# A Perfect Romney Flashback That Will Make You Wish We Could Repeat 2012



## FUZO (Mar 4, 2014)

This twat Obama has been wrong every step of the way



http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/119036-another-romney-flashback-will-make-wish-repeat-2012/


----------



## charley (Mar 4, 2014)

Ahhh Yes !!!   I remember it well, but what face ????


----------



## Swiper (Mar 4, 2014)




----------



## solidassears (Mar 4, 2014)

Romney was right there is 47% who are dependent on the government; which is just the rest of us who work. Government has no money and produces nothing, it takes from productive citizens and buys the votes of the leeches with that money. At least 47% just voting to extend their government benefits. If Obama has it his way he will increase that to over 50% so that Democrats will always have the power; this is what Obamacare is all about; making everyone dependent on the government.


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 4, 2014)

Sometimes a revisionists look at history can be fun, but not when it's used this way.


----------



## Standard Donkey (Mar 4, 2014)

charley said:


> Ahhh Yes !!!   I remember it well, but what face ????



typical liberal lol...too stupid to see that these "faces" aren't contradicting each other


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 5, 2014)

FUZO said:


> This twat Obama has been wrong every step of the way
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/119036-another-romney-flashback-will-make-wish-repeat-2012/



I'd still vote the same way and I didn't vote for either one.  Both are bad for the country.  I'm not willing to sacrifice my principles simply to vote for a political party name.  It would be stupid to do that since both parties really are the same, and neither one has the interests of you or this country in mind.


----------



## charley (Mar 5, 2014)

Standard Donkey said:


> typical liberal lol...too stupid to see that these "faces" aren't contradicting each other




Your choice of ' Donkey' in you name is a source of amusement, understanding just how 'stubborn & stupid' you are is expressed in your 'Che' avi, a pure commie if there ever was one. 

Maybe change you name & avi to DUMB BELL....  suites you very well !


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 5, 2014)

charley said:


> Your choice of ' Donkey' in you name is a source of amusement, understanding just how 'stubborn & stupid' you are is expressed in your 'Che' avi, a pure commie if there ever was one.
> 
> Maybe change you name & avi to DUMB BELL....  suites you very well !



Hmmmm,



A donkey is stronger than a horse of the same size.
Donkeys have an incredible memory - they can recognise areas and other donkeys they were with up to 25 years ago.
Donkeys are not easily startled (unlike horses) and have a keen sense of curiosity.
Donkeys have a reputation for stubbornness but this is due to their highly developed sense of self preservation. It is difficult to force or frighten a donkey into doing something it sees as contrary to its own best interest or safety.
Donkeys are more independent in their thinking than horses and will reason, then make decisions based on their safety.
Training a donkey relies upon showing him or her, by words and action, that they can trust you to protect them from harm. They learn what it is we want them to do if we take time to show them.

Apparently donkeys are being maligned unfairly.  They apparently are neither stubborn nor stupid.


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 5, 2014)

You are welcomed to cast aspersions at me but I agree with SD about Romney. Romney is right on both counts. The two heads are not contradictory. Both statements are true.


----------



## NoviceAAS (Mar 5, 2014)

If Romney and his party believe Americans deserve more take home pay, why is it always republicans fighting against any increase to minnimum wage ?


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 5, 2014)

NoviceAAS said:


> If Romney and his party believe Americans deserve more take home pay, why is it always republicans fighting against any increase to minnimum wage ?



typical american politics, say 1 thing and do another!  And we now prepare for hilary, this shit is already predetermined. They just put a black man in there cause the last dope screwed up something fierce, they had to keep the populace satisfied, so they made you think there was gonna be change.                              Give me a phuquin break!


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 5, 2014)

NoviceAAS said:


> If Romney and his party believe Americans deserve more take home pay, why is it always republicans fighting against any increase to minnimum wage ?



This is a typical strawman argument. Poor democrats have been voting Democrat forever and they are still poor Democrats so they use the old standby of "let's engage in class warfare and blame those rich republicans".  Not the ultra rich democrats mind you, only those fat cat republicans.  Read a bit about it and you'll see why there are people on both sides of the fence who are opposed to the raise.

And before you call me a tea bagger or some other inane colloquialism I'm neither republican or democrat.  They are both crooks that wipe themselves with the documents they purport to defend.

Roughly 2.3 percent (one reference showed it as high as 4.7%) of hourly workers make the "minimum wage".  That means for that 2.3  percent (to 4.7%), assuming they are working a 40 hour work week, are making roughly $15,100 a year.  That is a big assumption because obamacare has made many employers cut their employees hours under 30 so they don't have to pay the obama tax.

Now if we raise the minimum wage to the proposed $9.00 an hour the earner now makes roughly $18,700 a year, again assuming that they aren't limited to under 30 hours a week due to obamacare fees.

Is that going to solve the problem?  No way.  As a matter of fact as businesses normally do they will raise the prices of things like happy meals and groceries to make up for the extra money they have to spend.  This will raise the prices for the people who just got a bump in pay. They will also cut their work force to make up for the extra cash outlay.

So let's just bump everyone to $15.00 an hour, right? Makes sense. Then the earners in an entry level job will be making double what they are now.  And the businesses will just take it in stride and not raise the prices of products right? 

Wrong.  Two things will happen.  Employers will lay off employees and prices will go up in every industry affected.

Here's another point of view by Don Boudraeux;
"If government enacts legislation setting the minimum price that people can pay for a new car at $50,000, do you believe that this legislation will result in people paying $50,000 for the likes of Toyota Corollas and Ford Fiestas?  Or do you realize that if government obliges car buyers to pay at least $50,000 for a new vehicle, these buyers will choose to buy no low-end cars and opt (if they buy a new car at all) instead to purchase a new BMW, Lexus, or other luxury model?"

If a company has to pay 15 an hour for a worker do you think he's going to hire the people that they currently have working for them or more qualified people?  Who would you hire?  I'm hiring the guy who graduated from college with a human studies degree who has no hope of using it to become gainfully employed over someone without a HS degree.  I guess I'm just a dick that way.​


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 5, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> This is a typical strawman argument. Poor democrats have been voting Democrat forever and they are still poor Democrats so they use the old standby of "let's engage in class warfare and blame those rich republicans".  Not the ultra rich democrats mind you, only those fat cat republicans.  Read a bit about it and you'll see why there are people on both sides of the fence who are opposed to the raise.
> 
> And before you call me a tea bagger or some other inane colloquialism I'm neither republican or democrat.  They are both crooks that wipe themselves with the documents they purport to defend.
> 
> ...



You can't be against having people on welfare while at the same time be against those same people making enough money to live on.  That's like wanting to fuck a disease ridden hooker without a rubber and expecting to not get an STD from it.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 5, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> Hmmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's ironic that he uses donkey in his name while at the same time a donkey is the symbol of the democratic party.  Perhaps that is lost on you.


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 5, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You can't be against having people on welfare while at the same time be against those same people making enough money to live on.  That's like wanting to fuck a disease ridden hooker without a rubber and expecting to not get an STD from it.



Well how can you argue with a well thought out articulate analogy like that?

Where did you get the idea that he or I were talking about welfare?  I was responding to the minimum wage question.  What you just did was pull out a strawman argument.  If you think that the majority or even the minority of hourly workers are making $7.25 you are sorely mistaken.  I pretty much spelled that out.  


I believe there are a lot of people that need welfare to survive.  My aunt was one of them and I'm thankful she had it.  She was on it long enough to find a job then got off of it.  But I've seen with my own eyes that there is a lot of corruption in the welfare system.  I have worked with people that refuse to get married so the "wife" gets to stay home and collect welfare while the "husband" goes to work and makes 50-60K.  I used to work at a grocery store where a several couples would drive in a a nice SUV, dressed to the nines and sit there while the wife pays for all the food the WIC plan and food stamps could buy then have the husband come in behind her paying for the beer,cigarettes, steak etc with his debit card.


We have all seen that there are more Americans accepting handouts from the government plantation than are not.  Whose paying for all that?  The ones of us not on the plantation.


Now the minimum wage.  What should it be?  What's the liveable wage? $15 an hour? $19 an hour? How much more of your paycheck do you want to give up to pay for it?  How much should we pay an entry level burger flipper at a fast food place? Those are entry level jobs and not skilled labor.  The market wont bear it and it will result in more unemployment.


Instead of hookers with STD analogies come up with an argument on how this should work.


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 5, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> It's ironic that he uses donkey in his name while at the same time a donkey is the symbol of the democratic party.  Perhaps that is lost on you.



I think the sarcasm and irony was over your head.


----------



## Gissurjon (Mar 5, 2014)

Swiper said:


> View attachment 53581



To be fair, Obama started out with the shirtless buckin around look, when he first came into office. He got blasted by every Republican talk show host (I am a regular listener) and news person for being unprofessional. Hannity creams his pants every time he sees a pic of Obama without his jacket on....inside his office....


----------



## Swiper (Mar 5, 2014)

Gissurjon said:


> To be fair, Obama started out with the shirtless buckin around look, when he first came into office. He got blasted by every Republican talk show host (I am a regular listener) and news person for being unprofessional. Hannity creams his pants every time he sees a pic of Obama without his jacket on....inside his office....



you're right I forgot.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 6, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> Well how can you argue with a well thought out articulate analogy like that?
> 
> Where did you get the idea that he or I were talking about welfare?  I was responding to the minimum wage question.  What you just did was pull out a strawman argument.  If you think that the majority or even the minority of hourly workers are making $7.25 you are sorely mistaken.  I pretty much spelled that out.
> 
> ...



Not a strawman argument at all.  Unless declaring everything you can't defend against a strawman is your only argument, which seems to be the case.  Welfare is very much a part of this as people making minimum wage who are not kids living at home have a good chance of being on welfare because that minimum wage isn't enough to live on.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 6, 2014)

"Wrong.  Two things will happen.  Employers will lay off employees and prices will go up in every industry affected."

Leading to...


