|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But, companies would have learned that when they make stupid decisions, they will cease to exist without the deep pockets of the American Taxpayer to stand behind them.
As it is, they have learned that they bear no real risk, so they are free to continue to make stupid decisions, as in risky investments which pay off big to the members of the board and management, with no downside whatsoever.
The above neglects the fact that these companies are in concert with our government when it comes to decision making ...
Big business and big government are one in the same ... they work together to keep each other's power growing in scope and influence.
We can go back and forth of Democrats and Republicans and the Tea Party and conservatives and liberals and Obama ... in the end, they're one in the same.
Folks were inspired by Obama and his message ... turns out he governed exactly like Bush ... currently, the other side is inspired by their big win ... and it will turn out that they govern exactly like Obama and Bush. And so it goes ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Folks were inspired by Obama and his message ... turns out he governed exactly like Bush ... currently, the other side is inspired by their big win ... and it will turn out that they govern exactly like Obama and Bush. And so it goes ...
If it does turn out that way, they'll be voted out as well.
I think we are seeing the tip of the "silent majority" rearing its head in this election. It's time we quit the spending. Hopefully a message was sent. If it wasn't, vote them out next time.
But I have to ask - you rail on "big business" all the time. You say big business - I see "big employer". Everyone needs an employer. I see big business as a plus. They employ a lot of people - and those people pay taxes (too high), and they buy stuff, which is good for other "big business", and small businesses as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Oh, and mac - I'm still waiting to hear how you saw "Tea party" listed on your ballot. No one else saw that.
Did you lie about that? Did you lie about voting? Did you have a ballot that had the Tea "party" pre marked so you could be sure to not vote for them?
Don't be a stranger mac. Fill us all in on your "I saw Tea Party listed on the ballot" comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,165 |
Quote:
You say big business - I see "big employer". Everyone needs an employer. I see big business as a plus. They employ a lot of people - and those people pay taxes (too high), and they buy stuff, which is good for other "big business", and small businesses as well.
Big business IS a very good thing. Big Business NEEDS to be given the latitude to conduct its business - it needs to make tons of money so that it can employ tons of people, but it also needs to be forced to do it ethically. It also needs to have its butt kicked out of policy discussions. I don't give a rat's ass what the Supreme Court decided... a business is NOT a person, and thus it is NOT a citizen and does not get a vote, nor does it get the rights of a citizen.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If it does turn out that way, they'll be voted out as well.
And the rigged game will continue as usual ...
Quote:
It's time we quit the spending. Hopefully a message was sent. If it wasn't, vote them out next time.
No messages were sent, and the spending will not stop ... a new group of pawns has merely been ushered in to replace the dead ones.
The system continues on.
Quote:
But I have to ask - you rail on "big business" all the time. You say big business - I see "big employer". Everyone needs an employer. I see big business as a plus. They employ a lot of people - and those people pay taxes (too high), and they buy stuff, which is good for other "big business", and small businesses as well.
Next time you complain about the government, should I point out how many people they employ? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
I agree. And I was disappointed when that decision came down. For the reason you stated.
But some people seem to hate big businesses. I don't. They employ a lot of people. Those people have jobs. They pay taxes, and most importantly, they buy stuff, which creates or keeps other businesses, which employ people.
If the tax policy here would favor businesses more, we wouldn't be seeing as many jobs go over seas.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Next time you complain about the government, should I point out how many people they employ?
Big difference ... evil corporations actually supply goods and services. Things of actual monetary worth. Federal government provides red tape and bureaucracy ... and usually at a fraction of the efficiency that an evil corporation could do it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
You go ahead and point out how many people the gov't. employs. In fact, I'd love to see a hard number there.
Then I will point out the the gov't. employees live off of the backs of people like me. Face it, gov't. employees get paid from taxes. When you don't have people paying in, they don't get paid.
Hell, if gov't. work was the answer to this economy, why doesn't the gov't. hire everyone? Here's the answer: Because they produce nothing, and the 20 to 35% they pay in taxes won't keep them working for very long. They rely on taking money from the private sector.
And honestly, have you ever seen a gov't. job that was efficient? Done at a cost similar to what the private sector could do it for?
And mac, still waiting for your answers bud.
Gotta go for now - taking my parents out for my mom's birthday. (bad son here - she's either 69 or 70 - I don't know)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If the tax policy here would favor businesses more, we wouldn't be seeing as many jobs go over seas.
Complete and utter fallacy ... AM talk radio nonsense.
Jobs go overseas for several reasons ... yes, taxes are one of them, but it's a drop in the bucket.
