal witht eh crumbling infrastructure? What would he propose to deal with the percieved inequities in teh tax code> What would he prpose regarding energy and alternative energy? Wht would his plan be for Afghanistan? What would he propose to countere Iran? What would he propose to do in the Middle East? How would he deal with Egypt? What would be his plan to keep BP or whomever from soilng th eenvironment. What would he propose to deal with the Debt and yet maintain Federal services (Courts, FBI, Military, Port inspections, Drug interventions. What would he propose to do with the Housing situation?

There are thousands of issues, and he just attacks by saying, "The Obama administration has failed." Which policy, specifically does he object tom and what would he propose differntly. He is running a negative campaign that doesn't say anything. Even crusty old Ron Paul says more about what he would propose than smooth, suave, sophisticated Mittens. He is a blah, brah.

BroncoFanatic
01-29-2012, 02:32 PM
You haven't offered any substance, so I can understand why you would stop responding. Insult and/or ignore, pretty much what Mr Alinsky would have you hard core lefties do, since there is no rational argument for that side.

Oh and Obama = Romney, 2 sides of the same coin. But enjoy the fantasy that there is a difference.

Paladin
01-29-2012, 02:49 PM
You haven't offered any substance, so I can understand why you would stop responding. Insult and/or ignore, pretty much what Mr Alinsky would have you hard core lefties do, since there is no rational argument for that side.

Oh and Obama = Romney, 2 sides of the same coin. But enjoy the fantasy that there is a difference.

Do you know who Saul Alinsky was? Does the Tea Party use his methods? How many "points" did he have in his book? What was he doing when he wrote his book? Education is the method we as a society use to convey information and knowledge our children need to become contributors to the society at large. It is free to the children, and yes, we pay. I pay gladly for it. If that makes us socialists. then so be it. I attended a Catholic school, so I still got the education through my church and I also attended a State University.

You seem to be an anarchist. This is the type and style of argument an anarchist would like. I don't think anarchists like you deserve a hearing, I will do not deal with closed minded boors like you. So, Pi$$ off....

Spider
01-29-2012, 03:15 PM
You haven't offered any substance, so I can understand why you would stop responding. Insult and/or ignore, pretty much what Mr Alinsky would have you hard core lefties do, since there is no rational argument for that side.

Oh and Obama = Romney, 2 sides of the same coin. But enjoy the fantasy that there is a difference.

:rofl: your a freak .....seriously .... Paladin has kicked your ass 7 different ways from sunday

BroncoBuff
01-29-2012, 04:33 PM
The 3/5 clause was not measuring a person's worth, it was to establish representation based on population. You'd know that if you did a little reading.

You are citing later amendments, some of which were good, some bad (16th and 17th are horrible)

It's not the amendments that I refer to, it is the abuses of the "general welfare" clause and the "commerce clause". Abuses are legion by politicians when it is convenient for them.

You're right about the 3/5 clause, that's widely misunderstood. But the rest of what you're saying there ... you do realize "abuse" is a subjective term? I suppose most observers agree the scope of the Commerce Clause was over-blown by the Wickard decision, but you really veer off course complaining about "abuses" of the General Welfare clause. Sorry, but you're just wrong.

The Welfare Clause is worded "shall," which means Congress MUST legislate for the general welfare. They have no choice, it's their job. Even the narrow James Madison types don't dispute Congress CAN do this, they merely argue they SHOULD not do some of the things they do. So really what we have here is a policy dispute, not a Constitutional debate.

That really bothers me, how Tea Party people yell "unconstitutional!" about issues that are nothing more than policy disagreements. I think they do so because the word "Constitution" sounds so lofty, so much more serious. It's a shock-value thing, pretty pathetic if you ask me.



That "free" education is not free, and you know it. Our children were getting a far better education before the government stepped in and took over. The government mandates all the politically correct crap, and focuses less on actual learning. It is really more of an indoctrination than an education now. Critical thinking is discouraged.
Am I reading this right ... American public schools indoctrinate? Discourage critical thinking? That is fringe stuff. Primary and even secondary education are free-enterprise ventures in this country. Public, Catholic, other parochial, vouchers, Montessori, home-schooling, there's a wild-west, wide open world of choices, their methods and curriculums (curriculae?) open to see. And accordingly, "indoctrination" is really not possible.

You realize you are way way out there with some of your positions, right? I have no problem with your right to believe them or advocate them, but just to be clear, they're fringe positions.

BroncoBuff
01-29-2012, 04:44 PM
Another thing: The United States Constitution is a living document by definition. Within the Constitution itself are detailed procedures for changing it. Any document that plans for itself to be changed is alive by any definition I can muster.

Your problem with the 16th Amendment … whatever, taxes are boring. But the 17th Amendment… there’s widespread agreement this was a good thing. Allowing state legislatures to elect U.S. Senators is the perfect recipe for corruption. It's vertical corruption gone viral ... how far removed must the voter be? U.S. Senators are far too powerful to be elected by just a few dozen politicians.

BroncoFanatic
01-29-2012, 05:44 PM
LOL, so far you guys have tried to label me with Rumsfeld, with the Tea Party, and as an anarchist. Fringe? I suppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution might be "fringe" in today's society, but that doesn't put me in the wrong, just maybe a minority. It certainly didn't use to be a fringe position, and the country is much worse off for the change.

Spider, you are irrelevent to the conversation. Paladin, you are just plain wrong. Some of you have had decent remarks, and just disagree. I can respect that. I would fight for you all to keep your right to voice your opinions too. From the left, it seems free speech is ok as long as you agree with them, otherwise they want you to shut up. "Hypocrite" is the term for that.

houghtam
01-29-2012, 05:53 PM
LOL, so far you guys have tried to label me with Rumsfeld, with the Tea Party, and as an anarchist. Fringe? I suppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution might be "fringe" in today's society, but that doesn't put me in the wrong, just maybe a minority. It certainly didn't use to be a fringe position, and the country is much worse off for the change.

Spider, you are irrelevent to the conversation. Paladin, you are just plain wrong. Some of you have had decent remarks, and just disagree. I can respect that. I would fight for you all to keep your right to voice your opinions too. From the left, it seems free speech is ok as long as you agree with them, otherwise they want you to shut up. "Hypocrite" is the term for that.

Big difference between wanting someone to shut up and requiring them to shut up. Your more than welcome to give us our daily dose of O-Mane crazy, but please...just shut up.

BroncoBuff
01-29-2012, 05:55 PM
I suppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution might be "fringe" in today's society, but that doesn't put me in the wrong, just maybe a minority.
Strict interpretation of the Constitution as a whole is okay ... but to dismiss amendments as "unconstitutional," when in fact they were enacted using the procedures stated within the document itself, I think that qualifies as "wrong."


From the left, it seems free speech is ok as long as you agree with them, otherwise they want you to shut up. "Hypocrite" is the term for that.
Relax Debbie Drama, who tried to muzzle you? Nobody wants that, neither is hypocrite an appropriate term for either side.

houghtam
01-29-2012, 06:06 PM
Strict interpretation of the Constitution as a whole is okay ... but to dismiss amendments as "unconstitutional," when in fact they were enacted using the procedures stated within the document itself, I think that qualifies as "wrong."



Relax Debbie Drama, who tried to muzzle you? Nobody wants that, neither is hypocrite an appropriate term for either side.

Oh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Spider
01-29-2012, 09:03 PM
LOL, so far you guys have tried to label me with Rumsfeld, with the Tea Party, and as an anarchist. Fringe? I suppose a strict interpretation of the Constitution might be "fringe" in today's society, but that doesn't put me in the wrong, just maybe a minority. It certainly didn't use to be a fringe position, and the country is much worse off for the change.

Spider, you are irrelevent to the conversation. Paladin, you are just plain wrong. Some of you have had decent remarks, and just disagree. I can respect that. I would fight for you all to keep your right to voice your opinions too. From the left, it seems free speech is ok as long as you agree with them, otherwise they want you to shut up. "Hypocrite" is the term for that.
you are an idiot i had a run in with some people spewing the same shiat as you up in Montana ,minute men bunch of loud mouth pussies when push came to shove

Play2win
01-29-2012, 11:03 PM
It would be interesting to see how the framers engineered the Constitution, if it had happened after the (American) Industrial Revolution. I believe in progress, technology, and inovation. I believe most of the founders of this Nation did also.

ZONA
01-29-2012, 11:38 PM
The only dude who would even think of taking on Tebow.

http://www.sapiengames.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gladiator2.jpg

houghtam
01-30-2012, 12:00 AM
It would be interesting to see how the framers engineered the Constitution, if it had happened after the (American) Industrial Revolution. I believe in progress, technology, and inovation. I believe most of the founders of this Nation did also.

The case could also be made that the founders would be revolted at how religion plays such a strong role in government. It was Benjamin Franklin who said lighthouses are more useful than churches.

Archer81
01-30-2012, 12:06 AM
The case could also be made that the founders would be revolted at how religion plays such a strong role in government. It was Benjamin Franklin who said lighthouses are more useful than churches.


I believe that would depend on the founder.


:Broncos:

SPORTSWRITER
01-30-2012, 01:43 AM
Meh. Obama will win in a proverbial landslide.

With all due respect, that projection seems FOOLish w/o the "pseudo," but only time will tell. Just curious: What is it about Obama's policies that you find
good for America?

Paladin
01-30-2012, 10:31 AM
Which do you find that are bad? Remenber, I can check facts so you are not entitiled to make up your own.....


PS: Start with Alternative Energy....

Mile High Mojoe
01-30-2012, 12:57 PM
Which do you find that are bad? Remenber, I can check facts so you are not entitiled to make up your own.....


PS: Start with Alternative Energy....

Really, Alternative Energy you say? Now we a have 3 massive bankruptcies of Green/Alternative Energy companies supported by Obama and funded by American taxpayers. Do you see a trend here? These are the facts about the green energy fraud. Hopefully now you propeller heads and solar backpackers can get your heads out of your compose heaps and get some fresh air.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/January/Parent-of-Obama-Backed-Battery-Maker-Bankrupt/

bendog
01-30-2012, 01:18 PM
If there's no diff between Obama and Romney, then why is Wall Street giving Romney millions of dollars?

alkemical
01-30-2012, 01:19 PM
Really, Alternative Energy you say? Now we a have 3 massive bankruptcies of Green/Alternative Energy companies supported by Obama and funded by American taxpayers. Do you see a trend here? These are the facts about the green energy fraud. Hopefully now you propeller heads and solar backpackers can get your heads out of your compose heaps and get some fresh air.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/January/Parent-of-Obama-Backed-Battery-Maker-Bankrupt/

Why did GE open a solar plant in Aurora CO then?