Employers will lay off employees.
The employees left after the layoffs will be overworked, have a loss of moral and be unmotivated to provide proper customer service.
The employer will experience higher rates of employee turnover and incur increased employee costs related to increased employee recruitment and training.
Increased costs due to increased turnover causing increases in recruitment and training will reduce profit margins.
The employees hired will not be as productive due to lack of experience.

Employers will have a reduction in customer service levels leading to a decline in customer satisfaction.
As a result customers will stop buying goods and services from the employers company and migrate to where they receive higher levels of customer service.
The company profit margin will decline due to declining customers resulting in lost sales.
The company will go out of business due to lack of customers.

Employers + Employees + Customers form a symbiotic circle of economic life :-D





Mccringleberry said:


> This is a typical strawman argument. Poor democrats have been voting Democrat forever and they are still poor Democrats so they use the old standby of "let's engage in class warfare and blame those rich republicans".  Not the ultra rich democrats mind you, only those fat cat republicans.  Read a bit about it and you'll see why there are people on both sides of the fence who are opposed to the raise.
> 
> And before you call me a tea bagger or some other inane colloquialism I'm neither republican or democrat.  They are both crooks that wipe themselves with the documents they purport to defend.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bowden (Mar 6, 2014)

You see this a lot in businesses like grocery stores that employ large numbers of part time employees at minimum wages that do not provide benefits like paid sick leave.
Or in any business like a  restaurant that follows the above pay low wages and benefits employee compensation models.

There are high rates of employee turnover, high levels of inexperienced employees , instability in staffing patterns,  a reduction in productivity leading to declines in customer service and customer satisfactions in those businesses.

So when you go into a grocery store, cannot find anyone to assist you at say the deli counter and find yourself standing in long lines at the checkout counter then don't complain.
Also don't complain when due to a lack of paid sick leave some of those employees go to work sick and contaminate with viruses and bacteria what you are buying in a grocery store and eating in a restaurant.

Taking a chance on being infected and getting sick as hell due to sick employees who do not get sick pay  is worth it as long as you do not have to pay say 5 cents more for the cost of your meal and your groceries to provide those employees with paid sick leave.
Isn't it?


----------



## Bowden (Mar 6, 2014)

The people that benefit the most from a company/business that employs a large number of part time workers that receive minimum wages and low or no benefits are the wealthy investor economic classes that own stock in those companies.
The owners of that company/business.
Or the highly compensated executives of those companies.
The ROI and profits from those companies/businesses is flowing to the top.

The rest of us suffer from the crap levels of customer service found in those businesses related to the type of employees that are employed in those businesses due to the levels of compensation those businesses provide.

The impacts of high rates of employee turnover, high levels of inexperienced employees ,  instability in staffing patterns,  and reduction in productivity lead  to declines in customer service and customer satisfactions in those  businesses.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 6, 2014)

Swiper said:


> you're right I forgot.
> 
> View attachment 53584



Holy shit. a black man with a farmers tan? WTF?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 6, 2014)

right or wrong these fucking clowns in America would still vote Obama again. He lied in the first 4 years and the American people gave him 4 more. Even after the debacle that has been his 2nd term people would still vote Obama again over Romney. Even if there was a machine that would show people had they voted for Romney they would be better off they wouldn't believe it and still voted Obama. 

I for one voted Romney and believe he would have been astronomically better than Obama, but personally I'm glad Romney didn't win. As an LDS man I believe had Romney won every fucked up thing this country went through would have been blamed on Mormons. It wouldn't be about the difficult decisions Romney had to make, but the decisions "Mormon Romney" makes. 

Either way 52% of this countries voting populace is retarded for voting for Obama the second time, and somehow they will defend that ridiculous vote like it is their last gulp of air as they go under the waves on a sinking boat


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 7, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> right or wrong these fucking clowns in America would still vote Obama again. He lied in the first 4 years and the American people gave him 4 more. Even after the debacle that has been his 2nd term people would still vote Obama again over Romney. Even if there was a machine that would show people had they voted for Romney they would be better off they wouldn't believe it and still voted Obama.
> 
> I for one voted Romney and believe he would have been astronomically better than Obama, but personally I'm glad Romney didn't win. As an LDS man I believe had Romney won every fucked up thing this country went through would have been blamed on Mormons. It wouldn't be about the difficult decisions Romney had to make, but the decisions "Mormon Romney" makes.
> 
> Either way 52% of this countries voting populace is retarded for voting for Obama the second time, and somehow they will defend that ridiculous vote like it is their last gulp of air as they go under the waves on a sinking boat



I didn't vote for Obama or Romney, but believe without a shadow of a doubt that we'd be far worse of under Romney.  Maybe not middle of the road Romney, but definitely the policies he ran on.  Until we get someone in there who takes entitlements, specifically subsidies and tax breaks, out of the system it really doesn't matter who's in there.  I just have a sinking suspicion that this won't ever come from the GOP, I could be wrong but I doubt it given the Norquist pledge.  The 2 party system needs to be broken up and the GOP is going to have to be the ones to do it.  Face it, the nation is far more left than the GOP currently is, and that's sad given that the country is mostly center right.


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 7, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Not a strawman argument at all.  Unless declaring everything you can't defend against a strawman is your only argument, which seems to be the case.  Welfare is very much a part of this as people making minimum wage who are not kids living at home have a good chance of being on welfare because that minimum wage isn't enough to live on.



When two people are addressing a topic, like minimum wage, and a third party comes in stating "You can't be against having people on welfare while at the same time be against those same people making enough money to live on." It is absolutely a strawman argument.  I was arguing about the minimum wage and you tied it into welfare effectively derailing the original topic and making an accusation and assumptions about my beliefs and thoughts on welfare.

And saying that is my only defense after I typed several paragraphs stating my stance shows me you really either didn't read or don't understand what I wrote.  

You haven't offered any solutions or addressed what I have said in any way.  You're arguing on liberal talking points and not out of experience or research.  

If you look at the stats (from the dept of labor) half of the people making minimum wage are under 25 and a good percentage are in school.  A large portion of those jobs are part time jobs.  A portion of those are in the food service industry as servers and are paid no less then $2.13 an hour but make well over minimum wage with tips added in.  They are still counted as minimum wage earners.

Raising the minimum wage in effect is welfare.  You are forcing businesses to pay people 2-3 times more then the market bears for unskilled labor in the name of giving them a "livable wage".  What in your opinion is a livable wage? either hourly or annually?

If businesses are forced to double someones pay across the board how can you possibly think it wont result in thousands of lost jobs and increased prices for products we use on a daily basis?  Do you think the management and ceo's are going to take it on the chin and lose profits or do what they have to to stay profitable.

Another question, if we double the wages and now the fry cook is making as much as the guy who worked his way up to management what happens then?

I think you're short sighted and just can't see the far reaching ramifications this will have.


----------



## LAM (Mar 7, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I for one voted Romney and believe he would have been astronomically better than Obama, but personally I'm glad Romney didn't win. As an LDS man I believe had Romney won every fucked up thing this country went through would have been blamed on Mormons. It wouldn't be about the difficult decisions Romney had to make, but the decisions "Mormon Romney" makes.



The US is following the same path as Japan did when their housing market crashed in 1992.  They were the first country to experience a "balance sheet" recession. Which means that aggregate demand drops as spending is curbed by the private sector to pay down debt, the central bank stepped in to attempt to stabilize the economy and has artificially held interest rates low for almost 20 years now.

Economists projected that in the US it would take a good 6-8 years for the de-levegeraing process in the US to start.  5 years later bankruptcy data shows that the majority of debt in the US is being discharged and is not being payed down, wage stagnation and loss might have something to do with that.

Savings rates go up for those that can, spending goes down as debt payments are now the focus.  

So if one person or sectors spending is the income of another how exactly would the economy be better under a different POTUS when the current status of weak aggregate demand it's clearly a function of economics.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 7, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> When two people are addressing a topic, like minimum wage, and a third party comes in stating "You can't be against having people on welfare while at the same time be against those same people making enough money to live on." It is absolutely a strawman argument.  I was arguing about the minimum wage and you tied it into welfare effectively derailing the original topic and making an accusation and assumptions about my beliefs and thoughts on welfare.
> 
> And saying that is my only defense after I typed several paragraphs stating my stance shows me you really either didn't read or don't understand what I wrote.
> 
> ...



It isn't hurting other countries that require paying a wage you can live on.  Being in management doesn't mean you are worth more than the next guy.  Short sighted?  Hardly.


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 7, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> It isn't hurting other countries that require paying a wage you can live on.  Being in management doesn't mean you are worth more than the next guy.  Short sighted?  Hardly.



Yep.  Definitely a lib.  You have dodged every question, added nothing to the discussion and made generalized references to utopian societies where everything is fair.  That response is laughable.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 7, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> Yep.  Definitely a lib.  You have dodged every question, added nothing to the discussion and made generalized references to utopian societies where everything is fair.  That response is laughable.



You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem.  Go back through all your tripe and you will realize it isn't worth the time reading much less the effort you put into typing it.


----------



## charley (Mar 7, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem.  Go back through all your tripe and you will realize it isn't worth the time reading much less the effort you put into typing it.



..That is a great point Zaphod, "You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem" to Quote you..
The fact that they always blame 'the poor' & can not stray from the 'political rhetoric' of the rich or as they like to believe 'the ruling class'.. which they seem to feel they are members in good standing...


----------



## Mccringleberry (Mar 7, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You definitely aren't aware you're brainwashed into thinking the people NOT in control are the problem.  Go back through all your tripe and you will realize it isn't worth the time reading much less the effort you put into typing it.



Another stunningly articulate response.  Still nothing worthwhile. Still no effort put forth to justify any of your beliefs.  Just talking points and accusations.  

I guess it's easier that way.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 7, 2014)

Mccringleberry said:


> Another stunningly articulate response.  Still nothing worthwhile. Still no effort put forth to justify any of your beliefs.  Just talking points and accusations.
> 
> I guess it's easier that way.



