PDA

View Full Version : The Repugs are Dead Meat



Nicholas Scheuer
07-22-2010, 06:25 PM
They can say kwhat they like, but after weeks of opposing Unemployment Benefits, the unemployed woiuldn't touch a Repug Candidate with a stick.

Moby Nick

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-22-2010, 06:29 PM
Libtard.

Moi?

paul oman
07-22-2010, 06:30 PM
for every joe now collecting OVER 2 YEARS of free money, there are probably 5 people that think 2 years is way too long, and one other person who didn't get unemployment and is as mad as hell at those that did.

john l
07-22-2010, 06:49 PM
i know of no english word "libtard." but if you think about potential meanings of lib for liberal and tard for tardy or retard,
the meaning of libtard might be to retard liberal thinking which would make the republicans, the libtards.
or is donn miss-spelling?

ccmanuals
07-22-2010, 06:55 PM
I'm waiting for the left to introduce a new jobs bill a month or 2 before the mid term elections. Of course the right will feel compelled to oppose it completely. This will make it really fun to watch.

john l
07-22-2010, 06:57 PM
Do you know of Repug?

a former pug?

john l
07-22-2010, 06:58 PM
or a pug again?

Paul Pless
07-22-2010, 06:58 PM
to pug again

paul oman
07-22-2010, 07:05 PM
gov cannot create jobs. If you thought so, the stimulus spending proved your wrong. Only the private sector can create real jobs and they don't trust obama. Business owners generally don't hire folks who make up stupid words, champion massive unemployment debt, and bad mouth folks with different political views (that are commonly the views of the owners doing the hiring).

Without the right attitude don't expect any job offers when that free money ends!

john l
07-22-2010, 07:09 PM
what about those boeing orders? no jobs there? the truth is that gov helps big business and not
small business where most new jobs are created. the small business owner, the entrepreneurs
are the true capitalist. they can't buy government attention. of course this is a generalization.

ccmanuals
07-22-2010, 07:11 PM
Highway bills don't create job? Shipbuilding doesn't create jobs? Building infrastructe doesn't create jobs? Hmmm.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-22-2010, 07:15 PM
Do you know of Repug?

"It's REPUGNICAN"
anon.

perldog007
07-22-2010, 07:17 PM
One needn't shoot high to go over the heads of this audience.

What? Even with this high level of discourse?

Gerarddm
07-22-2010, 08:49 PM
The social Darwinism as currently espoused by many on the REPUBLICAN side is going to cost them votes. Period. Especially by the nonsensical running out the clock, which simply added insult to injury.

Keith Wilson
07-22-2010, 09:28 PM
champion massive unemployment debtOh, Lordy; here we go again. Paying unemployment benefits is probably the most effective use of tax money to stimulate demand, since it gets spent almost at once. The CBO estimates that for every dollar spent on unemployment, GDP goes up by about $1.70. The choice right now for way too many people of people is not between finding a job and collecting unemployment, it's between unemployment benefits or nothing. The deficit is a problem long-term; lack of demand for goods and services is a problem right now.

pipefitter
07-23-2010, 03:20 AM
I don't think it was only the DAR that tanked the economy because they sure had a lot of help from the DAP. Much of what was portrayed as a good economy in the last two decades, was largely dependent on what those DAR people did. All those construction jobs didn't just happen on their own. It still perplexes me as to why so many people thought it was to be sustainable long term or that they have been caught off guard with recent events. If you just consider employment alone, the trends have not been in our favor for a very long time.

john welsford
07-23-2010, 04:46 AM
You should have a quiet look behind the scenes and see where Boeing get their componentry build, tail sections in Australia, body sections in Japan, other bits from Brazil and Mexico, some from UK, and so on. Two points here, one is that any bigger business tends to work globally so the "orders" dont neccessarily mean a giant windfall for Seattle, and the other point is that big businesses source a large part of their componentry and services from smaller companies contracted to supply to the prime manufacturers standards and specs so the money spreads around, and around.