Archer81
01-30-2012, 01:19 PM
If there's no diff between Obama and Romney, then why is Wall Street giving Romney millions of dollars?


Probably for the same reason Wall Street gave millions to Obama in 2008.


:Broncos:

Archer81
01-30-2012, 01:20 PM
Why did GE open a solar plant in Aurora CO then?


Using equipment manufactured in china...


:Broncos:

Mile High Mojoe
01-30-2012, 01:36 PM
Why did GE open a solar plant in Aurora CO then?

GE is a private corporation correct? Did they get a massive taxpayer funded loan to open this plant?

These 3 big green energy projects were backed by Obama and were nothing but a massive incinerator for millions and millions of “green.” Don’t worry though Greenies, we’ll see more of the same, this isn’t the end of failed government funded green energy programs.

So I guess in that respect you could say Obama’s energy policy is working beautifully. Of his many in failures in office, his energy policy is the most disastrous of all with the exception of the top down Obamacare Bill and the phony Stimulus Bill that did nothing but prop up government jobs and bureaucracies.

What a record of achievement this man has, he should be very proud of himself. He’s a shoe in for reelection.

alkemical
01-30-2012, 01:36 PM
Using equipment manufactured in china...


:Broncos:

...can't blame the chinese for americans not being qualified to make things anymore can ya...

alkemical
01-30-2012, 01:37 PM
GE is a private corporation correct? Did they get a massive taxpayer funded loan to open this plant?

These 3 big green energy projects were backed by Obama have been nothing but a massive incinerator for millions and millions of “green.” Don’t worry though Greenies, we’ll see more of the same, this isn’t the end of failed government funded green energy programs.

So I guess in that respect you could say Obama’s energy policy is working beautifully. Of his many in failures in office, his energy policy is the most disastrous of all with the exception the top down Obamacare Bill and the phony Stimulus Bill that did nothing but prop up government jobs and bureaucracies.

What a record of achievement this man has, he should be very proud of himself. He’s a shoe in for reelection.


Do you count the negative tax gain GE had as a subsidy?

Mile High Mojoe
01-30-2012, 01:47 PM
Do you count the negative tax gain GE had as a subsidy?

And your point is?

bendog
01-30-2012, 01:53 PM
Probably for the same reason Wall Street gave millions to Obama in 2008.


:Broncos:

Exactly, so what changed their minds?

alkemical
01-30-2012, 01:54 PM
And your point is?

Other than you aren't able to follow a conversation....

GE got massive subsidies. They opened a solar manufacturing plant.


If you're going to complain about public companies getting tax subsidies - I hope you don't use oil/gas and shop @ Wal*Mart.

Edit:

or use a telephone, or eat corn, or....

I mean - i can go on and on with this.

bendog
01-30-2012, 02:01 PM
Other than you aren't able to follow a conversation....

GE got massive subsidies. They opened a solar manufacturing plant.


If you're going to complain about public companies getting tax subsidies - I hope you don't use oil/gas and shop @ Wal*Mart.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577074383153158836.html

China made the decision early on to capture the solar market. They simply dump panels at a loss with the govt picking up the difference. I believe other links would show that the US mftrs actually make more efficient panels, becuase they thought they'd be competeing with natl gas and other energy sources .... rather than a predatory competitor selling inferior products that are cheaper to make then their's and selling them at a loss at that.

But yeah, there's no econ difference between GE offsetting profits from losses on solar to not pay taxes, and China dumping. There's a difference in efficiency. GE's actions don't actually create a market or a meaningful product, while China is the dominant player in solar cell production

But, the US wouldn't stand for a state industry.

gyldenlove
01-30-2012, 02:10 PM
If there's no diff between Obama and Romney, then why is Wall Street giving Romney millions of dollars?

They want to make sure their guy is in office, if Romney runs against Obama they will own both horses in the race, you will always win in that situation.

Paladin
01-30-2012, 02:12 PM
Really, Alternative Energy you say? Now we a have 3 massive bankruptcies of Green/Alternative Energy companies supported by Obama and funded by American taxpayers. Do you see a trend here? These are the facts about the green energy fraud. Hopefully now you propeller heads and solar backpackers can get your heads out of your compose heaps and get some fresh air.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/January/Parent-of-Obama-Backed-Battery-Maker-Bankrupt/

:rofl:

Mile High Mojoe
01-30-2012, 02:29 PM
Other than you aren't able to follow a conversation....

GE got massive subsidies. They opened a solar manufacturing plant.


If you're going to complain about public companies getting tax subsidies - I hope you don't use oil/gas and shop @ Wal*Mart.

I’ll be perfectly honestly I don’t give a **** about solar panels. I live in Astoria, OR where the sun comes out maybe once a week for an hour. So solar energy isn’t going to keep my house warm or fuel my car either.

As for GE, GE didn’t pay tax, that’s a form of government subsidy you’re right congratulations. So they’ll probably be the next big failure in Colorado right? Are you following my argument? They should be drilling in CO not building solar panels. We have to have oil and natural gas so if it’s subsidized or gets some tax breaks that’s a far better investment in cheap energy than solar, wind, electric battery power or bio-fuel.

Oil, natural gas and clean coal are proven commodities that we MUST have to sustain our economy today. We’ll have to come up with some other alternative sources of energy in the future but they must make economic sense and shouldn’t be government funded. But NOW the reality is this country comes completely apart if we don’t have both oil/gas/coal in abundance.

People seem to forget some of the many obstacles to going green. Bio-fuel is creating food shortages, thus creating higher food prices and thus worldwide hunger. Electric battery powered cars still have to get juice from gas and or coal fired electric plants, big wind farms are a joke, and no state seems to want to put massive solar panel farms in their state. So where does that leave us?

For now its oil, gas and coal, we must drill for it off the coast, in Alaska, and in the lower 48 and build pipelines from Alaska to get it here if necessary. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and let us become energy independent and quit trying to create this phony green jobs economy.

gyldenlove
01-30-2012, 02:52 PM
I’ll be perfectly honestly I don’t give a **** about solar panels. I live in Astoria, OR where the sun comes out maybe once a week for an hour. So solar energy isn’t going to keep my house warm or fuel my car either.

As for GE, GE didn’t pay tax, that’s a form of government subsidy you’re right congratulations. So they’ll probably be the next big failure in Colorado right? Are you following my argument? They should be drilling in CO not building solar panels. We have to have oil and natural gas so if it’s subsidized or gets some tax breaks that’s a far better investment in cheap energy than solar, wind, electric battery power or bio-fuel.

Oil, natural gas and clean coal are proven commodities that we MUST have to sustain our economy today. We’ll have to come up with some other alternative sources of energy in the future but they must make economic sense and shouldn’t be government funded. But NOW the reality is this country comes completely apart if we don’t have both oil/gas/coal in abundance.

People seem to forget some of the many obstacles to going green. Bio-fuel is creating food shortages, thus creating higher food prices and thus worldwide hunger. Electric battery powered cars still have to get juice from gas and or coal fired electric plants, big wind farms are a joke, and no state seems to want to put massive solar panel farms in their state. So where does that leave us?

For now its oil, gas and coal, we must drill for it off the coast, in Alaska, and in the lower 48 and build pipelines from Alaska to get it here if necessary. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and let us become energy independent and quit trying to create this phony green jobs economy.

Energy independence for the States is a joke, it will cost so much for you to access the oil, gas and coal you need that nobody is ever going to bankroll it - or are you suggesting the government should create a government owned energy company to dig and pump resources?

bendog
01-30-2012, 03:01 PM
They want to make sure their guy is in office, if Romney runs against Obama they will own both horses in the race, you will always win in that situation.

They want Romney because they don't want the new regulatory scheme that Obama signed in to screw with them. I'll post a link to what imo woudl be better than obama signed, but if you're thinking romney won't go back to 2008 like regulations, before we got to bail out wall st so the guys who own goldman sachs wouldn't lose their money, you're on crack.

However, if you have a retirement plan or 401k with mutual funds, you own some of Wall St. Not like guys like Mitt own, but a little bit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/bankings-got-a-new-critic.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bank%20regulations&st=cse

Archer81
01-30-2012, 03:35 PM
Exactly, so what changed their minds?


The last 4 years.

:Broncos:

bendog
01-30-2012, 03:58 PM
The last 4 years.

:Broncos:

Sure. The question is do you want a return to the regulations of 2008? I'm not an obama fan, but do say there's no diff between him and Romney is just wrong. I'd rather an "option 3" but there isn't one unless you want a protest vote. I've done that. I mean my state will never vote for a dem (did Jimmah) and certainly not an african american. Not to offend, but there is a solid core in Miss that aren't ever gonna go there. They'll have to die off. And it cuts both ways. Some african americans would never vote for a white person in a local election.

Archer81
01-30-2012, 04:14 PM
Sure. The question is do you want a return to the regulations of 2008? I'm not an obama fan, but do say there's no diff between him and Romney is just wrong. I'd rather an "option 3" but there isn't one unless you want a protest vote. I've done that. I mean my state will never vote for a dem (did Jimmah) and certainly not an african american. Not to offend, but there is a solid core in Miss that aren't ever gonna go there. They'll have to die off. And it cuts both ways. Some african americans would never vote for a white person in a local election.


I think what Obama was saying to business leaders in the runup to the 2008 election is why he got a majority of wall st support. What he has done since and what he continues to push for put alot of them off, so they go to Romney. Wall st also tends to pick who they view to be the winner. Say what you will, but these men know who can allow them to make the most money.

If people voted for Obama to assuage white guilt, then those people are stupid as hell. Men should be evaluated on their character and actions, not what color they happen to be. The reverse is true also. Not voting for a man because he is white, black, asian or hispanic blinds the voter to what he can accomplish.

:Broncos:

bendog
01-30-2012, 04:34 PM
I don't think we disagree so much. I just view obama as an incomptent elitist, but Romney ..... the man's a corportate raider who's never taken a stand on a position that might prove to be unpopular to his polls in his entire life. It'd be Wall St regulating Wall St. And of course Wall St prefers that. Obama's not good, but .... dam.

Mile High Mojoe
01-30-2012, 06:21 PM
Energy independence for the States is a joke, it will cost so much for you to access the oil, gas and coal you need that nobody is ever going to bankroll it - or are you suggesting the government should create a government owned energy company to dig and pump resources?