Not because it's easier, but because you aren't worth the effort.  You will never realize what the truth is and where the problem is actually created.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 7, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> I didn't vote for Obama or Romney, but believe *without a shadow of a doubt* that we'd be far worse of under Romney. * Maybe not middle of the road Romney,* but definitely the policies he ran on.  Until we get someone in there who takes entitlements, specifically subsidies and tax breaks, out of the system it really doesn't matter who's in there.  I just have a* sinking suspicion* that this won't ever come from the GOP, *I could be wrong but I doubt it* given the Norquist pledge.  The 2 party system needs to be broken up and the GOP is going to have to be the ones to do it.  Face it, the nation is far more left than the GOP currently is, and that's sad given that the country is mostly center right.


Seems to be a lot of doubt for not having a shadow of doubt. 

Blows me away people can look at the 6 years of BS Obama has given us, and say Romney could be worse. Obama has broken every promise he has made, made us even weaker internationally, and his crowning achievement is giving us a healthcare law even more broken than what we had before he got in office. 

I've no idea what policy Romney ran on that was so freaking scary to the masses?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 8, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> Seems to be a lot of doubt for not having a shadow of doubt.
> 
> Blows me away people can look at the 6 years of BS Obama has given us, and say Romney could be worse. Obama has broken every promise he has made, made us even weaker internationally, and his crowning achievement is giving us a healthcare law even more broken than what we had before he got in office.
> 
> I've no idea what policy Romney ran on that was so freaking scary to the masses?



I have absolutely no doubt that Romney would have been worse.  Here are the points...

1)We would be far more embroiled in multiple military conflicts.  Syria and Ukraine to name 2.  We'd also have a much larger presence in Afghanistan and still be in Iraq.
2)He would have gutted the EPA.  We are just beginning to see the problems associated with not giving a fuck about the environment(The water in WV and that fire in Texas).  Since Obama has not really done anything to reverse it I would consider that a push, but the fact that he hasn't gutted it puts him ahead of Romney overall on the environment.
3)The Republican plan to turn Medicare in to a voucher program won't work and will only lead to higher costs because people will just avoid getting preventative care until they need to go to the ER.
4)Romney would have likely implemented a tax holiday allowing companies to bring their money hidden overseas back tax free.  This would have led to absolutely no benefit to the economy and is effectively tax dodging in the eyes of every conservative's hero, Ronald Reagan.  This revenue should eventually be taxed so that we can reduce rates for everyone.
5)He endorsed the Ryan plan.  While we should reduce our spending, this plan was garbage and most of America did not support it.
6)Finally...He is anti-science.  I don't necessarily think that he doesn't believe in science, just that it is nowhere near one of his priorities.  His stance on increasing oil and waiting for renewables to be competitive from a financial standpoint is archaic.  Even China realizes that the next energy source is important and has invested billions to develop or find it.

My problem with both parties is that they are too myopic.  Republicans immediately think you can fix a problem by removing all support and democrats believe you just need to throw money at it.  When assessing a candidate, I look for the one who thinks problems through more and doesn't just go with a knee jerk reaction...Say like starting a war in a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack.  Of the two, Obama is more pragmatic, but neither one is great which is why I voted for neither.  The one thing I really like about Obama is that he has reduced our requirement to be the world police and waste billions doing things that other countries should be dealing with.  People like to say that this may make the world a more dangerous place, but many of the things we have done as the world police have done the same thing.  Arming Al Qaeda against the Soviet being a good example.


----------



## futureMrO (Mar 8, 2014)

SWIPER for president..............because hes fucking yolked


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> I have absolutely no doubt that Romney would have been worse.  Here are the points...
> 
> 1)We would be far more embroiled in multiple military conflicts.  Syria and Ukraine to name 2.  We'd also have a much larger presence in Afghanistan and still be in Iraq.*What are you basing that on? the Timetable for Iraq was set by Bush. Obama didn't get us out of there any faster, or slower. I've seen no evidence Romney would have kept us deeper in Afghanistan. I'll tell you this if we leave too early it's going to fuck us harder. Why would Romney be a war hawk in Syria and the Ukraine do you think? We wouldn't be powerless in the international political arena like we are under Obama, but we'd not be putting troops in either of those locations either.*
> 2)He would have gutted the EPA.  We are just beginning to see the problems associated with not giving a fuck about the environment(The water in WV and that fire in Texas).  Since Obama has not really done anything to reverse it I would consider that a push, but the fact that he hasn't gutted it puts him ahead of Romney overall on the environment. *He would have gutted the EPA? Where exactly did he say he was going to do that? Like you said the EPA needs fixing, and Romney isn't anti-environment.*
> ...



This reasoning is what got us 4 more years of a guy who lies every time he opens his mouth to the people, and the people are apologetic about it, and give him a pass. Obama is truly the Teflon president, but it's what the people chose. Bothers me what it says about my country.

Like I said before though, I think was the best, and would certainly be doing better than President Obama to put us where we need to be, but at least the country isn't blaming Mormons every time he makes an unpopular albeit correct decision.


----------



## charley (Mar 8, 2014)




----------



## Bowden (Mar 8, 2014)

The employment problem of a large percent of the population in poverty level jobs that pay less than a middle class living cannot be solved by reduced government regulations and reduced taxes on business that supply sliders like Mitt Romney state will cause economic growth and increases in middle class jobs.

The problem of a lack of job growth is being caused in part by automation that is causing dynamic shifts in the job market as to what kinds of jobs are available to people that do not have the aptitude for jobs that require a college education.
People that have a college degree cannot find employment in their fields, they are taking up jobs that do not require a college degree and this is reducing upward mobility.

Other factors are globalization and the past 30 years of off-shoring of manufacturing that has reduced the number of jobs available that can be performed by people with a high school level of education that do not have the aptitude for a job that require a college education.
People that are now seeking employment in jobs that only require a two year associate degree i.e nursing cannot find jobs and nurses are now being lay-offed.

The level of available middle class jobs that pay a living wage have been in decline since the recession of 2008.
The job market growth has mostly been on low paid, low or no benefit type job areas.

Companies are finding that they do not need as many workers as they did prior to the automation and computerization of many tasks and that  is reducing the numbers of workers required. 
Thus they are not hiring at the levels they did post prior recessions and reduced govenrment regulations and taxes on business is not going to lead to a sharp increase in the number of jobs that pay a living wage.

Case in point:

http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/

*Aviva Hope Rutkin*

*September 12, 2013*

*Report Suggests Nearly Half of U.S. Jobs Are Vulnerable to Computerization*

                          Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of America's occupations will be automated within the next 20 years.  

                  Rapid advances in technology have long represented a serious potential threat to many jobs ordinarily performed by people.


A recent report (which is not online, but summarized here) from the Oxford Martin School?s Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology  attempts to quantify the extent of that threat. It concludes that 45  percent of American jobs are at high risk of being taken by computers  within the next two decades.


The authors believe this takeover  will happen in two stages. First, computers will start replacing people  in especially vulnerable fields like transportation/logistics,  production labor, and administrative support. Jobs in services, sales,  and construction may also be lost in this first stage. Then, the rate of  replacement will slow down due to bottlenecks in harder-to-automate  fields such engineering. This technological plateau will be followed  by a second wave of computerization, dependent upon the development of  good artificial intelligence. This could next put jobs in management,  science and engineering, and the arts at risk.

The authors note  that the rate of computerization depends on several other factors,  including regulation of new technology and access to cheap labor.

These results were calculated with a common statistical modeling method. More than 700 jobs on O*Net,  an online career network, were considered, as well as the skills and  education required for each. These features were weighted according to  how automatable they were, and according to the engineering obstacles  currently preventing computerization.
Our findings thus imply  that as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will reallocate to  tasks that are non-susceptible to computerization i.e., tasks that  required creative and social intelligence, the authors write. For  workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire creative and  social skills.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 8, 2014)

I have yet to see one supply side politician like Mitt Romney address this problem from a supply side economics and business model perspective.
Technology like computerized automation is reducing the number of workers that a business requires and no amount of reduced regulations and taxes on business is going to cause a company to hire more workers if they can computerize and automate tasks and thus reduce the number of workers required to do those tasks prior to computerizing and automating them.

Many jobs that were at the middle class job levels have been eliminated by the computerization and automation of those jobs.
Job growth is being restrained by computerization and automation.
Anyone that disagrees does not know what they are talking about.
Blaming the lack of job growth on Obama and regulations and taxes on business and supporting supply siders like Mitt Romney is not going to change those facts.


http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

How Technology Is Destroying Jobs
By David Rotman on June 12, 2013

Given his calm and reasoned academic demeanor, it is  easy to miss just how provocative Erik Brynjolfssons contention really  is. *Brynjolfsson, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management,  and his collaborator and coauthor Andrew McAfee have been arguing for  the last year and a half that impressive advances in computer  technology from improved industrial robotics to automated translation  services?are largely behind the sluggish employment growth of the last  10 to 15 years. Even more ominous for workers, the MIT academics foresee  dismal prospects for many types of jobs as these powerful new  technologies are increasingly adopted not only in manufacturing,  clerical, and retail work but in professions such as law, financial  services, education, and medicine.


That robots, automation, and  software can replace people might seem obvious to anyone who?s worked in  automotive manufacturing or as a travel agent. But Brynjolfsson and  McAfee?s claim is more troubling and controversial. They believe that  rapid technological change has been destroying jobs faster than it is  creating them, contributing to the stagnation of median income and the  growth of inequality in the United States. And, they suspect, something  similar is happening in other technologically advanced countries.