John Welsford


what about those boeing orders? no jobs there? the truth is that gov helps big business and not
small business where most new jobs are created. the small business owner, the entrepreneurs
are the true capitalist. they can't buy government attention. of course this is a generalization.

Nicholas Scheuer
07-23-2010, 07:45 AM
For you I don't "shoot" at all, Donn. I pour gunk on the ground that drips into your hole.

Moby Nick

elf
07-23-2010, 08:19 AM
The social Darwinism as currently espoused by many on the REPUBLICAN side is going to cost them votes. Period. Especially by the nonsensical running out the clock, which simply added insult to injury.

It won't matter until the press starts asking the question that reveals it. Most people aren't smart enough to realize that the Republicans prefer people to starve to death than get a few more weeks of unemployment. Yesterday I listened to one expound on how people are going to have to accept a lower standard of living and it would be preferable to make them lose their homes and go hungry and work at McDonald's, than encourage them to remain unemployed by paying them unemployment. Diane Rehm tried and tried and tried to get this jerk to see the variety of consequences of his posture, but he just repeated his line - over and over, like a broken record.

You ain't gonna understand what you don't want to understand.

ljb5
07-23-2010, 09:07 AM
gov cannot create jobs. If you thought so, the stimulus spending proved your wrong.

Republicans cannot create jobs. If you thought so, the Bush administration proved you wrong.


Only the private sector can create real jobs and they don't trust obama. Business owners generally don't hire folks who make up stupid words, champion massive unemployment debt, and bad mouth folks with different political views (that are commonly the views of the owners doing the hiring).

Judging from the success of the last two Republican administrations, it appears that Business owners don't like Republicans either.

Or had you forgotten?

perldog007
07-23-2010, 09:29 AM
I understand that inertia and other factors beyond my grasp are at work in the economy, but I hazard to forward that the average bear in the woods is not by default more aware of the finer points of economics than myself or any other layperson. No matter who made the mess, who is cleaning it up, who is right, who is wrong, there were more jobs to go around when this Administration took office than there are now.

I am not sure we can count on the masses to understand much more than that when election day comes.

By the way Lj, what took you so long to jump in here? I was starting to worry that some tea baggers had you tied up in a barn somewhere for re-education.

Mrleft8
07-23-2010, 09:36 AM
"It's REPUGNICAN"
anon.

I thought it was "Repugnant".....

Captain Blight
07-23-2010, 09:53 AM
gov cannot create jobs. If you thought so, the stimulus spending proved your wrong. Only the private sector can create real jobs and they don't trust obama. Business owners generally don't hire folks who make up stupid words, champion massive unemployment debt, and bad mouth folks with different political views (that are commonly the views of the owners doing the hiring).

Without the right attitude don't expect any job offers when that free money ends!I'm on the Left, in the public sector, own a business, and I trust Obama. Oh, sure, taxes may go up a point or two. Big deal! Life marches on.

sdowney717
07-23-2010, 11:17 AM
gov cannot create jobs. maybe not constitutionally. they certainly did in the new deal.
How would people feel if instead of giving money away to foreigners, aliens, warmongers, we took that money and spent it on American soil using Americans and had government new deal type of infrastructure jobs again? things are not bad enough employment wise for the government to do the new deal yet. But if unemployment was 25% I think you would see something happen. Otherwise, it would be anarchy in the streets.
French youth rioting comes to mind where they had nothing, no jobs, no money, no one wanted to give them work to do. Some people have to be led, held by the hand, when things get really bad or you might even get another Hitler and another big bad war.

paul oman
07-23-2010, 11:33 AM
collecting unemployment is the kiss of death. Who would hire someone who has not found some kind of work after over TWO years of looking? That person now has to compete against two years worth of HS or College graduates - all anxious and perky and cheaper to hire/fire/transfer than you.
Also most folks on long term unemployment project themselves as victims (they certainly do here in the forum) - Folks don't hire 'victims" . And after two yours you are out of touch with the technology, etc. - after 2 years if you are out, you are out for good.