Companies and jobs always have and always will flock to the most desolate people and places. Companies aren't going to India solely because of taxes ... they're going there because the quality of life is bad, thus making everything cheaper.
Why pay someone $12-15 per hour to answer phones when you can drop far, far less? Why pay rent on a building in an American suburb when you can drop less than half that elsewhere?
And, yes, to your point ... why headquarter in America when you can set up a P.O. box in a tax-free haven somewhere?
In America, we used to have desolate immigrants ... now, we have illegal immigrants, but because of immigration laws and other things, their capabilities are limited in scope ... there are both positive and negative aspects to that.
But companies will always seek out the desolate in a poor quality of living ... that's a basic tenet of the market.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Big business and big government are one in the same ... they work together to keep each other's power growing in scope and influence.
Phil ... you keep railing on this over and over ... like there's some group of corporate big-wigs in a smoke filled room, pulling all the strings for everything that ever happens in this country.
If that's the truth, then why have so many corporations seen their stock prices crushed? Why are unions so powerful? Why is minimum wage rediculously high? Why are CEO's being removed by Presidential force?
Why does it always have to be a corporate grand consipiarcy? Could it not just be that large corporatations have the means to spend hefty portions of money to favor any candidate of their choice, and that candidate happens to pull favors for whichever companies happen to help them out? You know, they same way unions and special interest groups do it? It's like you've played the game Metal Gear one too many times.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Phil ... you keep railing on this over and over ... like there's some group of corporate big-wigs in a smoke filled room, pulling all the strings for everything that ever happens in this country.
Not at all. Not even close.
Look, most corporations are not part of the system at work ... it's not like there's some big crazy CEO meeting like you've described above.
But there certainly is a ruling elite that continues to benefit regardless of what happens ... and these folks have a great deal to do with the big calls ... when we go to war, what we do with our currency, etc., etc.
The Federal Reserve comes to mind ... many energy companies as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
But companies will always seek out the desolate in a poor quality of living ... that's a basic tenet of the market.
companies try to achieve the same or similar quality while lowering the price. that is the basic tenet of the market.
for instance, many silicon companies are hiring more in Oregon, Washington, and Texas because California has become too expensive.
another example is going to countries such as India and China that had/have lower standards of living. however, do you know what happens when these evil corporations go there? they raise the standard of living because by training and employing legions of people, the economies improve and build up an infrastructure for improvement.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
another example is going to countries such as India and China that had/have lower standards of living. however, do you know what happens when these evil corporations go there? they raise the standard of living because by training and employing legions of people, the economies improve and build up an infrastructure for improvement.
Another fallacy.
Does that happen on occasion? Yes.
Is it the norm? No.
I assume you've seen some the videos taken from factories and sweatshops in third world hellholes? Seen the living quarters they put them in? The conditions all around are horrid ... it's simply a fact that larger employers will take every inch they're allowed ... doesn't make them 'evil', by the way ... it's all in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
Quote:
Maybe,, and that would have been terrific, But what if GM and Chrysler went belly up and there wasn't any money to get for investors?
What about 200,000 people at GM alone that would have been thrown out of work while a new company was formed and financed.
What about the Vendors of GM alone that would have been thrown out of business through no fault of thier own other then they were owed money by GM?
What about all the GM Dealers that wouldn't have any product to sell,, how many employees is that.
What about.... oh you get my drift
I'd say a rough guess (and that's all it is) Between GM and Chrysler and all thier subsidiaries, Vendors, Dealers etc.. we'd have seen maybe as many as 2 to 3 million jobs eliminated. That's on top of what we already had lost.
The banks and AIG and other bailed out institutions would only add to that and the uncertainty on Wall Street was bad enough as it was, can you imagine how much worse it would have or could have been.
Point is, while I like your idea and think it's possible.. it could have gone the other way just as easily and put this entire country in a depression potentially much worse than 1929.
Some times, the alternatives to not helping, are worse than if you do help.
That's all I'm trying to point out...
That's by far a worst case scenario for the auto industry, you didn't say much about the banks. We certainly would have went into a deep recession, probably a depression. It's inevitable that we still will. We are printing money to cover our continuously increasing debt. Just how long to you think that can go on? We have a bloated government where over 60% of the employees make 6 figures. We are grossly overpaying our union workers (not necessarily in wages, but in union negotiated perks and bennies). All the bailout did was to prolong the inevitable for political reasons.....now it will be worse and we'll have another trillion dollars to pay off. If we would have let the problem correct itself vs. providing corporate welfare we would have been much better off. Now, financial institutions and big businesses actually have an incentive to fail! The worse they do, the more taxpayer money they get!