Perhaps  the most damning piece of evidence, according to Brynjolfsson, is a  chart that only an economist could love. In economics, productivity?the  amount of economic value created for a given unit of input, such as an  hour of labor?is a crucial indicator of growth and wealth creation. It  is a measure of progress. On the chart Brynjolfsson likes to show,  separate lines represent productivity and total employment in the United  States. For years after World War II, the two lines closely tracked  each other, with increases in jobs corresponding to increases in  productivity. The pattern is clear: as businesses generated more value  from their workers, the country as a whole became richer, which fueled  more economic activity and created even more jobs. Then, beginning in  2000, the lines diverge; productivity continues to rise robustly, but  employment suddenly wilts. By 2011, a significant gap appears between  the two lines, showing economic growth with no parallel increase in job  creation. Brynjolfsson and McAfee call it the ?great decoupling.? And  Brynjolfsson says he is confident that technology is behind both the  healthy growth in productivity and the weak growth in jobs.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

charley said:


>



So your problem with Romney is he is taking advantage of legal things you don't?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

Bowden said:


> The employment problem of a large percent of the population in poverty level jobs that pay less than a middle class living cannot be solved by reduced government regulations and reduced taxes on business that supply sliders like Mitt Romney state will cause economic growth and increases in middle class jobs.
> 
> The problem of a lack of job growth is being caused in part by automation that is causing dynamic shifts in the job market as to what kinds of jobs are available to people that do not have the aptitude for jobs that require a college education.
> People that have a college degree cannot find employment in their fields, they are taking up jobs that do not require a college degree and this is reducing upward mobility.
> ...


no kidding the market is shifting. Problem with this article is where it says nurses are being laid off. nurses have never been in more demand. i've worked in healthcare recruiting market and nurses get paid well, and in many cases can write their own tickets. brings the whole conclusions of this article into suspect when I read that


----------



## charley (Mar 8, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> So your problem with Romney is he is taking advantage of legal things you don't?



...If you mean hiding Millions of Dollars so he doesn't have to pay taxes on his vast wealth , half of which he got from buying companies then bankrupting them, the other half his daddy gave him.



Mitt Romney?s Bain Capital was very good at making money for Mitt Romney. At the same time, it loaded companies Bain bought with debt, borrowed  even more money to pay dividends to Mitt Romney and destroyed or  outsourced lots of jobs. It even raided pension funds. Then Romney turns  around and holds himself up as a ?successful businessman.?
 Sure, he was successful in terms of making money for himself. But  this was at the expense of workers who lost their jobs at previously  successful companies when they went bankrupt?a debt loaded on them by  bank-borrowed money that went directly into Romney?s pocket.
 Here?s how a private equity fund such as Bain Capital works: It picks  a successful company and then takes it over with a leveraged buyout  (LBO). The money borrowed from a bank to pay off the owner or  stockholders does not become the debt of Bain Capital. It becomes the  debt of the company that was taken over.
 You might ask, ?Why would a bank even loan money to place a company  in debt for the purposes of being taken over by Bain Capital which does  not even assume the debt?? Well, it?s for the same reason that so many  subprime loans were available. *The bank does not continue to hold the debt.* It offloads it to investors such as pension funds so the bank doesn?t really care. They have no skin in the game.
 Why not loan Mitt Romney money to take over companies? There?s good money in those commissions.
 Pension funds show up again and again as the fall guys in Wall Street  machinations. They are the dumb clucks who keep trying to make up for  the fact they are 50% underfunded by entering into sucker bets and  losing even more money. And since Romney and Bain do not assume the debt  themselves, they don?t care if the overleveraged company goes bankrupt  since, if it does, they lose nothing. *That company is just a  money conduit for Romney since, as soon as they take it over, they have  the company borrow even more money in order to pay Romney a dividend.*
 You might ask, ?Why would the owners of a company or the shareholders  sell out to Bain Capital?? Because Bain offers them a really good deal,  that?s why. After all they don?t care if they overpay. They?re using  OPM, other people?s money. It?s all based on a loan to the company they  intend to take over, not a loan to Bain itself. Bain takes hardly any  risk at all. So much for the risk takers that Romney eulogizes.
 Romney pioneered the strategy of having a company Bain took over in a  leveraged buyout borrow even more money to pay himself a dividend. So  now the company is staggering under a huge load of debt and in many  cases they can not keep up with the payments. In 1994, Bain bought  medical equipment manufacturer Baxter International. After a merger with  another company, it became known as Dade Behring. Bain then reduced  R&D investment because Bain?s game plan was to only hold the company  for five years or so. So why invest for the long haul? The money  borrowed from banks for the LBO was usually for five to eight years with  small monthly payments and a big balloon payment at the end. About five  years after Bain had acquired Dade, it was looking to get out. But not  before it drained even more money from Dade and placed the company and  its workers in even more jeopardy. ?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/

Or there are two sides to every story. Good and bad that Bain capital accomplished. Get a life bud. You are just having difficulties coming to terms with the fact you are arguing for a guy who hasn't accomplishment shit in his life other than voting "present"


----------



## charley (Mar 8, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/lemon-picking-bain-capital-obama-style/
> 
> Or there are two sides to every story. Good and bad that Bain capital accomplished. Get a life bud. You are just having difficulties coming to terms with the fact you are arguing for a guy who hasn't accomplishment shit in his life other than voting "present"




........if you ever have a thought of your on let us know  ...........


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 8, 2014)

Romney would have been just as disastrous.  But nothing will ever change because too many idiots keep voting for the same two parties that share the same agenda.


----------



## LAM (Mar 8, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> no kidding the market is shifting. Problem with this article is where it says nurses are being laid off. nurses have never been in more demand. i've worked in healthcare recruiting market and nurses get paid well, and in many cases can write their own tickets. brings the whole conclusions of this article into suspect when I read that



I don't know about nurses being laid off but I do know that there aren't enough instructors for all of the nursing programs across the country so many students aren't able to get into a school if they don't have straight A's, the competition and the points required for entry are too high for many.  From the reports I've read it's about 50K students a year.

I know a bunch of single mothers in Vegas that are going through this right now, so they are actually worst off then before because know they have tens of thousands in student loan debt and still no good job.

Healthcare costs could easily be brought down by 20-25% by immigrated foreign born doctors and nurses, it's exactly what they did to the folks in IT when wages got too high in the late 90's.  Just import cheaper workers in on H1B visa's.  But since healthcare is a protected industry we know that will never happen.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

LAM said:


> I don't know about nurses being laid off but I do know that there aren't enough instructors for all of the nursing programs across the country so many students aren't able to get into a school if they don't have straight A's, the competition and the points required for entry are too high for many.  From the reports I've read it's about 50K students a year.
> 
> I know a bunch of single mothers in Vegas that are going through this right now, so they are actually worst off then before because know they have tens of thousands in student loan debt and still no good job.
> 
> Healthcare costs could easily be brought down by 20-25% by immigrated foreign born doctors and nurses, it's exactly what they did to the folks in IT when wages got too high in the late 90's.  Just import cheaper workers in on H1B visa's.  But since healthcare is a protected industry we know that will never happen.



LOL, sorry bud. Again, i've worked in the heathcare industry as a recruiter placing doctors. I've worked with many foreign born H1B visa candidates. The reason isn't a lack of jobs for them, it's that the American populace doesn't want to go to a doctor no matter how qualified who has such a strong accent that the doctor can't be understood. H1B candidates complain about voice recognition software not being able to pick up their accents, and hospitals that do qualify to sponsor H1B don't like to hire them because their patient population doesn't want to go to those doctors. H1B's work in these rural towns for 3 years then as soon as they no longer require sponsorship they jump ship to larger towns that have more people like them and the hospital is forced to start looking again. I've seen hospitals pass over great candidates and wait because they would rather wait for a domestic candidate simply because their patient population demands it. It's simple supply and demand. Hire an H1B and the patient will chose to go to your competition.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 8, 2014)

charley said:


> ........if you ever have a thought of your on let us know  ...........



Are you really this stupid? You can't possibly be can you? I'm a Mormon who didn't want Romney to even run. How is that not a thought of my own?

The article I posted showed both sides of the story and was quite balanced. You are just too closed minded to realize that because you suck from the tit of the Obama loving do no wrong masses. Shit, your entire anti bain capital post was directly from the Obama talking points. You are nothing but copy and paste.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 9, 2014)

Are any of you guys ever going to realize it does not matter who is in office, the morons are the ones that believe we the people have any control over the government. Voting is a fucking illusion to make you think you have a say, YOU DONT!!!


----------



## LAM (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> LOL, sorry bud. Again, i've worked in the heathcare industry as a recruiter placing doctors. I've worked with many foreign born H1B visa candidates. The reason isn't a lack of jobs for them, it's that the American populace doesn't want to go to a doctor no matter how qualified who has such a strong accent that the doctor can't be understood. H1B candidates complain about voice recognition software not being able to pick up their accents, and hospitals that do qualify to sponsor H1B don't like to hire them because their patient population doesn't want to go to those doctors. H1B's work in these rural towns for 3 years then as soon as they no longer require sponsorship they jump ship to larger towns that have more people like them and the hospital is forced to start looking again. I've seen hospitals pass over great candidates and wait because they would rather wait for a domestic candidate simply because their patient population demands it. It's simple supply and demand. Hire an H1B and the patient will chose to go to your competition.



the end result of what happens when almost an entire population is to poor to travel beyond it's own borders and believes that corporate owned media outlets provide factual news content which is an actual depiction of "the real world".


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> This reasoning is what got us 4 more years of a guy who lies every time he opens his mouth to the people, and the people are apologetic about it, and give him a pass. Obama is truly the Teflon president, but it's what the people chose. Bothers me what it says about my country.
> 
> Like I said before though, I think was the best, and would certainly be doing better than President Obama to put us where we need to be, but at least the country isn't blaming Mormons every time he makes an unpopular albeit correct decision.



1)I'm basing that on the GOP not wanting to leave when we were scheduled.  Also on this article from the Washington Post in 2011 where Romney was quoted as saying he was against the withdrawal.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...q-withdrawal/2011/10/21/gIQAp03o4L_story.html

2)I'm basing this on his continued opposition to cutting carbon emissions. The people polluting need to be taxed to prevent them from doing it or at the very least minimizing it.  Whether you believe in global warming or not, why not have a clean planet.  He values $$$ over the environment, I don't think anyone could deny that.

3)That's the point, we need to direct people to preventative care.  One of the primary reasons people don't get it is because they don't have insurance.  Obamacare isn't a fix but at least it addresses the problem.  Tort reform and allowing people to shop over state lines won't do this.

4)A tax holiday is right in the Romney tax plan, if this is too much speculation for you and not enough evidence, I don't know what to do to get you to take off your blinders.  Right here, 2nd paragraph under description of plan.  http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/description-Romney-plan.pdf

5)I don't believe cutting back should come from seniors or poor people.  It should start with defense and subsidies, Ryan increased defense and didn't address subsidies.