Not government, just giving companies breaks because it is an expensive and a risky venture. We're been drilling for and bankrolling oil since the early 1900's look it up. And yes it is expensive to explore for it but the payoff is enormous and way cheaper than any of the other sources combined.

gyldenlove
01-30-2012, 08:36 PM
Not government, just giving companies breaks because it is an expensive and a risky venture. We're been drilling for and bankrolling oil since the early 1900's look it up. And yes it is expensive to explore for it but the payoff is enormous and way cheaper than any of the other sources combined.

So you are fine with government subsidies for expensive and poluting drilling of limited resources but not for non poluting energy sources?

Vegas_Bronco
01-31-2012, 05:45 AM
I want a guy that gets america back to work in the non govt sector...I know who that guy is and Im voting for him. Govt does way to much to regulate when the real corruption is right at their own back door lobbying their vote away from their loyal constituents.

Mile High Mojoe
01-31-2012, 09:25 AM
So you are fine with government subsidies for expensive and poluting drilling of limited resources but not for non poluting energy sources?

I worked on drilling rigs in Wyoming so don’t lecture me about pollution. The regulations placed on drilling are unbelievable so polution is not an issue. So the environmental impact drilling has is minimal. I’m just continually amazed how completely ignorant people are about oil well drilling.

Now millions and millions of spent lithium car batteries will have a far bigger impact on the environment than rigs poking a few holes into the earth. If we should ban anything it should be electric cars. They still have to be plugged into natural gas or coal fired electric plants and the spent batteries would be far more harmful to Mother Earth than drilling.

TonyR
01-31-2012, 09:48 AM
For a long time there was a simple formula that worked quite well for Republicans: say "We're strong, they're weak," advocate force in foreign affairs as often as possible, repeat, win elections. But ten years since the Afghanistan war started and just under nine years since the Iraq war started, there's no obvious political benefit to taking the position that what we need is another war. When you combine that with the series of badass special operations missions (most notably the killing of Osama Bin Laden) that have occurred under Obama, it's not obvious that advocating a war with Iran makes you look tough. It may just make you look like a nut, or an idiot.http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/30/no_foreign_policy_matters_in_elections_even_in_yea rs_when_people_think_it_doesn_t

Paladin
01-31-2012, 03:05 PM
30 fugging millions dollars spent on Florida primaries for 20 freaking delegates, and no one can really give a true synopsis on what Mittens and Ginger believe could be done to improve things. And I do not mean just destructive things. For example, if they dergulate Wall street, what will they do to help protect against another housing or credit meltdown? What will they do to get the Big Banks to work again for the people? What would they do if Iran actually builds the bomb. No, seriously. After the Niobrara Formation is proving up, after the Bakken Fields are proving up, after Obama has opened up larger areas of the Gulf for exploration, and since the US use of foriegn oil is droppping, what is the porposed energy policy of Mittens and of Ginger. And who would benefit from those policies?

30 million freaking dollars for 20 delegates. (Florida forfitted half of their delegates for going early, and the GOP stripped them of another quarter. May get some back in August.) Florida is such a gerrymandered state, no repugnican ever has to work again.....

What a terrible spectacle for the US.

pricejj
01-31-2012, 03:36 PM
30 fugging millions dollars spent on Florida primaries for 20 freaking delegates, and no one can really give a true synopsis on what Mittens and Ginger believe could be done to improve things. And I do not mean just destructive things. For example, if they dergulate Wall street, what will they do to help protect against another housing or credit meltdown? What will they do to get the Big Banks to work again for the people? What would they do if Iran actually builds the bomb. No, seriously. After the Niobrara Formation is proving up, after the Bakken Fields are proving up, after Obama has opened up larger areas of the Gulf for exploration, and since the US use of foriegn oil is dropping, what is the porposed energy policy of Mittens and of Ginger. And who would benefit from those policies?


What a terrible spectacle for the US.

Here are 4 things that a Republican President could do, that aren't getting done, and won't get done if Obama is reelected:

1. Pass a balanced budget amendment, with a cap on the size of government.
2. Reform the tax code (flat rate, eliminate deductions), to create REAL growth, and help to prevent asset bubbles.
3. Block grant funding to Medicare, to put a cap on taxpayer liability for healthcare.
4. Repeal the individual mandate (if it isn't already declared unconstitutional in June).

Bronco Yoda
01-31-2012, 04:04 PM
Bow down and pray to thee super PAC.....or you will go to Hell I sayeth.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/01/31/news/economy/colbert_super_PAC_filing/stephen-colbert-super-pac.gi.top.jpg

Paladin
01-31-2012, 04:44 PM
Here are 4 things that a Republican President could do, that aren't getting done, and won't get done if Obama is reelected:

1. Pass a balanced budget amendment, with a cap on the size of government.
2. Reform the tax code (flat rate, eliminate deductions), to create REAL growth, and help to prevent asset bubbles.
3. Block grant funding to Medicare, to put a cap on taxpayer liability for healthcare.
4. Repeal the individual mandate (if it isn't already declared unconstitutional in June).

Those are yours. I never heard Mittens or Ginger say those things. However, the BBA would be an assalutive injustice to the legislative responsibilities of the Congress. That sort of represents a plea: "O Odin, save us from ourselves". That its a cop out from responsibility, and ignores the real issues. Further such an amendment would be disasterous in times of disaster and wars. Just because Bush could not help himself with tax cuts to the wealthy , starting and not funding two wars, and not funding Part D, is no reason to tell future Congresses how to budget or what to budget for.

The flat tax significantly and unfairly burdens low income earners, and rewards the rich guys way too much. I suggest you google the flat tax stuff and hear both sides. Forbes lost big time on that issue for sound economic reasons, but mostly because the flat tax would not raise the amount of revenues needed to operate the government even if it were cut. (Still have to feed the soldiers and fund the Courts and the FBI, IRS and even the Congress, and....... You can take it from there.)

Block granting Medicare would be difficult because it would shift the burden to the taxpayers in the States. That would portend uneven health care services between the States. Further, the costs would not be contained. It whould be remembeed that Mediare has already been fiscally reduced by 500 million dollars because of the capitation of Medicare through the Medicare Advantage programs. It is predeicted that the medicare costs will actually decline more because of that strategy.

The individual mandate may or may not stand the Contitutional question, but most if not all of the other parts will likely stand. The prospects of the Insurance Exchanges (operated by the States) may be more of actual importance than the Mandate. The Mandate would create much larger pools of insureds to bring costs down for everyone, but the Exchanges will force competition for larger pools of people that your employer and individuals can participate in. Costs will be spread among larger pools.

BTW, the requirement that the healthcare etities must use new technology has already saved costs in preventing medication errors in hospitals and in making information between doctors more accessible which prevents replication of tests over medicating errors, and increases preventive medicine efforts. It is quietly working well.

But, the Mandate is not likely be repealed, and the President cannot do that by himself.

Now tell me if Mittens or Ginger ever really said anything intelligent about the Affordable Healthcare Act. "Repeal it" is not intelligent.

TheReverend
01-31-2012, 07:27 PM
I would bang Erin Burnett like a screen door in a hurricane.

That One Guy
01-31-2012, 08:20 PM
Those are yours. I never heard Mittens or Ginger say those things. However, the BBA would be an assalutive injustice to the legislative responsibilities of the Congress. That sort of represents a plea: "O Odin, save us from ourselves". That its a cop out from responsibility, and ignores the real issues. Further such an amendment would be disasterous in times of disaster and wars. Just because Bush could not help himself with tax cuts to the wealthy , starting and not funding two wars, and not funding Part D, is no reason to tell future Congresses how to budget or what to budget for.

The flat tax significantly and unfairly burdens low income earners, and rewards the rich guys way too much. I suggest you google the flat tax stuff and hear both sides. Forbes lost big time on that issue for sound economic reasons, but mostly because the flat tax would not raise the amount of revenues needed to operate the government even if it were cut. (Still have to feed the soldiers and fund the Courts and the FBI, IRS and even the Congress, and....... You can take it from there.)

Block granting Medicare would be difficult because it would shift the burden to the taxpayers in the States. That would portend uneven health care services between the States. Further, the costs would not be contained. It whould be remembeed that Mediare has already been fiscally reduced by 500 million dollars because of the capitation of Medicare through the Medicare Advantage programs. It is predeicted that the medicare costs will actually decline more because of that strategy.

The individual mandate may or may not stand the Contitutional question, but most if not all of the other parts will likely stand. The prospects of the Insurance Exchanges (operated by the States) may be more of actual importance than the Mandate. The Mandate would create much larger pools of insureds to bring costs down for everyone, but the Exchanges will force competition for larger pools of people that your employer and individuals can participate in. Costs will be spread among larger pools.

BTW, the requirement that the healthcare etities must use new technology has already saved costs in preventing medication errors in hospitals and in making information between doctors more accessible which prevents replication of tests over medicating errors, and increases preventive medicine efforts. It is quietly working well.

But, the Mandate is not likely be repealed, and the President cannot do that by himself.

Now tell me if Mittens or Ginger ever really said anything intelligent about the Affordable Healthcare Act. "Repeal it" is not intelligent.

Holy crap, man... you on Obama's staff this year?

Let it go.

BroncoBuff
01-31-2012, 08:57 PM
I would bang Erin Burnett like a screen door in a hurricane.

Please. Like a jackhammer on demolition duty.

Paladin
01-31-2012, 10:06 PM
Holy crap, man... you on Obama's staff this year?

Let it go.

Just offering truth.

Paladin
01-31-2012, 10:13 PM
BTW. Mittens won Florida. Too bad that the he forgets: Republicans do not vote people into office. Figure that one out.

alkemical
02-01-2012, 06:46 AM
I’ll be perfectly honestly I don’t give a **** about solar panels. I live in Astoria, OR where the sun comes out maybe once a week for an hour. So solar energy isn’t going to keep my house warm or fuel my car either.

As for GE, GE didn’t pay tax, that’s a form of government subsidy you’re right congratulations. So they’ll probably be the next big failure in Colorado right? Are you following my argument? They should be drilling in CO not building solar panels. We have to have oil and natural gas so if it’s subsidized or gets some tax breaks that’s a far better investment in cheap energy than solar, wind, electric battery power or bio-fuel.

Oil, natural gas and clean coal are proven commodities that we MUST have to sustain our economy today. We’ll have to come up with some other alternative sources of energy in the future but they must make economic sense and shouldn’t be government funded. But NOW the reality is this country comes completely apart if we don’t have both oil/gas/coal in abundance.