And don't count on some sort of fed job program to bail you out after two years of collecting unemployment - those program jobs will go to former illegals, minorities, and folks still collecting unemployment. If you are past your unemployment cut-off, getting you a job doesn't save the gov any money and doesn't lower the unemployment numbers which the folks in power need to stay in power.

Bottom line, the more and longer you are on/collecting unemployment you are being screwed over by Uncle Sam. You get a carrot ($) upfront, but when that carrot is gone, you are history. Bosses will someone who as been unemployed for a few months, or who as tried to start a business or two during those two years of unemployment, but those that have just sat at home, sent out a few resumes, etc. and collected checks while their industry passes them by, are never going to get rehired. Of course you had 2 years of funding to get your self employed business going!

Being unemployed is one thing, sitting home and collecting checks for over two years in another, very negative thing.

elf
07-23-2010, 11:44 AM
It is extraordinarily unlikely that someone collecting unemployment insurance is "sitting home". Most people are unable to sit still for more than 10 minutes but, even if depressed, most will start doing something in a few months. They may be job hunting, taking care of their kids while the other family member is at work, working on their homes, volunteering in their communities, taking care of elders, hoping to find a new profession through retraining.

The simplisitic jargon of the Right in the US does not promote solutions or healthy conversation. Clearly, those are not their goal.

Gerarddm
07-23-2010, 11:57 AM
"Sitting home" my ass. No wonder your tag line is happy moron.

There is a HUGE reset going on. These are extraordinary times. Those people out of work for extended periods will not be stigmatized as they would in the past because so many are in the same boat. Especially those who are trying to re-invent themselves, extended unemployment gives them some breathing room to do so.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 12:27 PM
I thought it was "Repugnant".....

My word is a noun.
Yours is an adjective.

Ya' wanna' diagram some sentences, buddy?

Glen Longino
07-23-2010, 12:29 PM
Only about 100 days until elections!
Maybe the Republican's poor showing in those elections will put a muzzle on the Party Of No We Can't.

perldog007
07-23-2010, 12:42 PM
I just heard the President speak on the economy. I was flipping through and saw him on Fox so I went directly to MSNBC and they had it too so I knew it wasn't faked :D

Anyway, he looked good, sounded good and still seems to have that spark. A hundred days is a long time when we are talking about a 24 hour news cycle. It's too soon to predict a bloodbath or a freezeout. With a gun to my head I would say the Filibuster again becomes possible and the house loses a few seats but no change in majority. Without a gun to my head I say it's too early to call.

The public isn't partisan, they just want the best deal for themselves. In car sales they teach you that a good deal is a state of mind. What will the public's state of mind be in November? Depends on many factors. I guess that by November the delay on UI benefits isn't even a memory. That's only a guess though....

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 12:53 PM
collecting unemployment is the kiss of death. Who would hire someone who has not found some kind of work after over TWO years of looking? That person now has to compete against two years worth of HS or College graduates - all anxious and perky and cheaper to hire/fire/transfer than you.
Also most folks on long term unemployment project themselves as victims (they certainly do here in the forum) - Folks don't hire 'victims" . And after two yours you are out of touch with the technology, etc. - after 2 years if you are out, you are out for good.

And don't count on some sort of fed job program to bail you out after two years of collecting unemployment - those program jobs will go to former illegals, minorities, and folks still collecting unemployment. If you are past your unemployment cut-off, getting you a job doesn't save the gov any money and doesn't lower the unemployment numbers which the folks in power need to stay in power.