6)Anybody who ignores what a 95%+ consensus of scientists in any field because it would cost too much is anti-science, plain and simple.


----------



## solidassears (Mar 9, 2014)

Obama true believers:

http://olbroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1-1-head-up-ass4.jpg

Hard to image how people can still support Obama until you realize where their head is; once you realize where their head is, it makes sense.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

Maybe it'd be more illustrative of his nature to say, "Mitt Romney would have been the first POTUS sued for Racketeering." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0pYHSgxpQ


It's not just that he has so much money or where he has it.... it's that he got it via organized crime and fucking Americans out of their jobs, insurance, and pensions. He is so low and slimy he could walk upright under the belly of a serpent.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 9, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Obama true believers:
> 
> http://olbroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1-1-head-up-ass4.jpg
> 
> Hard to image how people can still support Obama until you realize where their head is; once you realize where their head is, it makes sense.



I don't care if it's Obama or Romney any politicians head is up their self promotional ass.
People run for President because they desire political positions that grant them great political power, control and financial benefit.

Do you think the reason that people on the tea party end run for big Federal government Washington DC House and Senate seats is because they want to reduce the size of big government?
Or is it that they are interested in being a part of the same big government they state they want to reduce?
In example a congressman makes 170k a year and gets perks the rest of Americans can only dream of.
Like free big government socialist healthcare paid for by the taxpayers.

The networking connections these politicians make while in office allow them to achieve wealth while they are in office.
They get paid off in many ways by people buying influence and that goes for Tea party right wing politicians as well as left wing democrats.
Be it the Koch brothers or whomever else.


----------



## solidassears (Mar 9, 2014)

Bowden; how many TEA party gatherings have you been to? 

You're clueless as to what the TEA party is about. But as long as you continue to listen to your Democrat media outlets you will believe as you do now, so it's a waste of time to even talk to people who have their head up their ass so far. 

Take a realistic look at your Democrat leaders; Obama, Reid, Schumer, etc. they are all complete liars who are in power to keep power and to keep the people who vote as stupid as you are, Keep lapping up their shit. If you could open your eyes for a minute you would see that at every opportunity the Democrats want to dumb down the population so they will believe the Democrat lies. For instance, take a look at school vouchers. Vouchers work, they improve the kids education; so what do Democrats do? They shut them down in order to support the NEA union, which of course is one of the Democrat party money machines. Harry Reid rants on the Senate floor about the Koch Brothers; all the while accepting money from the Unions who give their members no choice in where their dues are spent and it's all spent on Democrats. The Koch Brothers are #59 on list of big donors the vast majority of big donors are Unions which all donate only to the Democrats.

There are a few people who care about the country, but the Democrat media do all they can to insure people like you don't have a clue what they're really all about. You want to believe that Romney is an evil man because the Democrats lied and continue to lie about him; the Democrat media machine is also in on this and does all they can to destroy anyone who could challenge their Democrat candidates. It's sickening that we have no journalism all we have now is a huge propaganda media run by and controlled by the Democrat party.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

Romney is done.  Nobody needs to continue to pound him into the ground, he is no political threat.  Everything you've just stated are things the republicans are guilty of.  Just because one "side" does it doesn't mean it's okay for the other to do it.  That sort of thinking is why this country is in the mess its' currently in.  None of the "issues" are liberal vs. conservative issues, they are issues used to keep the populace divided so the two (one) parties can keep their stranglehold on their power over their government.  I call it their government because they are the ones that control it, we don't.  Voting?  What a farce.  Nobody gets elected that those in power, whether behind the scenes or out in front, don't want to be elected.  

Journalism controlled by the democratic party?  What are you?  A brain dead idiot tripping on acid 24/7?  90% of the media outlets are controlled by six corporations all with one goal in mind:  To control what you think.  That control is so complete that they are violating laws limiting how many media companies they can own and in how many media markets.  They want to keep us divided by trivial non-issues so they can continue what they are doing which is fucking us in the ass.  

The state of education, defense and welfare spending, and anything else you care to name is the way it is because both parties want it that way.  They both want unemployment, they both want people to be uneducated, they want people to be poor, they want illegal immigrants, etc. because it benefits both "sides".  "Conservatives" want dumb workers that are just smart enough to do the job and too stupid to complain about the work conditions and low pay.  Neither one is on your side.  Neither is the tea party you seem fond of.


----------



## charley (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> Are you really this stupid? You can't possibly be can you? I'm a Mormon who didn't want Romney to even run. How is that not a thought of my own?
> 
> The article I posted showed both sides of the story and was quite balanced. You are just too closed minded to realize that because you suck from the tit of the Obama loving do no wrong masses. Shit, your entire anti bain capital post was directly from the Obama talking points. You are nothing but copy and paste.



... I never said I was a democrat , you with your 'morman insight' assumed that I was, & it ain't the 'tit' of the right your sucking, you do all your sucking below the belt, you're a boring, repetitive man. Get a life my pious morman pal or bud or whatever it is that you like to say.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

LAM said:


> the end result of what happens when almost an entire population is to poor to travel beyond it's own borders and believes that corporate owned media outlets provide factual news content which is an actual depiction of "the real world".



How does this have anything to do with people wanting to be able to understand their doctor when he tells them what's wrong with them? Can we get on the same page when discussing things?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> 1)I'm basing that on the GOP not wanting to leave when we were scheduled.  Also on this article from the Washington Post in 2011 where Romney was quoted as saying he was against the withdrawal.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...q-withdrawal/2011/10/21/gIQAp03o4L_story.html
> 
> 2)I'm basing this on his continued opposition to cutting carbon emissions. The people polluting need to be taxed to prevent them from doing it or at the very least minimizing it.  Whether you believe in global warming or not, why not have a clean planet.  He values $$$ over the environment, I don't think anyone could deny that.
> 
> ...



3. Obamacare doesn't work. How many people haven't signed up for Obamacare? The poor and young who didn't have healthcare before still don't have healthcare and now they are being taxed for it as well. The population who did have healthcare are now paying more for healthcare. How in the hell anyone can call this addressing the situation blows me away.

6. when 15 trillion in debt, costing too much is a valid point.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

You listen to them.  I had many foreign professors in college and never had a problem, even the ones that spoke a fucked up version of English.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> Maybe it'd be more illustrative of his nature to say, "Mitt Romney would have been the first POTUS sued for Racketeering."
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw0pYHSgxpQ
> 
> ...



LOL, the stuff you believe is rather quite funny LW. Go ahead and come back on the reservation now. You seem pretty level headed anywhere else, but on this one you've gone so far out there it's either scary or humorous. I'm going to go with humorous today.


----------



## solidassears (Mar 9, 2014)

Judge Jeanine lays it out pretty well:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/09/judge-jeanine-?did-barack-obama-lie-his-way-white-house?

Obama is liar of the year with Reid a close second. Democrats = Liars


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You listen to them.  I had many foreign professors in college and never had a problem, even the ones that spoke a fucked up version of English.


Again, I've worked with the H1B doctors directly so I know exactly what the ranges of their accents are. IT doesn't matter what you or I think it only matters what a hospitals patient population thinks. If the patients chose to go to a competing hospital because one doctor grew up in California, and the other grew up in India then that is a free market at work. Doesn't matter how many H1B visas the government allows. There are plenty of hospitals who qualify that chose not to fill their openings with H1B's because it doesn't make business sense to do so.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

charley said:


> ... I never said I was a democrat , you with your 'morman insight' assumed that I was, & it ain't the 'tit' of the right your sucking, you do all your sucking below the belt, you're a boring, repetitive man. Get a life my pious morman pal or bud or whatever it is that you like to say.



I never said you were a democrat either. I don't care if you are a registered Republican you are still getting all of your talking points directly from Obama's tit.

If I'm boring it's only because you're not bright enough to understand a proper argument so you ignore it. Good luck with that serving you in life.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 9, 2014)

LAM said:


> the end result of what happens when almost an entire population is to poor to travel beyond it's own borders and believes that corporate owned media outlets provide factual news content which is an actual depiction of "the real world".



 where should we get our news from?  post some links.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> 3. Obamacare doesn't work. How many people haven't signed up for Obamacare? The poor and young who didn't have healthcare before still don't have healthcare and now they are being taxed for it as well. The population who did have healthcare are now paying more for healthcare. How in the hell anyone can call this addressing the situation blows me away.
> 
> 6. when 15 trillion in debt, costing too much is a valid point.



3)I agree with Obamacare, it won't work.  It will drive us in the direction of something that will work while providing people with insurance.  Doing nothing isn't really an option at this point.  Health insurance needs to be removed as a responsibility of employers, people will change their behavior when they have to pay for their poor lifestyle choices via increased costs.  Something like 80% of our healthcare costs are due to chronic diseases that can be reversed or avoided with proper lifestyle modification.  If your employer is paying for your bad choices there is no incentive to change.  If the GOP comes up with a good alternative I'm all in, they have yet to give one.  In fact, Obamacare is basically an old republican plan.

6)It doesn't have to add to the deficit, moving $$$ from the military or implementing cap and trade would help pay for it.  I don't think anyone believes it would be a bad investment to move money from the bloated military budget to help clean up the country and develop/research the next energy technology.  Saying it costs too much while at the same time increasing the military budget seems like shitty logic to me.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> LOL, the stuff you believe is rather quite funny LW. Go ahead and come back on the reservation now. You seem pretty level headed anywhere else, but on this one you've gone so far out there it's either scary or humorous. I'm going to go with humorous today.



yea... it's far out there to opine that Mitt is a scumbag. people who think he isn't are what's scary. you choose to ignore a lot of very solid evidence to the contrary.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Dale Mabry said:


> 3)I agree with Obamacare, it won't work.  It will drive us in the direction of something that will work while providing people with insurance.  Doing nothing isn't really an option at this point.  Health insurance needs to be removed as a responsibility of employers, people will change their behavior when they have to pay for their poor lifestyle choices via increased costs.  Something like 80% of our healthcare costs are due to chronic diseases that can be reversed or avoided with proper lifestyle modification.  If your employer is paying for your bad choices there is no incentive to change.  If the GOP comes up with a good alternative I'm all in, they have yet to give one.  In fact, Obamacare is basically an old republican plan.
> 
> 6)It doesn't have to add to the deficit, moving $$$ from the military or implementing cap and trade would help pay for it.  I don't think anyone believes it would be a bad investment to move money from the bloated military budget to help clean up the country and develop/research the next energy technology.  Saying it costs too much while at the same time increasing the military budget seems like shitty logic to me.