People seem to forget some of the many obstacles to going green. Bio-fuel is creating food shortages, thus creating higher food prices and thus worldwide hunger. Electric battery powered cars still have to get juice from gas and or coal fired electric plants, big wind farms are a joke, and no state seems to want to put massive solar panel farms in their state. So where does that leave us?

For now its oil, gas and coal, we must drill for it off the coast, in Alaska, and in the lower 48 and build pipelines from Alaska to get it here if necessary. The government needs to get the hell out of the way and let us become energy independent and quit trying to create this phony green jobs economy.



You really need to learn more about the depth of the issues you want to discuss.

alkemical
02-01-2012, 06:48 AM
Not government, just giving companies breaks because it is an expensive and a risky venture. We're been drilling for and bankrolling oil since the early 1900's look it up. And yes it is expensive to explore for it but the payoff is enormous and way cheaper than any of the other sources combined.

How much does it COST to clean up "messes"?

How CHEAP is OIL & GAS due to subsidies?

Your position is falling apart fast!

bendog
02-01-2012, 09:14 AM
Sooo, oil companies need incentives to drill for oil they can sell for $100 a barrel. I see.

You know, I'd vote for Mitt if I thought he'd stand up to Norquist and DeMint and say he'll accept 600 billion in more revenues so long as rates on wage earnings (not passive investments that he pays 14%) don't go up, and the dems give him more that 2 trillion in spending cuts. I actually wish Jeb was running, though I suspect he wants to sit this one out and see what happens with Norquist and the tea party folks.

pricejj
02-01-2012, 10:12 AM
...the BBA would be an assalutive injustice to the legislative responsibilities of the Congress. That sort of represents a plea: "O Odin, save us from ourselves". That its a cop out from responsibility, and ignores the real issues. Further such an amendment would be disasterous in times of disaster and wars...

Not true. Is it the responsibility of Congress to pass a budget (or continuing resolutions) every year, in which spending exceeds revenues by $1T? Is it the responsibility of Congress to bankrupt the nation? Any BBA could call for automatic tax increases in event of war/or catastrophe. I guarantee you, the U.S. would be a bit more hesitant to start unending wars if there was an automatic tax increase involved. It's not rocket science. The U.S. citizens need to have further protections from overspending politicians at the federal/state/local level.


...The flat tax significantly and unfairly burdens low income earners, and rewards the rich guys way too much....

Not true. There would be a standard deduction below the poverty line. People making say $20,000 or less would pay nothing. People making $25,000 would pay 15% of 5,000 ($750). People making $100,000 would pay 15% of $80,000 ($12,000). If you consider that system "unfair", and the current tax system with a myriad of loopholes "fair", then good luck ever correcting the problem.


...Block granting Medicare would be difficult because it would shift the burden to the taxpayers in the States. That would portend uneven health care services between the States. Further, the costs would not be contained. It whould be remembeed that Mediare has already been fiscally reduced by 500 million dollars because of the capitation of Medicare through the Medicare Advantage programs. It is predeicted that the medicare costs will actually decline more because of that strategy.

Not true. The federal government currently pays for all Medicare funding. The federal block grant to the individual would be enough to cover that individual up to an individual insurance plan deductible. Any costs for medical treatment incurred above that threshold would be covered by the insurance company. No more unlimited billing to the taxpayers. When there isn't an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to go around, costs will be contained. With further legislation promoting competition and efficiency, healthcare costs will come down.

...The individual mandate may or may not stand the Contitutional question, but most if not all of the other parts will likely stand. The prospects of the Insurance Exchanges (operated by the States) may be more of actual importance than the Mandate. The Mandate would create much larger pools of insureds to bring costs down for everyone, but the Exchanges will force competition for larger pools of people that your employer and individuals can participate in. Costs will be spread among larger pools.

Not true. You claim that the individual mandate would bring costs down for everyone. That hasn't happened in Massachusetts (Romneycare). In fact healthcare costs are escalating even more, and Massachusetts has the largest debt as a % of GDP of all the states. Any measure that increases competition (state insurance exchanges) is a benefit. Inter-state insurance competition would be a benefit. Obamacare also outlaws HDHP's with HSA's...which is really the only affordable option out there. All healthcare costs should be tax deductible. The problem is people use health insurance to pay for every single medical expense. This puts an added layer of cost in every single medical transaction. For healthcare costs to become inexpensive once again, health insurance would need to be used only for emergency/catastrophic situations. If you need health insurance to pay for maintenance and preventitive procedures (tooth cleaning, maintenance meds), then obviously the costs are too high.

...But, the Mandate is not likely be repealed, and the President cannot do that by himself.

Do you honestly think if the SCOTUS does not find the individual mandate unconstitutional in June, that there won't be a Republican super-majority in November?

alkemical
02-01-2012, 10:23 AM
Unless you make $40-50k & have health benne's -

You ain't middle class.

BroncoBuff
02-01-2012, 11:16 AM
Bow down and pray to thee super PAC.....or you will go to Hell I sayeth.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2012/01/31/news/economy/colbert_super_PAC_filing/stephen-colbert-super-pac.gi.top.jpg

YEAH! Did you see the show where he started his Super PAC? One sheet of paper, filled it out and mailed it in, and boom he was in business. Didn't have to wait for approval, just mail it and you're set. Able to raise unlimited funds from any and all donors, to spend in any way you see fit. That + Citizens United ... I hope people start paying closer attention to the issues, cause it's gonna get louder and louder toward election.

This thread has kinda lost steam ... somebody get BroncoFanatic back in here. I didn't agree with much he said, but his posts pushed this thread to greatness ... We need him to bounce off/kick around again.

DomCasual
02-01-2012, 11:22 AM
YEAH! Did you see the show where he started his Super PAC? One sheet of paper, filled it out and mailed it in, and boom he was in business. Didn't have to wait for approval, just mail it and you're set. Able to raise unlimited funds from any and all donors, to spend in any way you see fit. That + Citizens United ... I hope people start paying closer attention to the issues, cause it's gonna get louder and louder toward election.

This thread has kinda lost steam ... somebody get BroncoFanatic back in here. I didn't agree with much he said, but his posts pushed this thread to greatness ... We need him to bounce off/kick around again.

The Super PAC thing does seem like a colossally bad idea. I'm not sure I understand the original supposed concept behind it. Was it actually supposed to protect us? It's like they said, "Let's get together and figure out a way to let wealthy individuals have a HUGE impact on elections! But we can't have them contributing to candidates directly. No, that would be bad. Let's have then contribute as much as they want to a SUPER PAC!" (High fives all around!)

Great idea, man. Why hadn't we thought about this before?

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 11:26 AM
How much does it COST to clean up "messes"?

How CHEAP is OIL & GAS due to subsidies?

Your position is falling apart fast!

Dude Oil and Gas are world markets. US Subsidies don't touch what you pay at the pump. The extent to which they conceivably could are far outweighed by the taxes you pay on them.

And the cost of cleanup is always greatly exaggerated. The sky was falling during the Gulf Spill. Much ado about very little. Then there were the chicken littles crying about a small spill in the Yellowstone River.

60,000 gallons in a river that passes hundreds of millions of gallons of water over the same timeframe. The spill wasn't even detectable in the water a couple hundred miles downstream. In the end, there was some surface cleanup needed. Zero long term impact. A hundred million or so of Exxon's money siphoned into the local economy.

Long story short, yes **** happens. But it's never as cataclysmic as the enviros say it will be. It can be dealt with.

BroncoBuff
02-01-2012, 11:45 AM
Great idea, man. Why hadn't we thought about this before?

Super Pacs are nothing more than avenues for corporations and the rich to spend huge amounts to sway elections, and then influence the candidates they supported. This new power to spend (or not spend), and the conditions/demands upon which they do or do not spend .. It's the perfect recipe for corruption. The super-rich and corporations are now perfectly positioned to exert massive influence. The Citizens United decision is the worst thing I've ever seen in politics, in the long run worse even than Bush v. Gore.

bendog
02-01-2012, 12:30 PM
pricejj

"Not true. The federal government currently matches what the state pays for in medicare. "

States don't pay any "medicare" benefits. It's a fully federal program.

"How is it funded?
■■Funds authorized by Congress
■■Premiums from people enrolled in Part B and Part D
■■Other sources, such as interest earned on the trust fund investments"

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

houghtam
02-01-2012, 12:38 PM
The sky was falling during the Gulf Spill. Much ado about very little.

Cool story, bro.

But you have no clue WTF you're talking about.

I lived in Louisiana and Alabama during that time. They're still feeling the negative impact.

alkemical
02-01-2012, 01:21 PM
Dude Oil and Gas are world markets. US Subsidies don't touch what you pay at the pump. The extent to which they conceivably could are far outweighed by the taxes you pay on them.

And the cost of cleanup is always greatly exaggerated. The sky was falling during the Gulf Spill. Much ado about very little. Then there were the chicken littles crying about a small spill in the Yellowstone River.

60,000 gallons in a river that passes hundreds of millions of gallons of water over the same timeframe. The spill wasn't even detectable in the water a couple hundred miles downstream. In the end, there was some surface cleanup needed. Zero long term impact. A hundred million or so of Exxon's money siphoned into the local economy.

Long story short, yes **** happens. But it's never as cataclysmic as the enviros say it will be. It can be dealt with.


Well then - if the subsidies have NO IMPACT - then why are profitable businesses still receiving them? Your statement is false. It's like saying Meat isn't cheaper due to the subsides provided to Ag_Business. :rollseyes:

You're stating there's zero long term impact, when scientists are stating that the long term impact hasn't even been seen yet. :hmmm:

All that $ - is short term - and once the project is complete - you'll see the actual real cost of the BP Horizon accident.

That's the problem when you use short term thinking:

$ generated today = no worries tomorrow.

Long term thinking:

What does this cost, 10-20-30yrs down the road.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/01/us-special-report-how-bps-oil-spill-cost-idUSTRE6B02PA20101201

That optimistic view may turn out to be true. BP executives have said this is their "best estimate" of costs, adding they could turn out lower. But history shows there is ample scope for nasty surprises from BP. The London-based oil giant -- last year it was the biggest non-state controlled oil and gas producer in the world -- has so far consistently underestimated the scope and potential cost of the Gulf spill. It also has a track record of low-balling disasters, including the fatal Texas City refinery blast in 2005. Not only has the company underestimated the cost of repairing equipment and ecosystems in the past, it has also made overly optimistic assumptions about legal challenges.

That may be happening again.