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Quote:
another example is going to countries such as India and China that had/have lower standards of living. however, do you know what happens when these evil corporations go there? they raise the standard of living because by training and employing legions of people, the economies improve and build up an infrastructure for improvement.
Another fallacy.
Does that happen on occasion? Yes.
Is it the norm? No.
I assume you've seen some the videos taken from factories and sweatshops in third world hellholes? Seen the living quarters they put them in? The conditions all around are horrid ... it's simply a fact that larger employers will take every inch they're allowed ... doesn't make them 'evil', by the way ... it's all in the game.
So, what you are telling me is that the greatly improved standard of living in India over the past 30years (when companies started industrializing that nation) or China over the past 15years is purely coincidence of the large coporations that are putting $$$ into those local economies right before the standard of living started to increase? 
Perhaps you would like to use South Korea as an example in the 60's/70's when much of the steel industry moved there?
It's simple economics. Desolate country + influx of sustained $$$ = less desolate country
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Are you honestly citing the living conditions of workers China and India to back your assertion? With a laughing icon?
Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Are you honestly citing the living conditions of workers China and India to back your assertion? With a laughing icon?
Wow.
considering that I work with a 80% Indian and Chinese workforce, all of which site how greatly improved their countries living conditions are compared to when they were young, yes.
several of the Chinese natives that I work with have noted that they never would have left and became citizens here if they realized how much better their country was going to get in such a short period of time (a couple are trying to return. tricky thing with communist nations once you officially leave however)
also, you have to start off with the relative nature of this course. just because the conditions do not meet US standards does not mean they are not much better than they were.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121 |
Quote:
Yes, there might have been some negatives.
But, companies would have learned that when they make stupid decisions, they will cease to exist without the deep pockets of the American Taxpayer to stand behind them.
As it is, they have learned that they bear no real risk, so they are free to continue to make stupid decisions, as in risky investments which pay off big to the members of the board and management, with no downside whatsoever.
This.
An auto collapse would have brought pain, but we would have been better off in the long run for it. Instead, we bailed them out for short term gain. The companies did not learn their lesson. They will continue to make poor business decisions and hold out their hand the next time they go bankrupt and Uncle Sam will bail them out again.
If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,858 |
Quote:
Yes, there might have been some negatives.
But, companies would have learned that when they make stupid decisions, they will cease to exist without the deep pockets of the American Taxpayer to stand behind them.
As it is, they have learned that they bear no real risk, so they are free to continue to make stupid decisions, as in risky investments which pay off big to the members of the board and management, with no downside whatsoever.
This is like letting your kid kick a houseguest in the nads and then giving him an ice-cream cone.
Since we have pretty well established that Mac is apparently hallucinating, I think it may be time to put him on ignore.
For him, and Charlie, as well, the Bush Tax Cuts are no longer "tax cuts for the rich" because Obama is thinking about extending them, so now they are just plain tax cuts. Edit your scripts accordingly.
Just a guess, but I'd say that saying there would be "some negatives" is a gross understatment..
Well, let's put it this way,, experts don't even agree about the outcome without TARP or the later Bailout by Obama..
I've heard some doing the talk shows say that it would have been worse then the last depression.. Others say it would have been a cleansing of corporate america. almost all say we'd have gotten thought it in time.
I won't pretend to know which way it would have gone.. I got no idea. Hell, like I said, the so called experts can't even agree on it....
As for the tax cuts.. we'll see. I was listening to both MSNBC and Fox for a few minutes,, and what I got out of it is this,, Nothing is going to change..