3. A bad plan is a bad plan. Regardless of it coming from Obama, or the Republicans. I wish there was another healthcare reform plan out there as well, but there isn't, and i don't agree we should go with Obamacare just because there is no alternative currently. 

6. I like your ideal of cutting spending in one place to move it to another. The sentiment is to be lauded. I can see your perspective now. I just come down on the other side of the fence as you do. I think right now if we cut back on military spending there will be a lot more regional power grabs ala syria and crimea and we won't have the option of doing something even if we needed to. It would be nice if we could go back to the way things were before WW2, but that isn't the United States anymore, and that isn't what the world needs.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

Insurance companies are LOVING the living FUCK out of Obamacare.  They no longer have to sell their product, people must buy.  At the outset the insurance companies were against it until they realized it was no longer a buyer's market.  Now they are sitting back and watching the money roll on in.  A conservative's wet dream for business.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> yea... it's far out there to opine that Mitt is a scumbag. people who think he isn't are what's scary. you choose to ignore a lot of very solid evidence to the contrary.



The guy was vetted as hard as anyone out there. saying Romney and racketeering in the same sentence is simply funny.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> The guy was vetted as hard as anyone out there. saying Romney and racketeering in the same sentence is simply funny.



A violation of the law is a violation of the law.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> LOL, sorry bud. Again, i've worked in the heathcare industry as a recruiter placing doctors. I've worked with many foreign born H1B visa candidates. The reason isn't a lack of jobs for them, it's that the American populace doesn't want to go to a doctor no matter how qualified who has such a strong accent that the doctor can't be understood. H1B candidates complain about voice recognition software not being able to pick up their accents, and hospitals that do qualify to sponsor H1B don't like to hire them because their patient population doesn't want to go to those doctors. H1B's work in these rural towns for 3 years then as soon as they no longer require sponsorship they jump ship to larger towns that have more people like them and the hospital is forced to start looking again. I've seen hospitals pass over great candidates and wait because they would rather wait for a domestic candidate simply because their patient population demands it. It's simple supply and demand. Hire an H1B and the patient will chose to go to your competition.



My kids have had doctors from the Philippines, India, and Slovakia. We have never had any problem understanding them or with the care they provide. Maybe racists demand different doctors.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Insurance companies are LOVING the living FUCK out of Obamacare.  They no longer have to sell their product, people must buy.  At the outset the insurance companies were against it until they realized it was no longer a buyer's market.  Now they are sitting back and watching the money roll on in.  A conservative's wet dream for business.



Yup, insurance companies are loving Obamacare. There was a a nice little incentive for them to if certain numbers of new enrolees weren't hit then the gov't subsidizes them. Obamacare is a clusterfuck all around and the American people are taking it up the ass on this one. It doesn't improve healthcare and and doesn't improve healthcare delivery. conservative or liberal wet dream to rape the American people.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> A violation of the law is a violation of the law.



ok, make a huge thread on this when he is convicted. He didnt' break any law and saying so is dumb.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> My kids have had doctors from the Philippines, India, and Slovakia. We have never had any problem understanding them or with the care they provide. Maybe racists demand different doctors.



Do you know if any of these doctors were H1B? I'm glad you don't have any problems with these doctors, I don't either. I'm just telling you from first hand knowledge and experience what the market in the United States is for these doctors.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

In some states you can marry your twelve year old cousin without breaking the law.... So you're not saying much good about his character just to say the shit he did may have been legal.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> Do you know if any of these doctors were H1B? I'm glad you don't have any problems with these doctors, I don't either. I'm just telling you from first hand knowledge and experience what the market in the United States is for these doctors.



By opposing H1B  hires are you saying it's ok for our manufacturing jobs to move to different countries but it's not ok to bring foreigners here to take American jobs? By the amount of these doctors in my area I would say them coming here to work is not as opposed by the general population as you think. I think they are better at making it work than we would be trying to work somewhere speaking their language. Hopefully they would be more gracious during our adjustment period than your colleagues seem to be.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

... and if my opposition to Romney were merely his heavy accent and not his bad morals then I'd have a point worth listening to as far as rejecting him for a job???


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

note to self... conservatives believe the best man for the job is whoever is willing to do it for the least pay.... unless they have to actually look at and talk to them.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> ok, make a huge thread on this when he is convicted. He didnt' break any law and saying so is dumb.



Whether or not he broke any laws has not yet been determined, he's accused of doing so.  His being investigated means there is a good possibility of it and it's testament to his character.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> note to self... conservatives believe the best man for the job is whoever is willing to do it for the least pay.... unless it's themselves, then it's whoever wants the most pay.



Fixed for accuracy.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> By opposing H1B  hires are you saying it's ok for our manufacturing jobs to move to different countries but it's not ok to bring foreigners here to take American jobs? By the amount of these doctors in my area I would say them coming here to work is not as opposed by the general population as you think. I think they are better at making it work than we would be trying to work somewhere speaking their language. Hopefully they would be more gracious during our adjustment period than your colleagues seem to be.


Read what i've posted and try and pull your head out of your ass before you go assuming things. I've never said I was against H1B hires. I'm saying having worked in the industry having helped multiple H1B candidates find jobs, and knowing there are 5 times as many I couldn't help I know the market for H1B doctors better than you do. argue that point all you want, but you are simply wrong. Hospitals will hold off on filling positions with H1B candidates. Language barrier problems with patient populations, knowing the candidate is going to leave the second they no longer need H1B sponsorship are what dictates the market in the US for these doctors


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Whether or not he broke any laws has not yet been determined, he's accused of doing so.  His being investigated means there is a good possibility of it and it's testament to his character.



Bwahahhaha. I've got $20 bucks says that it's BS and the outcome will show that


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> Bwahahhaha. I've got $20 bucks says that it's BS and the outcome will show that



Good luck.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> ... and if my opposition to Romney were merely his heavy accent and not his bad morals then I'd have a point worth listening to as far as rejecting him for a job???



Again you crazy woman. listen to what i'm saying. The American patient population as a whole especially in small towns with under serviced areas (where H1B candidates can go by law) want a doctor that they can understand. That is the market. It's not me judging them at all. I wish I could have found jobs for everyone of them. If there are two doctors in an area one is from California and speaks clearly, and the other is from India and you barely understand the patient care he is giving you which doctor are you going to take your kids to?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

is that a bet?


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> Again you crazy woman. listen to what i'm saying. The American patient population as a whole especially in small towns with under serviced areas (where H1B candidates can go by law) want a doctor that they can understand. That is the market. It's not me judging them at all. I wish I could have found jobs for everyone of them. If there are two doctors in an area one is from California and speaks clearly, and the other is from India and you barely understand the patient care he is giving you which doctor are you going to take your kids to?



Look at the opportunity in my area for H1B hires and you will see it's huge.... with openings in damned near every field. I think you are exaggerating the communication issues because Tesla is 22 now and never once have I not been able to understand a foreign doctor, dentist etc You are assuming to speak for what Americans want. I am an American and I'm telling you you are wrong... It's the same with people getting a foreigner with a heavy accent when they call customer service. They are not that hard to understand it's that some people are just too racist and hateful to try. Maybe if you had dared to challenge prejudices and advocate for people being given a chance to prove themselves you could have gotten more of the people apparently depending on you jobs.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot8eAzzEGEs


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> Look at the opportunity in my area for H1B hires and you will see it's huge.... with openings in damned near every field. I think you are exaggerating the communication issues because Tesla is 22 now and never once have I not been able to understand a foreign doctor, dentist etc You are assuming to speak for what Americans want. I am an American and I'm telling you you are wrong... It's the same with people getting a foreigner with a heavy accent when they call customer service. They are not that hard to understand it's that some people are just too racist and hateful to try. Maybe if you had dared to challenge prejudices and advocate for people being given a chance to prove themselves you could have gotten more of the people apparently depending on you jobs.


ok, it's hard to talk to you because you don't understand the headhunting market for healthcare. fees are paid by the healthcare organizations. If they have an opening and i tell them you qualify for a H1B and i've got a great candidate for you and they tell me they will not accept a CV for any H1B candidates what would you suggest? I facilitated introductions. I didn't chose who the organization hired, or was willing to bring in for an interview. Make sense? I learn as much as I can about their organization and what it's needs are, and try and find doctors who match that. If they chose not to bring in an H1B candidate for an interview that is their business choice. can you begin to understand that now?


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

a career change?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> is that a bet?



You're offering a wager and I'm wishing you luck.  I'll let you keep your money.  Besides, you'd never pay.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> a career change?



For me, or for the doctors? Yes, for both. I got a new opportunity that pays more and I have more control of what I do, and accomplish


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 9, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> You're offering a wager and I'm wishing you luck.  I'll let you keep your money.  Besides, you'd never pay.



If I don't pay i'll leave the forum. If Romney gets convicted for racketeering i'll leave the board and pay you $20. It's all on the table, out in the open. My credibility is right here in this post. Up to you if you want to make the bet and be a man or not?


----------



## LAM (Mar 9, 2014)

Swiper said:


> where should we get our news from?  post some links.



In all honesty I don't see any value in watching anything except a local news station to hear about things going on in the community.  "World News" is specifically catered to quench the human thirst for dramatic or negative reports, it has something to do with how the human brain is wired to be on the constant guard for threats and the evolutionarily process of humans from the hunter/gatherer stage to were we are now. 

Basically our primitive brains haven't caught up so the powers that be use this to their advantage to shape nation and world views which suit the ideology behind the policy which is desired.  Since we naturally care more about threats in the world, they focus on those and it's why the negative information on the news far outweighs the good stuff.  And since most people never travel beyond the country's borders, they never get to experience the real world, just the establishments protected images and story's about it.