CEO Dudley, an American who took over from Briton Tony Hayward in October, has said a $20 billion fund BP created to compensate victims of the spill should cover all damages claims. The lawyers who are suing BP don't think so.

"The total value of the claims already registered could exceed the amount of money that has been dedicated to pay the fund," said Texas-based trial lawyer Brent Coon, who represents victims of the explosion and subsequent spill and who was prominent in litigation against BP after Texas City.

"Then you have the claims that have not been filed yet, and claims from those indirectly impacted, and shareholder derivative claims ... You have very large potential claims that could, in total, be exponentially greater than the amount set aside."

Zygmunt Plater, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School, agrees. "In the short term, it's in everyone's interests within the company to low-ball -- but the portents are there for a realistic inflation of $20-$50 billon," he said.

alkemical
02-01-2012, 01:23 PM
Cool story, bro.

But you have no clue WTF you're talking about.

I lived in Louisiana and Alabama during that time. They're still feeling the negative impact.

What are some of the things you're seeing or know of? - share with us who don't live there - let us know what's not being reported.

/please :)

houghtam
02-01-2012, 01:43 PM
What are some of the things you're seeing or know of? - share with us who don't live there - let us know what's not being reported.

/please :)

Well for one example, an acquaintance of mine who worked for a small fishing company got laid off because, well, there was no fishing to be had. He had to find another job in the interim, and when things got back up and running, the company had lost enough money from lack of business and incurred debt, that it had to shut down. Another friend of mine told of two mom and pop shops in downtown Baton Rouge (thats almost two hours from the coast, btw) that had to close because the price of seafood grew too high, so combined with the crippled economy, their lunch rush slowed to a trickle. As of October when I moved back up north, those businesses hadn't reopened.

Have any of you seen the "come to the Gulf Coast, we're back open" commercials? We get them up here all the time. Those are not cheap to produce, nor is the airtime cheap to purchase.

But yeah, there are no long-term effects to environmental disasters caused by man. LOL

bendog
02-01-2012, 01:51 PM
http://www.adn.com/2012/01/30/2290476/south-mobile-students-still-suffering.html

There's a loss of jobs in fishing. Anectodally, my local fish monger has gone out of biz. I can still buy fresh gulf seafood at Paul Anthony's and the supplier of the meat market has a small retail biz open on Sat, but I'm not eating any of it. I think the fish is ok, and I had redfish in the last month, but no shrimp or oysters for me ... of course with the cholesterol I'd avoid them, though I'll be on the Coast in a few weeks, and I might go to a raw bar.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2012/01/deepwater_drilling_moratorium_13.html

The drilling moratorium has had an even bigger effect. I'm highly annoyed at the present admin because after the spill it came to light how bad an actor BP was in safety terms, and Exxon and other producers followed seriously different drilling procedures. It was know in the industry. Of course this stemmed from Bushii's "watch," and essentially he fired all the regulators. But, imo Obama just caved to the Sierra Club whose goal is to not drill in the Gulf. JMO

New Orleans is a whole different story. Beyond my ability because I've only been back to Nola twice since the storm. But the socio-economics, the crime, the schools, the cops, the population ... its all changed. And not all for the worse. The gangbangers all went to Houston, but they seem to be coming back, or at least the murder rate is climbing again.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Cool story, bro.

But you have no clue WTF you're talking about.

I lived in Louisiana and Alabama during that time. They're still feeling the negative impact.

Biggest impacts are usually the artificial restrictions put in place. Not the actual damage. The federal reaction to the spill and the gulf oil industry after had far more impact than the oil itself did.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007428,00.html

Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but so far, wildlife-response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but so far, assessment teams have found only about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.

Like many things, the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

houghtam
02-01-2012, 02:04 PM
Biggest impacts are usually the artificial restrictions put in place. Not the actual damage. The federal reaction to the spill and the gulf oil industry after had far more impact than the oil itself did.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2007428,00.html



Like many things, the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

So let's not put any "artificial restrictions" on things, and then when someone dies, it's just "the cost of doing business?"

You can quote all the articles you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the region was severely set back, and remains so to this day.

You don't have a clue, dude.

Not. A. Clue.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:09 PM
So let's not put any "artificial restrictions" on things, and then when someone dies, it's just "the cost of doing business?"

You can quote all the articles you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the region was severely set back, and remains so to this day.

You don't have a clue, dude.

Not. A. Clue.

Yeah, governance by anecdote... probably much more rational.

bendog
02-01-2012, 02:13 PM
The casinos on the Miss. Coast continue to be depressed, though there's the recession thing. Plans for condominums are dead. People who bought houses and condos in the Fla panhandle cannot rent them because tourism is dead.

I honestly don't know how much of that to attribute to the spill or the econ in general. I personally haven't been to the hotel we used to go to once a year at Pt. Clear Ala. But my wife's income is severely down, and what money we have goes into my kid's extra-curricular events and getting into a college.

Tampa Bay/Ft Myers is maybe the worst real est market in the country. Vegas may be worse, I dunno.

bendog
02-01-2012, 02:14 PM
Yeah, governance by anecdote... probably much more rational.

Well, son, I can guarntee you one thing. Lack of governance by the Bushii admin led to the worst enviro disaster in US history. And that ain't a vote for Obama.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:24 PM
The casinos on the Miss. Coast continue to be depressed, though there's the recession thing. Plans for condominums are dead. People who bought houses and condos in the Fla panhandle cannot rent them because tourism is dead.

I honestly don't know how much of that to attribute to the spill or the econ in general. I personally haven't been to the hotel we used to go to once a year at Pt. Clear Ala. But my wife's income is severely down, and what money we have goes into my kid's extra-curricular events and getting into a college.

Tampa Bay/Ft Myers is maybe the worst real est market in the country. Vegas may be worse, I dunno.

Florida overall is terrible. Housing was way overbuilt heading into the crisis. Even on the Atlantic coast. Talked to a guy about it last year in West Palm. He said he was looking to leave the area because nothing was being built anymore because of the inventory. But it's easy to latch onto whatever's happening around you and blame whatever you want. Especially when you start talking about "this guy I know"

It's widely known that the bigger economic impact wasn't to the fish, but the limits placed on fishermen. Of course the biggest impact of all was the drilling moratorium, not the loss of oil. The government's overreaction caused far more families heartache than the oil spilled.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:28 PM
Well, son, I can guarntee you one thing. Lack of governance by the Bushii admin led to the worst enviro disaster in US history. And that ain't a vote for Obama.

Great. Back to Bush. Here's another thing I can tell you, coming from 'a guy I know'

these bureaucracies are self-sustaining. It doesn't matter who's in office. If the inspectors did a lousy job, you can bet they've been doing a lousy job for years. It happened during Obama, probably all the way back through Bush, back into Clinton, probably into Bush Sr.

The idea that a new figurehead comes in that basically doesn't even know these agencies exist, and suddenly everything shapes up or degenerates is pure fantasy. We want to believe that. Makes it easier to fix in our minds. But nothing could be further from the truth.

houghtam
02-01-2012, 02:31 PM
Florida overall is terrible. Housing was way overbuilt heading into the crisis. Even on the Atlantic coast. Talked to a guy about it last year in West Palm. He said he was looking to leave the area because nothing was being built anymore because of the inventory. But it's easy to latch onto whatever's happening around you and blame whatever you want. Especially when you start talking about "this guy I know"

It's widely known that the bigger economic impact wasn't to the fish, but the limits placed on fishermen. Of course the biggest impact of all was the drilling moratorium, not the loss of oil. The government's overreaction caused far more families heartache than the oil spilled.

Nice deflection. You still didn't propose an alternative to the limits placed on the industry. You also seem to be missing out on the fact that the spill went on for 3 months. Lack of or severe reduction in business for that amount of time is enough to sink a lot of businesses.

You call it governance by anecdote, I call it governance by being there. Easy to say for someone who hasn't a clue.

Spider
02-01-2012, 02:37 PM
Dude Oil and Gas are world markets. US Subsidies don't touch what you pay at the pump. The extent to which they conceivably could are far outweighed by the taxes you pay on them.

And the cost of cleanup is always greatly exaggerated. The sky was falling during the Gulf Spill. Much ado about very little. Then there were the chicken littles crying about a small spill in the Yellowstone River.

60,000 gallons in a river that passes hundreds of millions of gallons of water over the same timeframe. The spill wasn't even detectable in the water a couple hundred miles downstream. In the end, there was some surface cleanup needed. Zero long term impact. A hundred million or so of Exxon's money siphoned into the local economy.

Long story short, yes **** happens. But it's never as cataclysmic as the enviros say it will be. It can be dealt with.

stop it right now , you are bullshiatting and you know it , Dont even try and go there with me , I have been in every aspect of the oil patch you can think of , from hauling tampers to moving the drilling rig itself , to hauling Water and crude , the spills do have a long term impact , specially on marine life , and if the spill is near a watering hole , land animals are effected also ....

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:39 PM
Nice deflection. You still didn't propose an alternative to the limits placed on the industry. You also seem to be missing out on the fact that the spill went on for 3 months. Lack of or severe reduction in business for that amount of time is enough to sink a lot of businesses.

You call it governance by anecdote, I call it governance by being there. Easy to say for someone who hasn't a clue.

Forgive me, I'll post another article. I know it can't compete with 'the guy you know' but I believe it shows that the government was far more interested in the POLITICAL implications of their actions than any sound real-world concerns about public safety. Our government went much farther on the drilling moratorium than even the experts they consulted with recommended. In fact those experts feel the government misled people about their opinion in order to impose a wide moratorium for POLITICAL purposes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128024426

Experts Feel Misrepresented In Drilling Moratorium

houghtam
02-01-2012, 02:41 PM
Forgive me, I'll post another article. I know it can't compete with 'the guy you know' but I believe it shows that the government was far more interested in the POLITICAL implications of their actions than any sound real-world concerns about public safety. Our government went much farther on the drilling moratorium than even the experts they consulted with recommended. In fact those experts feel the government misled people about their opinion in order to impose a wide moratorium for POLITICAL purposes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128024426

Experts Feel Misrepresented In Drilling Moratorium

You still haven't addressed what should be done instead. And what the answer should be when there's another spill, if someone (or heaven forbid many people) get sick due to tainted food.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:44 PM
stop it right now , you are bullshiatting and you know it , Dont even try and go there with me , I have been in every aspect of the oil patch you can think of , from hauling tampers to moving the drilling rig itself , to hauling Water and crude , the spills do have a long term impact , specially on marine life , and if the spill is near a watering hole , land animals are effected also ....