Bottom line, the more and longer you are on/collecting unemployment you are being screwed over by Uncle Sam. You get a carrot ($) upfront, but when that carrot is gone, you are history. Bosses will someone who as been unemployed for a few months, or who as tried to start a business or two during those two years of unemployment, but those that have just sat at home, sent out a few resumes, etc. and collected checks while their industry passes them by, are never going to get rehired. Of course you had 2 years of funding to get your self employed business going!

Being unemployed is one thing, sitting home and collecting checks for over two years in another, very negative thing.

You keep doing psychoanalysis on those who are recieving unemployent compensation and you ignore the real reason for unemployment insurnace.
Government long before you were born figured out that the more people you had participating in the economy the better the economy becomes. And when large segments of the workforce are eucred out of the economy by job loss the economy developes a hole that brings on a decline.
Simply put, government wants to keep money moving thru' the system. There is no better way to do that than to get money into the hands of those that have important unfilled needs. The poor don't have offshore bank accounts or tax dodges. They pay the landlord, the grocer, and, maybe put something on the collection plate on Sunday. Money spent that way trickles thru' the economy and is said to have a multiplier effect because it can change hands many times in a short period. No matter how the basis of the economy changes if big chunks of the population stop spending bad things happen.
Now if you can dream up one of your little parables about how the flow of money can be choked off and the economy will charge along unabated I would like to hear it.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 01:10 PM
IThe public isn't partisan, they just want the best deal for themselves. In car sales they teach you that a good deal is a state of mind. What will the public's state of mind be in November? Depends on many factors. I guess that by November the delay on UI benefits isn't even a memory. That's only a guess though....

You surely don't understand voters.
When they get into the privacy of the voting booth their choices depend more on what their guts tell them than what's in their heads. Voters like that will often vote against their own self interest to satify their gut desires. The guys behind Ronnie Reagan knew that and Reagan gave a wink and a nod to all the single-issue types including the public racists like Bob Jones.
This next election cycle we will have alot of folks like the Tea Partiers (ists?) who are mad as hell about everything in general and nothing in particular. Should make for an interesting outcome. Can you see a Senator Sharon Angle who wants to reduce the federal government to the size of a second-rate Vegas casino?

Kaa
07-23-2010, 02:48 PM
A lot of Americans will vote against their own best interests if there is a "cause" to rally behind.

Wouldn't that imply you making a judgment as to where someone's best interests lie? That could be iffy.

Also, humans, thankfully, are not reducible to their economic interests.

Kaa

Kaa
07-23-2010, 03:33 PM
Nah, my judgement's pretty damned good.

Ah, good, so that at least THAT problem is solved :-)


Elected officials can make your life miserable without touching you economically.

The interesting question is when the problem is voters making bad choices and when the problem is a broken and dysfunctional political system.

Kaa

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 04:09 PM
Wouldn't that imply you making a judgment as to where someone's best interests lie? That could be iffy.

Also, humans, thankfully, are not reducible to their economic interests.

Kaa

It doesn't take much imagination to pick out poor states like Kentucky that routinely send hardshell Repuglicans to the House and Senate where they refuse to vote for measures that would bring home fefdral money to alieviate the economic hardships. RED voters can be cherrypicked by avoiding talk of poverty but talking to their longing for guns, religion, abortion, prayer and schools, among other things, none of which can put food on the table.
Dozens of RED states were literally dragged into the 20th century by projects instituted by Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic congress. But those Democratic affiliations were quickly forgotten when another Democratic president said RED state's racist laws would have to be abandoned. Of course the goodies were all in hand by then and could not be taken back.


They are if you talk of humans in the agrigate. When economies falter it usually brings down the entire culture. Hundreds of millions in Africa, for instance, live in failed economies and their existence is reduced to hunting for food and water to get thru' each day. And those that have a source of food today may not tomorrow because of drought, or soil driven to sterility.

RonW
07-23-2010, 04:14 PM
Norm wants to know..

OK, great. Tell me what the government SHOULD do, to create jobs. BE SPECIFIC!