----------



## Little Wing (Mar 9, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> For me, or for the doctors? Yes, for both. I got a new opportunity that pays more and I have more control of what I do, and accomplish



porn star? 



jk. good luck in your new job.... big monies & less frustrations.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 10, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> If I don't pay i'll leave the forum. If Romney gets convicted for racketeering i'll leave the board and pay you $20. It's all on the table, out in the open. My credibility is right here in this post. Up to you if you want to make the bet and be a man or not?



In which case you automatically win.  He's only being sued, not prosecuted.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 10, 2014)

And if you were to lose I wouldn't expect you to pay up or leave the board.  I'm not a dick like that.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 10, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> In which case you automatically win.  He's only being sued, not prosecuted.



OK, doesn't that say something right there? being sued not prosecuted? if he gets sued successfully i'll send you $20 paypal.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 10, 2014)

Little Wing said:


> porn star?
> 
> 
> 
> jk. good luck in your new job.... big monies & less frustrations.



Sadly there isn't much use in porn for an averagely endowed white boy


----------



## GearsMcGilf (Mar 10, 2014)

charley said:


> Ahhh Yes !!!   I remember it well, but what face ????



LOL!!! Yes, Americans do need more jobs, rather than more food stamps and a higher minimum wage for the growing number of unemployed and underemployed. Obama is so lucky to have useful idiots like you, just as Putin is lucky to have a counterpart like Obama in the Whitehouse.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 11, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> OK, doesn't that say something right there? being sued not prosecuted? if he gets sued successfully i'll send you $20 paypal.



No, it just means he wasn't prosecuted.


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 13, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> 3. A bad plan is a bad plan. Regardless of it coming from Obama, or the Republicans. I wish there was another healthcare reform plan out there as well, but there isn't, and i don't agree we should go with Obamacare just because there is no alternative currently.
> 
> 6. I like your ideal of cutting spending in one place to move it to another. The sentiment is to be lauded. I can see your perspective now. I just come down on the other side of the fence as you do. I think right now if we cut back on military spending there will be a lot more regional power grabs ala syria and crimea and we won't have the option of doing something even if we needed to. It would be nice if we could go back to the way things were before WW2, but that isn't the United States anymore, and that isn't what the world needs.



it really is not military spending that is the issue, its DOD spending. The military all ready gets shit on by DOD contractors and Politicians that take advantage of their budgets. Look at all the contracts that are funding politicians pockets and not benefiting the military. Why do we need to spend billions making an embassy in a forieng country when a few hundred 1000 would have been enough. 

we need a president that is based off of the constitution and rights of the people. Welfare is not a right, it is a privilege. It is their to help people that are in need to get a better life not for them to live off of. Its there to help them better their lives so they can become middle class but the current system only keeps them in poverty because it is entitlement. I dont know how any of you were raised but I grew up having to earn everything I have. What happened to an honest days work and earning things you want?

We need a president that wont shit on our rights to bear arms, that will strong arm oppressors who go against our right to bear arms. If the gov't really cared about us they would ban fast food and cigarettes before an AR 15. when in 2010 only 358 people died as a result of a rifle suicides included. Where there are over 40k known deaths caused by second hand smoke due to heart failure or lung cancer each year. Now these are people who dont smoke, but yet its legal to smoke in public places? Walking down the street? But its not legal for me in CA to open carry my AR 15 unloaded. 

I almost wanted to beat the shit out of this guy who was smoking at a movie theatre entrance. My sister went into a asthma attack due to the cigarette so she couldnt move and we had to rush her medication and call 911 bad attack. Told the guy to move or put out the cigar because it can kill my sister, he told me there is no law that I can not smoke here and for us to move if he doesnt like it. He was lucky the cops came and told him to get the fuck away because I was about to go off. So basically its legal to do things that WILL kill other people, but its illegal to personal protect our selves.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 26, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Romney was right there is 47% who are dependent on the government; which is just the rest of us who work. Government has no money and produces nothing, it takes from productive citizens and buys the votes of the leeches with that money. At least 47% just voting to extend their government benefits. If Obama has it his way he will increase that to over 50% so that Democrats will always have the power; this is what Obamacare is all about; making everyone dependent on the government.



Are you sure he wasn't counting how many "corporations are people too" that are dependent on gov't via tax breaks and lobbyists bending laws in their favor?  

Seems to me that the more people we have sucking on the gov't teet the more corporate tax cuts and loopholes they have to do away with...fuck those corporations and the executives making way more than any 20 blue collar employees combined.  Are those executives working 24/7, have no soul and only exist for the company?  Likely, and they probably neglect their families and think money will win their love, while the blue collar workers work 9-5, plus any overtime and then go home to mow their yards and fix their run down house, then play with the kids before bedtime.  

Not saying all of either side is that way, but my point is our country would be far better off with a wage equalization act.  If the NFL and NBA can have Salary Caps and Floors why can't our nation as a whole?  We the People need to demand a Collective Bargaining Strategy with the corporations.


----------



## solidassears (Mar 26, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Are you sure he wasn't counting how many "corporations are people too" that are dependent on gov't via tax breaks and lobbyists bending laws in their favor?
> 
> Seems to me that the more people we have sucking on the gov't teet the more corporate tax cuts and loopholes they have to do away with...fuck those corporations and the executives making way more than any 20 blue collar employees combined.  Are those executives working 24/7, have no soul and only exist for the company?  Likely, and they probably neglect their families and think money will win their love, while the blue collar workers work 9-5, plus any overtime and then go home to mow their yards and fix their run down house, then play with the kids before bedtime.
> 
> Not saying all of either side is that way, but my point is our country would be far better off with a wage equalization act.  If the NFL and NBA can have Salary Caps and Floors why can't our nation as a whole?  We the People need to demand a Collective Bargaining Strategy with the corporations.



You have you head up your ass dude. It's none of your business how much some exec makes, it's between him and the Board of Directors. Screw you and every other asshole who wants to decide what someone else should make. Get your ass in gear and get a job you lazy jackass!


----------



## Big Puppy (Mar 26, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Are you sure he wasn't counting how many "corporations are people too" that are dependent on gov't via tax breaks and lobbyists bending laws in their favor?
> 
> Seems to me that the more people we have sucking on the gov't teet the more corporate tax cuts and loopholes they have to do away with...fuck those corporations and the executives making way more than any 20 blue collar employees combined.  Are those executives working 24/7, have no soul and only exist for the company?  Likely, and they probably neglect their families and think money will win their love, while the blue collar workers work 9-5, plus any overtime and then go home to mow their yards and fix their run down house, then play with the kids before bedtime.
> 
> Not saying all of either side is that way, but my point is our country would be far better off with a wage equalization act.  If the NFL and NBA can have Salary Caps and Floors why can't our nation as a whole?  We the People need to demand a Collective Bargaining Strategy with the corporations.



Wow you're pretty naive.  Do you know any ceo's? Ever talked to one?  Think you could do their job?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 26, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Are you sure he wasn't counting how many "corporations are people too" that are dependent on gov't via tax breaks and lobbyists bending laws in their favor?
> 
> Seems to me that the more people we have sucking on the gov't teet the more corporate tax cuts and loopholes they have to do away with...fuck those corporations and the executives making way more than any 20 blue collar employees combined.  Are those executives working 24/7, have no soul and only exist for the company?  Likely, and they probably neglect their families and think money will win their love, while the blue collar workers work 9-5, plus any overtime and then go home to mow their yards and fix their run down house, then play with the kids before bedtime.
> 
> Not saying all of either side is that way, but my point is our country would be far better off with a wage equalization act.  If the NFL and NBA can have Salary Caps and Floors why can't our nation as a whole?  We the People need to demand a Collective Bargaining Strategy with the corporations.


i like your posts usually, but a wage equalization act is a terrible idea


----------



## Swiper (Mar 26, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Are you sure he wasn't counting how many "corporations are people too" that are dependent on gov't via tax breaks and lobbyists bending laws in their favor?
> 
> Seems to me that the more people we have sucking on the gov't teet the more corporate tax cuts and loopholes they have to do away with...fuck those corporations and the executives making way more than any 20 blue collar employees combined.  Are those executives working 24/7, have no soul and only exist for the company?  Likely, and they probably neglect their families and think money will win their love, while the blue collar workers work 9-5, plus any overtime and then go home to mow their yards and fix their run down house, then play with the kids before bedtime.
> 
> Not saying all of either side is that way, but my point is our country would be far better off with a wage equalization act.  If the NFL and NBA can have Salary Caps and Floors why can't our nation as a whole?  We the People need to demand a Collective Bargaining Strategy with the corporations.



don't you think wages should be negotiated between the employer and the employee?  
it's none of the govts business what pay scale an employer and employee decided on.  it's a contract between the two parties involved.  having govt step in and distort the economy even more does nothing good for the overall economic fascist system we already have in place.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 27, 2014)

Now that I have your attention, isn't it fair that employees who don't have contract negotiation skills have a collective voice from the public servants they vote for and pay?

Sorry if I am thinking for the underdog, I thought that was one of the more American traits to be proud of????


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 27, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> Wow you're pretty naive.  Do you know any ceo's? Ever talked to one?  Think you could do their job?



Could the CEOs do my job?  How about the job of the 200 people that their pay is a multiple of?  At the same time to be worth that multiple of average worker pay?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 27, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> i like your posts usually, but a wage equalization act is a terrible idea



Why?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 27, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Now that I have your attention, isn't it fair that employees who don't have contract negotiation skills have a collective voice from the public servants they vote for and pay?
> 
> Sorry if I am thinking for the underdog, I thought that was one of the more American traits to be proud of????



i dont trust those public servants to negotiate my pay. im pretty sure history shows congress is not very good at helping the underdog


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 27, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Why?



show me in the Constitution where Congress is empowered to do that and we will talk. the government that governs best, governs least


----------



## maniclion (Mar 27, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> Wow you're pretty naive.  Do you know any ceo's? Ever talked to one?  Think you could do their job?