Nobody would go so far as to say there is 'No Impact'

It's generally been established though that we grossly overreact when these accidents happen, and there are common sense ways to deal directly with the problem without the government coming in and shutting everyone and their grandmother down.

Spider
02-01-2012, 02:45 PM
You still haven't addressed what should be done instead. And what the answer should be when there's another spill, if someone (or heaven forbid many people) get sick due to tainted food.

The Spill in the gulf really didnt have anything to do with reg's , or the depth of the water , for crying out loud Canadians been drilling in depths up to 10,000 feet and the regs were in place to prevent this , BP just took a short cut and used the wrong B.O.P.E. BP should have been brought up on criminal charges ...

Spider
02-01-2012, 02:48 PM
Nobody would go so far as to say there is 'No Impact'

It's generally been established though that we grossly overreact when these accidents happen, and there are common sense ways to deal directly with the problem without the government coming in and shutting everyone and their grandmother down.

Bullshiat , I have seen 1,000 barrels of crude on the ground from a pipline leak in the Jonah and the mesa patch in Wyoming ,just a mere 1,000 barrels , you have any idea what that mess was like ?

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 02:51 PM
You still haven't addressed what should be done instead. And what the answer should be when there's another spill, if someone (or heaven forbid many people) get sick due to tainted food.

What should be done in response to your movie-theater worst case scenarios that can't and don't exist in real life? That's a fool's Errand :)

Eventually there will be another spill. It will probably look a lot like this one. People will freak out. The actual damage will be less than people fear (because people fear too much) but hopefully they'll overreact less than this time... maybe a lesson was learned. Maybe not.

bendog
02-01-2012, 02:56 PM
You still haven't addressed what should be done instead. And what the answer should be when there's another spill, if someone (or heaven forbid many people) get sick due to tainted food.

There are two criticisms of Obama imo. 1. When determining regualations, he tends to go for academics who don't actually do what's regulated, rather than approaching industry and asking them to identify what should be "best practices," and then having the acadmics question industry as to why and what could be better, and why not. 2. The drilling permits are issuing too slowly.

beavis believes whatever bs he wants to believe. no intelligent life there.

houghtam
02-01-2012, 03:00 PM
What should be done in response to your movie-theater worst case scenarios that can't and don't exist in real life? That's a fool's Errand :)

Eventually there will be another spill. It will probably look a lot like this one. People will freak out. The actual damage will be less than people fear (because people fear too much) but hopefully they'll overreact less than this time... maybe a lesson was learned. Maybe not.

LOL yeah that's a great analogy, because when the worst-case scenario at my movie theater happens and, say, our movies don't come in, or hell, we lose power, people can get sick and die, and wildlife gets destroyed.

Keep living in your bubble there, chum.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 03:00 PM
Bullshiat , I have seen 1,000 barrels of crude on the ground from a pipline leak in the Jonah and the mesa patch in Wyoming ,just a mere 1,000 barrels , you have any idea what that mess was like ?

In that part of Wyoming? Did anyone notice? :D

I'm sure it looked crazy. But I'm sure it got cleaned up. Oil does biodegrade. It's not radioactive. Not sure why we act like it is.

pricejj
02-01-2012, 03:04 PM
pricejj

"...The federal government currently matches what the state pays for in medicare. "

States don't pay any "medicare" benefits. It's a fully federal program.


Thanks fixed it. Medicare is funded by the federal government. Medicaid is funded by the state and matched federal funds.

Spider
02-01-2012, 03:04 PM
In that part of Wyoming? Did anyone notice? :D

I'm sure it looked crazy. But I'm sure it got cleaned up. Oil does biodegrade. It's not radioactive. Not sure why we act like it is.

sure did ..No one noticed the glacier melting in Dinwoody though .....
yes it did get cleaned up , but when I was last out there you can see where it was , you are right , it isnt radioactive , but that doesnt make it less toxic to wild life and the environment , my Rig isnt radioactive , you still wouldnt want it parked on your lawn

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 03:08 PM
LOL yeah that's a great analogy, because when the worst-case scenario at my movie theater happens and, say, our movies don't come in, or hell, we lose power, people can get sick and die, and wildlife gets destroyed.

Keep living in your bubble there, chum.

Go read the hyperbole during the gulf spill. Or my favorite on the Yellowstone spill... the cartoon that ran nationally showing a Yellowstone-Park type setting with a guy flyfishing in an oil slick.

In reality the spill was just a little ways upstream of Billings, where the river is banked by tons of development, a coal power plant, and even a couple oil refineries. Can't say I've ever seen a fly fisherman there. Not to say some don't try.

The first reaction is always like a movie catastrophe. Weeping. Gnashing of teeth etc. In the end, it's far more likely to finish in a whimper. Mostly because our initial reaction is almost always irrational.

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 03:13 PM
beavis believes whatever bs he wants to believe. no intelligent life there.

I've found that people that are so easy off-the-cuff with these kinds of comments are... where's McGruder at?... projecting. :D

Paladin
02-01-2012, 04:29 PM
Bringing it back: I am "rooting" for Ginger because Mittens is an absolute blag, and is a plastic, insincere, shallow, hypocrirical persom who expresses no actual empathy for anyone ir anything except money and his personal comforts.


Well, same for Ginger, but, you know, less so......


I hope they beat each other up through Tampa. And betind......

Drek
02-01-2012, 04:35 PM
Forgive me, I'll post another article. I know it can't compete with 'the guy you know' but I believe it shows that the government was far more interested in the POLITICAL implications of their actions than any sound real-world concerns about public safety. Our government went much farther on the drilling moratorium than even the experts they consulted with recommended. In fact those experts feel the government misled people about their opinion in order to impose a wide moratorium for POLITICAL purposes.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128024426

Experts Feel Misrepresented In Drilling Moratorium

From the article you quoted:
One of the other seven - her name is Lois Epstein; she's an oil and gas consultant in Alaska - Epstein says the government's regulatory apparatus at Minerals Management Service is so broken, there's no way the government knows whether deep water drillers are operating safely. As we know, the head of MMS resigned, and the new director is doing a wholesale reorganization of the agency.

Epstein says it will take at least six months. She says until the government gets its regulatory system in shape, deepwater drilling in the gulf just won't be safe.

The Obama administration stepped in with a Bush era MMS that was literally selling favors for sex to the oil and gas industry. They effectively told the industry that they can have carte blanche while the MMS is overhauled as long as they don't **** their pants. The industry then outright **** their pants.

The worst part is your argument hinges on people in the industry saying "yeah, but those guys using the same methods as us are the ones who ****ed up, why should we be punished? You should just single out the **** ups!" Which they know isn't something the MMS is currently capable of because the very companies they work for had previously so corrupted the MMS as to make it completely ineffective.

The Oil industry made their bed, then took a massive piss in it, then cried about being persecuted for being called a bunch of bed wetters. Why exactly should people feel sympathy for them?

In that part of Wyoming? Did anyone notice? :D

I'm sure it looked crazy. But I'm sure it got cleaned up. Oil does biodegrade. It's not radioactive. Not sure why we act like it is.

Do you know how long it takes for oil to biodegrade? ****ING DECADES. Its not exactly something you can hand wave, mop up what's left on the surface and assume it'll be all good in a few weeks. You're talking long term site management, contamination of water wells, ecological damage, etc..

BroncoBeavis
02-01-2012, 07:04 PM
The Obama administration stepped in with a Bush era MMS that was literally selling favors for sex to the oil and gas industry. They effectively told the industry that they can have carte blanche while the MMS is overhauled as long as they don't **** their pants. The industry then outright **** their pants.

You kids are funny with your partisan finger pointing. It was a year+ into the Obama admin, and you act like government/industry laziness/corruption begins and ends according to Republican/Democrat election cycles.

I'm sure many or most of the abuses in question went back to the Bush admin. Probably went back even further. The fact that you give credit to Obama for acknowledging the problem even though he presided over it for over a year and only cared after the shiznit hit the fan says it all.

Obama wasn't going to change it either, since he largely knew nothing about it until it was too late.

Our government lives beyond the power of any one man to fundamentally change it.


Do you know how long it takes for oil to biodegrade? ****ING DECADES. Its not exactly something you can hand wave, mop up what's left on the surface and assume it'll be all good in a few weeks. You're talking long term site management, contamination of water wells, ecological damage, etc..

Most of it is cleaned up without relying on biodegradation. The fact is though that whatever trace is left will biodegrade in a relatively short period. Will an accident leave a trace for 10 or 20 years? Probably. But it's really no more ecologically damaging than say a new suburban development, or a new Ex-Californian's retirement home with blacktop etched into the trees for his new McMansion.

As the article I posted mentioned. You can complain about the impact on the small amount of acreage involved. But we eat up many times that amount of acreage for other purposes on a routine basis.

That One Guy
02-01-2012, 07:42 PM
Unless you make $40-50k & have health benne's -

You ain't middle class.

And unless you have wings and can quack, you're not a duck.

Thanks for the info.

alkemical
02-02-2012, 06:33 AM
And unless you have wings and can quack, you're not a duck.

Thanks for the info.

Not everybody understands this. most people who think they are middle class, aren't.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 08:30 AM
Not everybody understands this. most people who think they are middle class, aren't.

Are you really going to piss in their cheerios if they're content with their place in life? I'd take a million of them over a single person crying because it's too hard to get ahead.

Just because most households have gone to a dual-income paradigm doesn't mean that's the only way. Having a 3000 square foot house and being part of "middle class" isn't necessarily better than having a 1200 foot apartment and having a mother that can raise her own children.

If people are content with their place in the world, why emphasize the boundaries just to point out they're excluded from your imaginary club?

houghtam
02-02-2012, 09:29 AM
Are you really going to piss in their cheerios if they're content with their place in life? I'd take a million of them over a single person crying because it's too hard to get ahead.

Just because most households have gone to a dual-income paradigm doesn't mean that's the only way. Having a 3000 square foot house and being part of "middle class" isn't necessarily better than having a 1200 foot apartment and having a mother that can raise her own children.

If people are content with their place in the world, why emphasize the boundaries just to point out they're excluded from your imaginary club?

Rep.

That's something I've never stood about the US. Who the **** cares whether or not you own a house? Even better, I really don't care how much money I make (and I certainly don't care how much anyone else makes). Since I quit my job to become a stay at home dad, I've been able to spend so much time with my 2 year old that I otherwise wouldn't; when I was running the movie theater I was working 50-60 hour weeks.

Screw that.