And I think norm is right, how about some solid answers instead of childish bickering...

#1. you stop the federal reserve chairman (bernake) from printing money and creating credit and then lending it to the banks with a 1/4 percent interest rate, who instead of loaning it as they generlly do, turn around and buy tresury notes at 3% interest and more, and never even touch a loan.
Safe easy money..it would take a idiot banker not to be able to make money under these terms.
This situation is drying up the money on the streets creating the crisis of credit and cash flow that we are now in..
Of course stopping this would short the flow of cash to the federal government..

#2. Now start tariffs to protect american workers as well as tax breaks and tax increases to focus back on american made consumer goods.
Of course this would interfear with politicians making deals with foreign governments allowing imports in exchange for air space and military bases.

And a whole lot more that has nothing to do with a socialist society, but a self supporting society..

RonW
07-23-2010, 04:17 PM
Chuch-
when another Democratic president said RED state's racist laws would have to be abandoned.

Are you referring to johnson? He was the biggest racist alive at the time and was all about politics and his legacy....

McMike
07-23-2010, 06:37 PM
I just got laid off again, if the previous unemployment extensions were not passed by the Feds my family would be in big trouble. It's been seven months of work since the last time I was laid off and that was for 3 months. I was very lucky to find the most recent job, now . . . . I don't know but it doesn't look good. I'm a hard working guy who prior to the economy going to poop had never been laid off or fired. This economy was not my fault and the folks whose fault it is are walking millionaires and billionaires. If you need someone to be angry at, be angry at them and the government officials who let them do it.

In the mean time, I will do my duty as a good and responsible citizen to bust my hump finding a new job. Wish me luck because at this point skill has very little to do with it (the construction industry is flat and not going anywhere fast).

ljb5
07-23-2010, 06:49 PM
collecting unemployment is the kiss of death. Who would hire someone who has not found some kind of work after over TWO years of looking? That person now has to compete against two years worth of HS or College graduates - all anxious and perky and cheaper to hire/fire/transfer than you.
Also most folks on long term unemployment project themselves as victims (they certainly do here in the forum) - Folks don't hire 'victims" . And after two yours you are out of touch with the technology, etc. - after 2 years if you are out, you are out for good.

And don't count on some sort of fed job program to bail you out after two years of collecting unemployment - those program jobs will go to former illegals, minorities, and folks still collecting unemployment. If you are past your unemployment cut-off, getting you a job doesn't save the gov any money and doesn't lower the unemployment numbers which the folks in power need to stay in power.

Bottom line, the more and longer you are on/collecting unemployment you are being screwed over by Uncle Sam. You get a carrot ($) upfront, but when that carrot is gone, you are history. Bosses will someone who as been unemployed for a few months, or who as tried to start a business or two during those two years of unemployment, but those that have just sat at home, sent out a few resumes, etc. and collected checks while their industry passes them by, are never going to get rehired. Of course you had 2 years of funding to get your self employed business going!

Being unemployed is one thing, sitting home and collecting checks for over two years in another, very negative thing.

Your ignorance would be a constant source of amusement, if it were not so dangerous to this country.

While you do make a good point that being on unemployment insurance is a not an enviable situation, you have not offered any ideas for how a person can get off of it, except 'look for work' or 'start a business' --- which is, of course, a requirement for receiving the benefit, so your advice is totally moot.


If you're fortunate enough to not need unemployment insurance, it's likely that some of your customers, clients or tenants are receiving it.

What do you think would happen if they suddenly had less money to spend on the goods or services that you offer?

delecta
07-23-2010, 07:11 PM
OK, great. Tell me what the government SHOULD do, to create jobs. BE SPECIFIC!

Cut the corporate tax rate to 10%.

ljb5
07-23-2010, 07:17 PM
Two points:

1. As distasteful as it is, I have to admit Oman has a point. Employers routinely screen out candidates who are not currently employed. Most won't get an invitation to an interview.