For the next two years we'll hear about how the Republicans aren't getting it done after condeming the Democrats for two years.. it's almost a joke. in fact, it's already starting.. I swear, they talk different, but they all walk the same path of deceit..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
I figure that this is as good a place as any for this ...... Rand Paul to create "Tea Party Caucus" ... http://www.wave3.com/story/13440334/paul-to-include-house-senate-and-democrats-in-tea-party-caucusPaul to include House, Senate and Democrats in Tea Party caucus By Elizabeth Donatelli - bio | email BOWLING GREEN, KY (WAVE) - It was a double digit victory and a win not only for Republicans in Kentucky, but also Tea Party candidates across the country. Rand Paul beat Democrat Jack Conway for Kentucky's U.S. Senate seat by 12 points and is now Senator-elect. Hours after the victory party at the Sloan Convention Center, Paul work up early to do media interviews that aired across the country. "I go there with optimism I guess, you know I've never held office before, so I go there expecting to change the world and I won't be told otherwise," said Paul on FOX News. Paul has emerged as the face of the Tea Party and said he will form a Tea Party caucus in Washington and will invite both Republicans and Democrats to join. "My idea for this Tea Party caucus is really to have house members and have senate members apart of it and talk about some of the reform message that we have," said Paul. While he would not give names of others in the caucus until he talks to them directly, Paul said he would welcome Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell. "If he wants to be part of the Tea Party caucus, absolutely," said Paul smiling. Paul said the first thing he wants to do is propose a balanced budget amendment. He spoke about eliminating wasteful spending like earmarks. When asked, he said he does not plan on taking earmarks. "No, I don't think it's a good idea," said Paul. "I will advocate for Kentucky, but within the process of the committee process." But "fixing Washington" will have to wait for a few days. His campaign staff said Paul will be going on a vacation with his wife, Kelley, after a long and grueling campaign season.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
What candidates were listed under the Tea Party? Where I live in Ohio there nobody on the ballot listed as a Tea Party Party.
Perhaps this means that mac never actually did see the voting ballot...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It is going to be interesting to watch these "tea party" representatives morph into Republicans and walk in lockstep
Right.. not like those free thinking democrats like Pelosi and Reid....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
It is going to be interesting to watch these "tea party" representatives morph into Republicans and walk in lockstep
Right.. not like those free thinking democrats like Pelosi and Reid....
Around and around it goes, and no one stops to think ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Rand Paul to create "Tea Party Caucus" ...
I thought the kook from Minnesota already had ... ?
Edit: she did, back in June ... so much for the idea of the Tea Party and smaller government/less spending ... who could've seen that coming? 
Last edited by PhilDawsonRocks; 11/03/10 07:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,511
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,511 |
Still waiting to see mac's answers.... 
<><
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 974 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is going to be interesting to watch these "tea party" representatives morph into Republicans and walk in lockstep
Right.. not like those free thinking democrats like Pelosi and Reid....
Around and around it goes, and no one stops to think ...
I don't agree with everything you say, but you have it pinned down pretty well.
The media and govt keep us bickering so we don't see wtf is going on.
We're trying to throw the ball downfield and he checked the ball down to Trent Richardson and the Indians on the choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is going to be interesting to watch these "tea party" representatives morph into Republicans and walk in lockstep
Right.. not like those free thinking democrats like Pelosi and Reid....
Around and around it goes, and no one stops to think ...
I think the same thing when I read your posts.
I disagree that everyone is the same, totally disagree. I disagree they are all evil and in cahoots with each other. I believe they are often corrupted by or stymied by the system. It's too big and too intrusive and everything gets swallowed up inside of it. It needs to be very small and very simple. I'll keep dreaming about it, even if I'm pretty sure I'll never see it.
As far as Mac....I'll bet it's a while before we see him again....he'll be out enjoying the weather and he and Charlie will meet up and compare who's nose has grown the longest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
It needs to be very small and very simple. I'll keep dreaming about it, even if I'm pretty sure I'll never see it.
We agree entirely.
Quote:
I disagree that everyone is the same, totally disagree. I disagree they are all evil and in cahoots with each other. I believe they are often corrupted by or stymied by the system. It's too big and too intrusive and everything gets swallowed up inside of it.
Again ... we're not far off.
I don't like the word 'evil' ... I know we've disagreed in the past on that, so I'll let it go.
As I said in another thread ... I believe that Obama actually believed he was going to do the things that he said ... I believe that a lot of these Tea Party folks actually believe they're going to do what they said.
But in the end, the institution dictates individual behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
evil
I'm sorry. We'll use your word, which I don't necessarily care for either. "Stupid".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,109 |
Quote:
Quote:
evil
I'm sorry. We'll use your word, which I don't necessarily care for either. "Stupid".
Don't you usually go with "dumbass"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
evil
I'm sorry. We'll use your word, which I don't necessarily care for either. "Stupid".
Don't you usually go with "dumbass"?
Just when she refers to you,
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
The "experts" who say it would have been worse than the Great Depression are ignoring the fact that there is now an FDIC and Unemployment Insurance, among other things. This makes me pretty much discount those opinions.
The loss of trust in banks, largely due to no FDIC, was a major factor in the depth and breadth of the Great Depression. My grandfather would never put money in a bank again. He also told me that the men who were selling apples or pencils on the streetcorner were NOT engaged in small business. They were begging.
Lots of drunks died off, lots of petty criminals got shot. Lots of people learned to work hard or starve to death.