I have a great relationship with my child and domestic partner (okay, she's my wife. I just wanted to screw with some of you social conservatives). I live in a rented house, and have almost no intention of ever buying a house. And I love it.

Meanwhile I'll bide my time looking for the perfect job, and probably go back to work when he starts school. I wouldn't have it any other way right now. :)

alkemical
02-02-2012, 09:43 AM
Are you really going to piss in their cheerios if they're content with their place in life? I'd take a million of them over a single person crying because it's too hard to get ahead.

Just because most households have gone to a dual-income paradigm doesn't mean that's the only way. Having a 3000 square foot house and being part of "middle class" isn't necessarily better than having a 1200 foot apartment and having a mother that can raise her own children.

If people are content with their place in the world, why emphasize the boundaries just to point out they're excluded from your imaginary club?

Because "they" support things that hurt them in the long term, due to their illusion.

If you're making decisions based upon incorrect information, well - i'm sure your decisions aren't very good.

alkemical
02-02-2012, 09:45 AM
Rep.

That's something I've never stood about the US. Who the **** cares whether or not you own a house? Even better, I really don't care how much money I make (and I certainly don't care how much anyone else makes). Since I quit my job to become a stay at home dad, I've been able to spend so much time with my 2 year old that I otherwise wouldn't; when I was running the movie theater I was working 50-60 hour weeks.

Screw that.

I have a great relationship with my child and domestic partner (okay, she's my wife. I just wanted to screw with some of you social conservatives). I live in a rented house, and have almost no intention of ever buying a house. And I love it.

Meanwhile I'll bide my time looking for the perfect job, and probably go back to work when he starts school. I wouldn't have it any other way right now. :)

It's not about "possessions" - but of course that's what people automatically gravitate towards.

it's more about supporting policies that aren't in someone's best interest, due to the false perspective they feel their position is.

Just like the people who are middle class and bitching about socialism, but shop @ Wal*mart, drive cars, use cellphones, etc etc.

You know how Emo kids bitch about their suburban life?

It's kinda like that.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 09:48 AM
Just because most households have gone to a dual-income paradigm doesn't mean that's the only way. Having a 3000 square foot house and being part of "middle class" isn't necessarily better than having a 1200 foot apartment and having a mother that can raise her own children.

Many people don't think about the dual-income paradigm and how fundamentally it shifted things around in the American economy.

We essentially doubled the supply of labor in a very short period of time and then wondered why wages stagnated somewhat.

Not saying right or wrong. But we shouldn't be surprised. The economy has adjusted fairly well considering.

gyldenlove
02-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Many people don't think about the dual-income paradigm and how fundamentally it shifted things around in the American economy.

We essentially doubled the supply of labor in a very short period of time and then wondered why wages stagnated somewhat.

Not saying right or wrong. But we shouldn't be surprised. The economy has adjusted fairly well considering.

It is interesting that wages and wealth distribution went through such a rapid increase in the 40s and 50s when the dual-income paradigm shift happened and didn't start stagnating and reversing until the late 60s and early 70s.

The increase in labor supply was matched by a large increase in consumerism (anything from buying a 2nd car to purchasing pre-made meals and services such as cleaning and child minding) as well as large infrastructure upgrades needed to cope with the increased demands of a more mobile population.

The stagflation of the late 60s, early 70s and the demise of Keynesian economic theory as the dominant model for government economic management combined with increased coorporate wealth accumulation and speculation lead to wage control mechanism and ultimately reduced production due to negative forecasts which became self fulfilling prophecies.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 10:40 AM
It is interesting that wages and wealth distribution went through such a rapid increase in the 40s and 50s when the dual-income paradigm shift happened and didn't start stagnating and reversing until the late 60s and early 70s.

The increase in labor supply was matched by a large increase in consumerism (anything from buying a 2nd car to purchasing pre-made meals and services such as cleaning and child minding) as well as large infrastructure upgrades needed to cope with the increased demands of a more mobile population.

The stagflation of the late 60s, early 70s and the demise of Keynesian economic theory as the dominant model for government economic management combined with increased coorporate wealth accumulation and speculation lead to wage control mechanism and ultimately reduced production due to negative forecasts which became self fulfilling prophecies.

There are a lot of leaps taken in there. I don't think you can necessarily offset the increased labor supply with consumerism. In my mind our consumer economy is half our problem nowadays.

gyldenlove
02-02-2012, 10:44 AM
Are you really going to piss in their cheerios if they're content with their place in life? I'd take a million of them over a single person crying because it's too hard to get ahead.

Just because most households have gone to a dual-income paradigm doesn't mean that's the only way. Having a 3000 square foot house and being part of "middle class" isn't necessarily better than having a 1200 foot apartment and having a mother that can raise her own children.

If people are content with their place in the world, why emphasize the boundaries just to point out they're excluded from your imaginary club?

Go back 400 years and you can find monarchs and nobility saying the exact same thing, go back 200 years and you can hear slave owners repeat it - the idea is very Orwellian - if people do not know the alternative they will be happy where they are in return they will follow any leader who claims their position is being threatened.

People are happy being lied to, that is why so many pay so much to see Penn and Teller or David Blaine to their little shows. So why do we burst the bubble? why do we tell children there is no santa? because freedom is the only stable state of mankind, sooner or later the oppression of being lied to will lead to revolt.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 10:46 AM
Because "they" support things that hurt them in the long term, due to their illusion.

If you're making decisions based upon incorrect information, well - i'm sure your decisions aren't very good.

1, if you're always voting for your best interests, you're the problem with the country right now.

2, This has nothing to do with the "middle class" label. There is no legislature that I'm aware of that takes into consideration whether someone falls within an arbitrary "middle class" or not.

3, if someone's not smart enough to assess the ramifications of a vote, they should be worried about learning of their social responsibilities and less concerned with their financial standings. Smart poor guy>stupid rich guy

gyldenlove
02-02-2012, 10:51 AM
There are a lot of leaps taken in there. I don't think you can necessarily offset the increased labor supply with consumerism. In my mind our consumer economy is half our problem nowadays.

The consumer economy of the 40s and 50s was very different than it is today, you have to remember this was before supply side economics had ever been taken seriously and back in the day of progressive tax rates. The work force changed more during WW2 than at any other time last century and as a result many house holds had a large increase in disposable income as well as a large increase in demands and needs.

That One Guy
02-02-2012, 10:52 AM
Go back 400 years and you can find monarchs and nobility saying the exact same thing, go back 200 years and you can hear slave owners repeat it - the idea is very Orwellian - if people do not know the alternative they will be happy where they are in return they will follow any leader who claims their position is being threatened.

People are happy being lied to, that is why so many pay so much to see Penn and Teller or David Blaine to their little shows. So why do we burst the bubble? why do we tell children there is no santa? because freedom is the only stable state of mankind, sooner or later the oppression of being lied to will lead to revolt.

I can't disagree with what you say but to use a concept like he's using, "middle class", is a scare tactic in itself these days. Who ascribed any significance to this "class"? If we (as an entire society) live significantly better than the "middle class" did 30 years ago, what do we have to complain about if we don't fall into some arbitrary category? "Oh noes, I only have 1mbps DSL and my rich neighbor has 20 meg cable!"

Define "middle class" and then consider who actually falls. In today's society, it's just too hard to define and, thus, useless to consider as a rubric for anything. To tell someone to stop being content with their standing because they don't have what you ascribe to necessary for middle class is ignorant. Maybe rather than health care, they'd like to risk it and have 20" spinning rims on their car. Maybe they have health insurance, a car, a house, and they just live responsibly. What's wrong with that? Why should they be worried about their standing?

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 11:16 AM
The consumer economy of the 40s and 50s was very different than it is today, you have to remember this was before supply side economics had ever been taken seriously and back in the day of progressive tax rates. The work force changed more during WW2 than at any other time last century and as a result many house holds had a large increase in disposable income as well as a large increase in demands and needs.

I understand that. But it was different for very non-artificial reasons.

Consumerism in those days wasn't so problematic because we produced virtually everything we consumed. More consumption was met with more production. Plus the culture of the day was still light years ahead of us in terms of sanity in consumption and (lack of) consumer debt.

Supply-side wasn't necessarily a big issue at the time because we were our own suppliers for everything. As demand increased, domestic supply increased, keeping a balance.

Modern consumerism in a global market is a different animal altogether.

lonestar
02-02-2012, 11:39 AM
Rep.

That's something I've never stood about the US. Who the **** cares whether or not you own a house? Even better, I really don't care how much money I make (and I certainly don't care how much anyone else makes). Since I quit my job to become a stay at home dad, I've been able to spend so much time with my 2 year old that I otherwise wouldn't; when I was running the movie theater I was working 50-60 hour weeks.

Screw that.

I have a great relationship with my child and domestic partner (okay, she's my wife. I just wanted to screw with some of you social conservatives). I live in a rented house, and have almost no intention of ever buying a house. And I love it.

Meanwhile I'll bide my time looking for the perfect job, and probably go back to work when he starts school. I wouldn't have it any other way right now. :)


Well until obama took over owning a house meant building equity with those rent dollars not to mention the tax savings on Real estate taxes and mortgage interest..

Why pay rent to them to pay those taxes and interest and get nothing in return..that make ZERO sense to me..

I have owned a house or now two houses of some sort for the past forty years and now have income from rental property which I will sell down the road when the economy turns around after nobama is voted out of office..
I will now have deductions for taxes and any and all repairs I do to the house..

I also quit my high stress job also to work in the family business going from that 60+ hours and frankly NEVER stop thinking about if the business I was managing was doing OK.

When I made that move to the family business it allowed me to attend any and all school events and be home early so there were no latch key kids..
Once my kids were in sports I went to every game they played in home and away..

Frankly do not understand why more guys do not do this..

alkemical
02-02-2012, 11:39 AM
1, if you're always voting for your best interests, you're the problem with the country right now.

2, This has nothing to do with the "middle class" label. There is no legislature that I'm aware of that takes into consideration whether someone falls within an arbitrary "middle class" or not.

3, if someone's not smart enough to assess the ramifications of a vote, they should be worried about learning of their social responsibilities and less concerned with their financial standings. Smart poor guy>stupid rich guy



1.) Right now, you're voting for someone else's interest...not even yours. That's my point.

2.) Policies are made based upon income...see taxation for one example.