True.... but how would cutting off unemployment insurance help that situation?

It seems that the argument coming from the Right is that being unemployed is awful.... and they want to make it worse.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-23-2010, 07:37 PM
Chuch-

Are you referring to johnson? He was the biggest racist alive at the time and was all about politics and his legacy....

He was and he was as crooked a politician as Texas ever produced.
But he produced more meaningful civil rights legilation than any president from the ante bellum period to now. If he hadn't been seduced into fighting in Vietnam he would have been a great president.

Is Boehner still taking those suntan pills?

John Smith
07-23-2010, 07:53 PM
I'm waiting for the left to introduce a new jobs bill a month or 2 before the mid term elections. Of course the right will feel compelled to oppose it completely. This will make it really fun to watch.
Seems to me they've already tried to introduce a jobs bill; couldn't get 60 votes.

If I were running the DNC, I'd begin a national campaign by advertising those bills that failed to break a filibuster by less than three votes, and those bills that were severely compromised in order to get 60 votes. My theme would be: what could have been with three more democrats in the senate.

I would paint the republicans as members of the TEA party. Let Rand Paul and Sharon Angles be the poster candidates for the republican party.

The healthcare bill is polling better and better, as people find out all the evil stuff they heard was simply not true. People on Medicare, who were told their benefits would be cut, have been officially advised that the benefits have improved.

Some of these people, I suspect, will realize they were lied to, and show their anger with that when they vote.

The democrats take a lot of blame for failing to pass stuff a lot of people would like, in spite of having the majority. A bill may get 57 - 59 votes in the senate, but, because of the overly used and abused filibuster, needs 60.

I don't think it should be overly difficult to place the blame on a bill failing on those who made the need for 60 votes in the senate SOP.

Chip-skiff
07-23-2010, 08:30 PM
The Republican Party: Dead Meat walking. And talking. And talking. And talking.

Ever watch those zombie flicks? Pretty easy to imagine Mitch McConnell leading the pack.

RonW
07-23-2010, 08:43 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/house-money/article/congress-spent-604000-on-bottled-water-397000-on-catering/19541719

I don't want mitch mcconell leading the pack, But I sure in the hell don't want the likes of nancy pelosi and dirty harry either.....

pipefitter
07-24-2010, 08:03 PM
Help me to understand something here. The "repugs" were dead meat in 06 as well. Why is it that you think that what the R's are doing or failing to do now, shows approval for what the D's have been doing? Isn't it still true that the majority(polled 70-80% at one point recently IIRC) of voters still feel that members of Congress are more interested in helping their careers than they are interested in helping, or able to help the people?

There seems to be a missing or unconsidered option here that could appeal to voters that perhaps a new breed of candidate could capitalize on that doesn't center around the 'my guy is better than your guy even though they both suck' routine, party be damned.

The trend in the last presidential election seemed to depict a public tiring of partisan politics and the D's have not helped to correct this by putting the blame of their own inabilities at the feet of the R's. It just starts to look like idle excuses after so many years, or, centering around the question of how many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Sometimes, when the children are misbehaving, you don't have time to figure out who started it and just have to punish them both equally and send them to their rooms if you hope to get your housework done.

ljb5
07-24-2010, 10:07 PM
Give me my tax $$ back and I will make a demand for goods and services.

This was the basic concept behind Bush's tax cuts.

The results were not as favorable as some people had hoped.

It is, of course, easy to see why so many people are enamored of the idea of no taxes and a healthy economy. Greed is a powerful impulse that makes people set aside their more rational parts.

They want so badly for it to work that they insist it does, despite the evidence.

But it just doesn't seem to work.

perldog007
07-24-2010, 10:52 PM
I am no economist, but would the tax cuts have created growth alone? and have they ever created sustained growth? I think the one and true magic formula has never been found. THAT"S ONLY A GUESS don't kill me.