Correction can come in many forms, usually unpleasant. Going totally without, or postponing, necessary Correction, almost always makes it worse. Rewarding bad behavior just to avoid making a scene is foolish and only serves to make others pay the price in the future, with interest.
Now as for those who see no difference among the parties. One of them, and just one, wants you, me, and everyone else to keep MORE of the money that we earn. The other one wants us to keep LESS of what we earn. It's pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 34
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 34 |
Quote:
I have not been following politics lately as I have been busy enjoying life during this beautiful autumn, so when voting yesterday, I must admit to not being the most informed voter as to what was going to be on the ballot.
While voting, I noticed that "tea party" candidates were listed separately from Republicans. I was under the impression that tea partiers "were" Republicans.
It is going to be interesting to watch these "tea party" representatives morph into Republicans and walk in lockstep as they adopt the GOP/George W. Bush agenda of...tax cuts for the rich..outsourcing jobs...and more wars.
If you haven't been following any politics lately. Then why are you even voting if you don't know what you are voting for. That's VERY irresponsible. You might as well not vote at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Now as for those who see no difference among the parties. One of them, and just one, wants you, me, and everyone else to keep MORE of the money that we earn. The other one wants us to keep LESS of what we earn. It's pretty simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
You can all you want ..... but the bottom line is that my net taxes went up under Clinton, and down under Bush, and would go back up again under Obama if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended. You tend to take this "I'm a superior intellect because I don't think that anyone can make a difference" bit a bit too far sometimes. It's an act that has definitely gotten old. I would also remind you that giving up never accomplishes a thing ....... and that is, really, what your position advocates.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
You can all you want ..... but the bottom line is that my net taxes went up under Clinton, and down under Bush, and would go back up again under Obama if the Bush Tax Cuts are not extended.
And how did spending go again?
Look, cutting taxes is all well and good ... but if you continue to spend and spend and spend and spend ... guess what's going to happen?
So you can pretend like the GOP wants to keep your money in your pocket (which they don't) ... but that notion only goes so far when you drop trillions upon trillions on needless wars (like Bush and Obama have), corporate subsidy health care bills (which Bush and Obama have), bloated social spending that benefits very few (like Bush and Obama have) ... are you getting my point? Should I keep going?
Quote:
It's an act that has definitely gotten old.
So has the 'we change change things if we vote for this new, different Republican/Democrat'.
Quote:
I would also remind you that giving up never accomplishes a thing ....... and that is, really, what your position advocates.
To a point, I agree, but when you hit the brick wall of reality, that thinking needs to differ.
Why don't you go out in the backyard and toss the pigskin around until you're an NFL QB? Never give up hope!
The odds of fixing the problems of spending and government expansion within the current framework are roughly the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,308
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,308 |
In the past few weeks I have head some of the republicans or tea partiers say that they want a balanced budget, smaller government, less entitlements, no tarp, no stimulus, lower taxes, repeal parts/all of the health care plan. I am ok with much of this.
However, with one in six unemployed; one in six children in poverty; what is either party going to do to create actual jobs.
Also, if we get into another meltdown like 2008, will the congress this time let the wall street firms/banks fail?
Will they not pass a tarp or stimulus bill and let GM and all of the suppliers go under?
Do the tell the mid forties father of 4 who loses his job that we are going back to a 26 week unemployment and you better find a job somewhere or you are on your own?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,790 |
Quote:
However, with one in six unemployed; one in six children in poverty; what is either party going to do to create actual jobs.
Nothing. Government can't create jobs. Look at what is happening now. All the Republicans can do is help make a climate that is conducive to job growth. Even if the are able to put the proper incentives in place they have to be able to sell it to the American people. Lack of consumer confidence can derail any plan.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Government can't create jobs.
They most certainly can.
Look at the Iraq War or the stimulus nonsense.
Lasting jobs? No. They are superficial jobs that will not last. So you are correct in the idea that it's a fallacy to claim that they can create and sustain jobs ...
But, of course, most business is not much better ... most of government and most of business are not much different -- invented needs, invented money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,419 |
Unfortunately, government can, and does create jobs. The federal government (excluding the postal service) employs about 2 million people. (per the BLS website, and as of 2008) I would bet that state and local governments employ about the same number of people combined. So ..... government does create jobs. The problem is that they take money that would create 10 jobs in the private sector to create 1 public sector job. What amazes me is the salaries of some of these jobs. Quick quiz ..... which job pays the most? a) Policeman b) Chemist c) Air Traffic Controller d) Microbiologist Find the answer at: http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tea Party? or Republican?
|
|