3.) Stupid Rich Guy > smart poor guy. Let me know when the next bail out is for smart poor guy.

alkemical
02-02-2012, 11:47 AM
I can't disagree with what you say but to use a concept like he's using, "middle class", is a scare tactic in itself these days. Who ascribed any significance to this "class"? If we (as an entire society) live significantly better than the "middle class" did 30 years ago, what do we have to complain about if we don't fall into some arbitrary category? "Oh noes, I only have 1mbps DSL and my rich neighbor has 20 meg cable!"

Define "middle class" and then consider who actually falls. In today's society, it's just too hard to define and, thus, useless to consider as a rubric for anything. To tell someone to stop being content with their standing because they don't have what you ascribe to necessary for middle class is ignorant. Maybe rather than health care, they'd like to risk it and have 20" spinning rims on their car. Maybe they have health insurance, a car, a house, and they just live responsibly. What's wrong with that? Why should they be worried about their standing?


Do you listen to AM Talk Radio at all? I do, and the "conversation" is always about how the "Liberals are trying to destroy the middle class!".

I don't understand how/why you keep focusing on "stuff", when the point i'm making is that the people whom consider themselves middleclass - aren't going to be middleclass (ie: POOR) if they don't take a greater understanding in "what's going on".

Just like how when people want to bitch about socialism, yet they shop at stores that benefit from socialism, and also contribute to the "outsourcing problem".

That's the point man: The middle class is going to go away - and you're going to be poor if you don't understand what's going on. Instead, people ADVOCATE for policies that aren't going to HELP, but HURT instead.

houghtam
02-02-2012, 11:57 AM
Well until obama took over owning a house meant building equity with those rent dollars not to mention the tax savings on Real estate taxes and mortgage interest..

Why pay rent to them to pay those taxes and interest and get nothing in return..that make ZERO sense to me..

I have owned a house or now two houses of some sort for the past forty years and now have income from rental property which I will sell down the road when the economy turns around after nobama is voted out of office..
I will now have deductions for taxes and any and all repairs I do to the house..

Great, so you got what, exactly? More money? Yay. To each their own, I suppose. Meanwhile, I take my kid for a walk while other people are mowing the lawn. I build snow forts (haha I almost accidentally typed "farts" instead) with my kid while other people are shoveling it. When the maintenance guy comes to fix something, I'm watching Star Wars with my son.

Let other people buy a house and worry about everything that comes along with it. Me, I'll take the carefree lifestyle for now.

alkemical
02-02-2012, 12:19 PM
Great, so you got what, exactly? More money? Yay. To each their own, I suppose. Meanwhile, I take my kid for a walk while other people are mowing the lawn. I build snow forts (haha I almost accidentally typed "farts" instead) with my kid while other people are shoveling it. When the maintenance guy comes to fix something, I'm watching Star Wars with my son.

Let other people buy a house and worry about everything that comes along with it. Me, I'll take the carefree lifestyle for now.

I also am a renter - and I'm with you. I have friends that say: "Why are you wasting your $ renting". My response: "Let me know how much your furnace is when it breaks".

I am totally with you on it. Ow(n)ing a house has it's benefits - no doubt - but the cost isn't just the payment.

houghtam
02-02-2012, 12:26 PM
I also am a renter - and I'm with you. I have friends that say: "Why are you wasting your $ renting". My response: "Let me know how much your furnace is when it breaks".

I am totally with you on it. Ow(n)ing a house has it's benefits - no doubt - but the cost isn't just the payment.

Yep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying owning a house doesn't have benefits, either. I wouldn't mind having one someday, if the circumstances warrant. But to me the only real benefit of living in a house is the equity, which equates to money, credit, etc., and if I made decisions based on how much money it was worth, I wouldn't be at home playing choo-choo with my son right now.

Though I should clarify, it's not just the family thing that drives it. When we were living in Atlanta, between my job and my wife's part-time job we were making close to 6 figures a year, and we decided we'd rather live in a luxury apartment than a house. When you work 60 hours a week, the last thing you want to do when you get home is mow your lawn.

bendog
02-02-2012, 12:43 PM
I'm you're blaming obama or the dims for the housing meltdown you're listening to wayyy too much fox, but in general I agree that after WWII with the GI bill creating the American workforce that really had no equal for twenty years, both parties pretty much agreed that it was in the nation's interest to create a home ownership middle class with the tax code. The housing industry employed a lot of folks, banks made lots of money without doing subprime and cdo stuff. Guys retired at 65 and the house was paid for.

I'm not sure a family of 4 or 5 can live on the income of a single male earner, and the cost of a college educ has risen exponentially as state taxes have been cut since 1975.

alkemical
02-02-2012, 02:00 PM
Yep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying owning a house doesn't have benefits, either. I wouldn't mind having one someday, if the circumstances warrant. But to me the only real benefit of living in a house is the equity, which equates to money, credit, etc., and if I made decisions based on how much money it was worth, I wouldn't be at home playing choo-choo with my son right now.

Though I should clarify, it's not just the family thing that drives it. When we were living in Atlanta, between my job and my wife's part-time job we were making close to 6 figures a year, and we decided we'd rather live in a luxury apartment than a house. When you work 60 hours a week, the last thing you want to do when you get home is mow your lawn.

I'm w/ya.

bendog
02-02-2012, 02:08 PM
No argument, but I know more than one person who'd be eating cat food, or nothing, w/o the reverse mortgage thing.

gyldenlove
02-02-2012, 02:28 PM
I can't disagree with what you say but to use a concept like he's using, "middle class", is a scare tactic in itself these days. Who ascribed any significance to this "class"? If we (as an entire society) live significantly better than the "middle class" did 30 years ago, what do we have to complain about if we don't fall into some arbitrary category? "Oh noes, I only have 1mbps DSL and my rich neighbor has 20 meg cable!"

Define "middle class" and then consider who actually falls. In today's society, it's just too hard to define and, thus, useless to consider as a rubric for anything. To tell someone to stop being content with their standing because they don't have what you ascribe to necessary for middle class is ignorant. Maybe rather than health care, they'd like to risk it and have 20" spinning rims on their car. Maybe they have health insurance, a car, a house, and they just live responsibly. What's wrong with that? Why should they be worried about their standing?

The easy way to define middle class would be to take the mean income and include everyone who is within 25% of that income level (this would work extremely nicely in countries with high income parity, however as disparaty grows the mean income will deviate significantly from the median income).

If people know what they have, what is available and are truly happy, I am pleased for them. However if the only reason people are happy with what they have is that they are told over and over again that they can lose it, you get into servitude problems. To draw a parallel, women who wear burkhas and are happy to do so are not oppressed (unless the reason they are happy to wear them is that not wearing them will get them ostrasized).

The middle class has seized to be an actual social stratification, today it is an empty bit of nomenclature.

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 02:42 PM
Yep.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying owning a house doesn't have benefits, either. I wouldn't mind having one someday, if the circumstances warrant. But to me the only real benefit of living in a house is the equity, which equates to money, credit, etc., and if I made decisions based on how much money it was worth, I wouldn't be at home playing choo-choo with my son right now.

Though I should clarify, it's not just the family thing that drives it. When we were living in Atlanta, between my job and my wife's part-time job we were making close to 6 figures a year, and we decided we'd rather live in a luxury apartment than a house. When you work 60 hours a week, the last thing you want to do when you get home is mow your lawn.

There's also a stability in ownership. Your housing costs stop being decided at the whims of others. There's an oil boom going on east of here that's driving rent through the roof. Long time residents- especially retirees, who rent have had to pick up and move because they couldn't make rent.

houghtam
02-02-2012, 02:47 PM
There's also a stability in ownership. Your housing costs stop being decided at the whims of others. There's an oil boom going on east of here that's driving rent through the roof. Long time residents- especially retirees, who rent have had to pick up and move because they couldn't make rent.

That's a non-issue to me, as well. Stability is all relative. I've moved 8 times in the past 12 years, and it's only as big a deal as you make out of it. I can always find somewhere else to live comfortably. It's not the end of the world.

lonestar
02-02-2012, 03:17 PM
Great, so you got what, exactly? More money? Yay. To each their own, I suppose. Meanwhile, I take my kid for a walk while other people are mowing the lawn. I build snow forts (haha I almost accidentally typed "farts" instead) with my kid while other people are shoveling it. When the maintenance guy comes to fix something, I'm watching Star Wars with my son.

Let other people buy a house and worry about everything that comes along with it. Me, I'll take the carefree lifestyle for now.

You see that with home ownership YOU if you decide do not have to mow the lawn..or trim the shrubs..

That is what you have a migrant work force to do IF they are legal..

hey work cheap and do good work for the most part..

as for SNOW well down here it does not stick to the sidewalks if it does indeed snow.. at least in the past 20 years or so that I have lived here..

costs me 40 bucks a month for the yard work..

Right now is not the time to own a home actually the past 5-6 years has not been .. But overall every year my house is worth more so it is an investment and since both of them are paid off it is just money in the bank waiting to happen..

BUt that was because we bought early in life and paid them off before they were due ..

In some cases doubled the house payment to stop paying interest .
Just adding $100. per month over ten years knocked 6 years off the mortgage payments..

but then the government made banks give mortgages to folks that were not qualified and well today the housing market for the most part is for crap..

If your ever thinking about buying now is the time to get one while the market is down..

BroncoBeavis
02-02-2012, 03:19 PM
That's a non-issue to me, as well. Stability is all relative. I've moved 8 times in the past 12 years, and it's only as big a deal as you make out of it. I can always find somewhere else to live comfortably. It's not the end of the world.

Maybe not to you. But if you live in a community with lots of family around and that's important to you, it becomes a big deal in a hurry. And it's not like they can move 15 miles down the road. The next town over has the same problem.

houghtam
02-02-2012, 03:20 PM
You see that with home ownership YOU if you decide do not have to mow the lawn..or trim the shrubs..

That is what you have a migrant work force to do IF they are legal..

hey work cheap and do good work for the most part..

as for SNOW well down here it does not stick to the sidewalks if it does indeed snow.. at least in the past 20 years or so that I have lived here..

costs me 40 bucks a month for the yard work..

Right now is not the time to own a home actually the past 5-6 years has not been .. But overall every year my house is worth more so it is an investment and since both of them are paid off it is just money in the bank waiting to happen..

BUt that was because we bought early in life and paid them off before they were due ..

In some cases doubled the house payment to stop paying interest .
Just adding $100. per month over ten years knocked 6 years off the mortgage payments..

but then the government made banks give mortgages to folks that were not qualified and well today the housing market for the most part is for crap..

If your ever thinking about buying now is the time to get one while the market is down..

I don't think you're understanding my view on the subject.