I did hear the President say he was asking for tax cuts on small business owners so maybe he considers it an effective strategy if focused on a particular segment and combined with other policies.

My first I.T. job ( mouse jockey) I had two supervisors who were piled high and deep, one in economics the other in physics with a strong background in stats and economics they had similar political leanings and almost never agreed on economic policy. I can only believe that much of what works or does not is situational.

ljb5
07-25-2010, 10:51 AM
I am no economist, but would the tax cuts have created growth alone? and have they ever created sustained growth? I think the one and true magic formula has never been found. THAT"S ONLY A GUESS don't kill me.

I did hear the President say he was asking for tax cuts on small business owners so maybe he considers it an effective strategy if focused on a particular segment and combined with other policies.

It's clear that the Bush tax cuts (and repeated rounds of cash-back stimulus) did not create growth. Unemployment doubled, the deficit skyrocketed and then we were left with a massive crisis. (Nor were the tax cuts the only cause.... I'm looking at you, Iraq war.)

The first thing we have to admit is that tax cuts are at odds with deficit reduction. If you're an ideologue about either, you're going to argue yourself into a corner, as the Republicans did many times trying to argue that deficits don't matter (when they're in charge) and then trying to shut down the government when they're in the minority.

The second thing we should recognize is that not all tax cuts are the same. For a tax cut to be an effective stimulant, it should do one of two things: (1) directly encourage a beneficial activity (such as employment, home purchasing, car buying, or domestic manufacturing).... or (2) fall into the hands of people who will spend it quickly, completely and locally.

The Bush tax cuts were sloppy in that they were not targeted to accomplish either of these goals. There was not enough guidance attached to the cuts to drive that money back into the economy.

Leaving aside the moral arguments of who 'needs' a tax cut and who 'deserves' a tax cut, it's a simple fact that poor people tend to spend incoming money sooner, more completely and more locally than rich people. Tax cuts for the rich tend to end up either languishing in savings and retirement accounts, sitting on the sidelines waiting for an investment or even spent on overseas goods and services. Tax cuts for the poor tend to get spent on rent, food, clothes and other daily necessities that can be found in the local store. That's clearly a more effective stimulant.

Of course, any money given to a poor person will eventually end up in the pocket of a rich person. (Ever notice that the people who own Wal*Mart are billionaires, but the people who shop there are not?). The important consideration is not where the money goes, but how many times it bounces around in the economy before it ends up there.

RonW
07-25-2010, 11:14 AM
LBJ-
For a tax cut to be an effective stimulant, it should do one of two things:

I say you have the cart before the horse. Instead of arguing over why,and how of a tax cut.

A more logical and economical viewpoint would be the why of the tax to begin wiith and then how much, to who and for what usefull purpose is the tax to begin with.

Socialist want to take and then give back a small portion all the while using some of it in costs and waste. Oxymoron thinking.
Capitalist say don't take unless needed and then no more then needed and don't waste it..

ljb5
07-25-2010, 11:23 AM
A more logical and economical viewpoint would be the why of the tax to begin wiith and then how much, to who and for what usefull purpose is the tax to begin with.

The purpose of a tax is to raise funds for the government to pay its debts and expenses. That's in the Constitution.

There is no confusion that the government has debts and expenses, therefore there can be no argument that taxes are not necessary and appropriate.

Your argument makes you sound like an ideologue, not an economist.

perldog007
07-25-2010, 11:23 AM
Ron I gotta say, I have seen some waste when the capitalists where running the show, having been in the Navy for 79-82..... I would argue that the salaries and pensions for our legislators, be they capitalist or socialist, not to mention all the other ways the seem to autojmagically attract money constitutes more than needed.

In other words, in a perfect world.......

RonW
07-25-2010, 12:51 PM
Perldog- Both sides are wasting money like a drunken sailor pouring piss out of his shoe. I think politicians are purposely confusing the issue with left versus right and then making compromises, with both sides getting part of what they want. When in reality the whole mess never should have started.


There is no confusion that the government has debts and expenses, therefore there can be no argument that taxes are not necessary and appropriate.


Taxes are a necessary evil. Not idealogue but more like reality..
As for economists, we are all economists, every month you pay your bills and see what is left over. If and when you owe too much, you may resort to bankruptcy, is the U.S. government at that stage, and what will they do to prevent it.?
Raise more capital by taxation, which will lead to less capital in the private sector which will result in worsening the current depression..

Of course they could give us a little of it back to help soften the blow..


The purpose of a tax is to raise funds for the government to pay its debts and expenses. That's in the Constitution.


So exactly what are these debts and are they justifiable and reasonble, or totally out of control.
Or should us serfs even have the right to question such divine authority?

RonW
07-25-2010, 01:34 PM
I totally agree norm... So why are we are in this dilema?

We are here because the majority of americans have been busy pursuing the american dreams and find politics distatefull to say the least..

So why do we only have a 2 party system, could it be rigged?
How long are we going to vote for the less of the 2 evils?

Have you not been watching the politcians shake in their shoes and literally cry over loosing their jobs.

We have to hold their feet to the fire and make them accountable for their actions, and when they fail they are gone.........

Which leads us to another fed program...job resume preparation for x- politicians...

--Oh yea let's not forget the part the media has or hasn't played in this. Which leads to honest reporting, not political ...

Captain Blight
07-25-2010, 01:39 PM
Ron, I think you ought to use your own logic and tell your creditors that their demands are unreasonable and that you're not going to pay them. Because if it's logic for the many, then it ought to be logic for the one, right? You should demand that you get more than a dollar's worth of their services for every dollar you pay them. Go ahead and see where that lands you.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-25-2010, 01:49 PM
Yeah, he was known for legilation and flatulence.

Self validation?

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-25-2010, 01:51 PM
I don't want mitch mcconell leading the pack, But I sure in the hell don't want the likes of nancy pelosi and dirty harry either.....

And no drinkin' out of the Ohio River either!

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-25-2010, 02:17 PM
Help me to understand something here. The "repugs" were dead meat in 06 as well. Why is it that you think that what the R's are doing or failing to do now, shows approval for what the D's have been doing? Isn't it still true that the majority(polled 70-80% at one point recently IIRC) of voters still feel that members of Congress are more interested in helping their careers than they are interested in helping, or able to help the people? .

It's also true now and for many decdes past that most people will re-elect their encumbant. So while they detest the congress as a whole they seem happy with their guy.
House of Reps membership can be changed on a two-year cycle so anyone who isn't bringing home the bacon can be gone rahther quickly if the voters decide it is to be.


There seems to be a missing or unconsidered option here that could appeal to voters that perhaps a new breed of candidate could capitalize on that doesn't center around the 'my guy is better than your guy even though they both suck' routine, party be damned. .


Another bit of political daydreaming. Three Republicans have commited to voting for Kagan. Any chance other Republicans will try to emulate that kind of "new breed"?


The trend in the last presidential election seemed to depict a public tiring of partisan politics and the D's have not helped to correct this by putting the blame of their own inabilities at the feet of the R's. It just starts to look like idle excuses after so many years, or, centering around the question of how many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb? .

The Dems have passed historic legislation and a lot of it. The fact that the Repubs almost in lockstep have been against all cannot be blamed on the Dems. They can't send out goon squads to force the Repubs to join in the fun.


Sometimes, when the children are misbehaving, you don't have time to figure out who started it and just have to punish them both equally and send them to their rooms if you hope to get your housework done.

Very folksy but not much of a metaphor for our current problems.
Also, I hear that the guy the Florida Repubs booted, Charlie Crist, is now in the lead for that Florida senate seat. So much for what the "people" wanted. Looks like the right-wingers in Florida tried to get it all and may have to settle for nothing.