Known several, talked to way too many even gave them advice on products that I foresaw as being big in the future(which I'm sure all of them are kicking themselves for in a dwindling market) but they only saw dollars signs and not the whole picture, beyond business management most of them barely know their industry or products or where its headed, too focused on the bottom line and not on the road ahead.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 27, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> show me in the Constitution where Congress is empowered to do that and we will talk. the government that governs best, governs least



The only problem with that idea is that it is not always the case.  It's a nice concept, sure.  Sometimes things need a little push, or an outright shove, to get things moving in the right direction.  Too many people in this country have been brainwashed into thinking a select few deserve decent wages.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 27, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> The only problem with that idea is that it is not always the case.  It's a nice concept, sure.  Sometimes things need a little push, or an outright shove, to get things moving in the right direction.  Too many people in this country have been brainwashed into thinking a select few deserve decent wages.



That's total bullshit. Doctor's, lawyers, electricians, plumbers etc. etc. etc. all make a decent wage. McDonalds shouldn't be thought of as a career. 

again, show me where Congress is empowered in the Constitution to pass a wage equalization act and we will talk. Gov't isn't the answer. not even close


----------



## maniclion (Mar 27, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> show me in the Constitution where Congress is empowered to do that and we will talk. the government that governs best, governs least



Are you suggesting Anarchy?  I'm down with that, only problem is we still need checks and balances even in that situation.  Right now our current system of checks and balances is easily swayed by checks and balances, aka legalized bribes via corrupt underhanded lobbyists.  I have been to State House and Senate hearings and have seen untainted lobbying via testimony, it works.  You just have to get enough voters out of work and on that floor to do it, right now the common person can't afford to take a lunch break let alone part of a day or whole day to run down to the Capitol bldg to voice their opinion and if you call, write a letter or email your rep all you get back is a patent response probably written by an aid.  I sent in a written testimony once and just so happened to be present for another bill when they read the testimonials of which I had sent in and gotten one of the patent responses affirming that my rep was on board for the passage of the bill, my testimony wasn't read and my rep voted against in the end and dosed off a couple times while others gave their input like his mind was made up and all the talk was boring him.  When they asked if anyone else had anything I raised my hand and said I'd written into my rep but my testimony wasn't included they told me it could have been lost or misfiled, so a gave a verbal and it got several other reps to perk up and pay attention.  It wasn't the biggest issue, just that many health drink bottles didn't have a HI 5? redeemable sticker and recycle stations were rejecting them.  I argued the point of why is it that being healthy should mean one has to sacrifice being good to the environment as well, only those who drink sugar laden unhealthy beverages or alcohol are allowed to recycle their empty containers?  I was miffed at my rep as he just stared at his laptop the whole time, I wanted to say Wtf mother fucker, I voted for you and you can't even look at me while I speak?  But conducting myself in a civil manner seemed to be the best call at the time.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 28, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> That's total bullshit. Doctor's, lawyers, electricians, plumbers etc. etc. etc. all make a decent wage. McDonalds shouldn't be thought of as a career.
> 
> again, show me where Congress is empowered in the Constitution to pass a wage equalization act and we will talk. Gov't isn't the answer. not even close



You're not seriously trying to say a "free market" is the answer, are you?  When it was much closer to a "free market" for wages that worked out so well.  Whole families having to work just to survive and still be going deeper in debt, usually to the company.  

Why couldn't someone make a career out of McDonalds?  Not everyone is highly intelligent and gifted with the creativity needed to move up the ladder.  Subsidizing corporate welfare is the answer?  By keeping wages low it puts the burden on you and me to keep others in the low wage positions fed and a roof over their head rather than on the company they work for.  Being a business owner doesn't entitle someone to increasingly higher profit much less making a profit at all.  Going into business is a crap shoot, at best.


----------



## Big Puppy (Mar 28, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Being a business owner doesn't entitle someone to increasingly higher profit much less making a profit at all.  Going into business is a crap shoot, at best.



Exactly. It doesn't entitle you to more profit and IT IS a crap shoot.  

This is exactly why government shouldn't be limiting business owner's profit because  the RISK of starting and running a business is so high.  The time, money, and stress involved in doing this far exceeds what the average worker has to deal with.  And unless YOU'VE done it, you can't dismiss it.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Are you suggesting Anarchy?  I'm down with that, only problem is we still need checks and balances even in that situation.  Right now our current system of checks and balances is easily swayed by checks and balances, aka legalized bribes via corrupt underhanded lobbyists.  I have been to State House and Senate hearings and have seen untainted lobbying via testimony, it works.  You just have to get enough voters out of work and on that floor to do it, right now the common person can't afford to take a lunch break let alone part of a day or whole day to run down to the Capitol bldg to voice their opinion and if you call, write a letter or email your rep all you get back is a patent response probably written by an aid.  I sent in a written testimony once and just so happened to be present for another bill when they read the testimonials of which I had sent in and gotten one of the patent responses affirming that my rep was on board for the passage of the bill, my testimony wasn't read and my rep voted against in the end and dosed off a couple times while others gave their input like his mind was made up and all the talk was boring him.  When they asked if anyone else had anything I raised my hand and said I'd written into my rep but my testimony wasn't included they told me it could have been lost or misfiled, so a gave a verbal and it got several other reps to perk up and pay attention.  It wasn't the biggest issue, just that many health drink bottles didn't have a HI 5? redeemable sticker and recycle stations were rejecting them.  I argued the point of why is it that being healthy should mean one has to sacrifice being good to the environment as well, only those who drink sugar laden unhealthy beverages or alcohol are allowed to recycle their empty containers?  I was miffed at my rep as he just stared at his laptop the whole time, I wanted to say Wtf mother fucker, I voted for you and you can't even look at me while I speak?  But conducting myself in a civil manner seemed to be the best call at the time.



I said the best government "Governs least" not governs at all. I'm not for anarchy, but i'd prefer if the government focused on providing a military, roads, clean water, and other infrastructure, police, and fire department, and left us the hell alone after that to make our own way. 

I would have supported you if you asked your rep WTF mother fucker? seems like a fair question to me. all the common people i've worked with by the way have time to take a normal lunch break and can take a few hours off on occasion to get politically active if they wanted to.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Why couldn't someone make a career out of McDonalds?  Not everyone is highly intelligent and gifted with the creativity needed to move up the ladder.  Subsidizing corporate welfare is the answer?  By keeping wages low it puts the burden on you and me to keep others in the low wage positions fed and a roof over their head rather than on the company they work for.  Being a business owner doesn't entitle someone to increasingly higher profit much less making a profit at all.  Going into business is a crap shoot, at best.



I like my 99 cent spicy chicken sandwich and don't believe someone who gets paid to warm pre-cooked chicken, add mayo and already shredded lettuce to an already baked bun deserves $15/hour to do it. That's just me though. 

Here is the reality of life, and it's a tough reality. Something people need to accept. Not everyone can, or will be successful. I'm not responsible and neither is McDonalds for keeping a roof over their employees head. A McDonalds employee doesn't deserve anything more than the wage they accepted when they took the job. If they don't like it they can do what the rest of us do. I fully believe in helping our fellow man, and I spend both my time and resources to charitable donations I believe in to help others around me. I believe the government should get out of welfare for the most part. I think charities would do a much better job of helping people help themselves and move up instead of the system we have now that unfortunately traps people in the welfare system.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 29, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I like my 99 cent spicy chicken sandwich and don't believe someone who gets paid to warm pre-cooked chicken, add mayo and already shredded lettuce to an already baked bun deserves $15/hour to do it. That's just me though.
> 
> Here is the reality of life, and it's a tough reality. Something people need to accept. Not everyone can, or will be successful. I'm not responsible and neither is McDonalds for keeping a roof over their employees head. A McDonalds employee doesn't deserve anything more than the wage they accepted when they took the job. If they don't like it they can do what the rest of us do. I fully believe in helping our fellow man, and I spend both my time and resources to charitable donations I believe in to help others around me. I believe the government should get out of welfare for the most part. I think charities would do a much better job of helping people help themselves and move up instead of the system we have now that unfortunately traps people in the welfare system.




In some industries people that work the hardest get compensated the least.
People that work in a McDonalds work their asses off for a bit above minimum wage and get limited to no benefits.

Have you ever worked at McDonalds?
You don't think employees at McDonalds work their asses off for that small amount of compensation?

Try working in a fast food place part time and see how hard you have to work for that small amount of money.
Then see if you could live off of that level of compensation without going on welfare and having the taxpayers support you due to low levels of compensation.

That 15 bucks you mentioned is still being paid out to those employees.
Employers in order to keep profit margins high are paying their employees minimum wages and some of it is being paid to them in taxpayer supplied welfare.

As to charities, there are news reports of foodbanks running out of food due to the high numbers of people using them.
Charities cannot handle the load of all the people that need assistance.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 29, 2014)

Bowden said:


> In some industries people that work the hardest get compensated the least.
> People that work in a McDonalds work their asses off for a bit above minimum wage and get limited to no benefits.
> 
> Have you ever worked at McDonalds?
> ...



it has absolutely nothing to do with how hard the work is. it's about how much they can produce.  

I have worked in fast food part time when I was in high school. I didn't want to do that for a living, so I chose not to. 

maybe if the people weren't taxed as much they'd be giving more to charity and not to a wasteful corrupt govt.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 29, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> I like my 99 cent spicy chicken sandwich and don't believe someone who gets paid to warm pre-cooked chicken, add mayo and already shredded lettuce to an already baked bun deserves $15/hour to do it. That's just me though.
> 
> Here is the reality of life, and it's a tough reality. Something people need to accept. Not everyone can, or will be successful. I'm not responsible and neither is McDonalds for keeping a roof over their employees head. A McDonalds employee doesn't deserve anything more than the wage they accepted when they took the job. If they don't like it they can do what the rest of us do. I fully believe in helping our fellow man, and I spend both my time and resources to charitable donations I believe in to help others around me. I believe the government should get out of welfare for the most part. I think charities would do a much better job of helping people help themselves and move up instead of the system we have now that unfortunately traps people in the welfare system.



Guess what? You are responsible for feeding and housing fast food and Walmart employees with your taxes so the companies can make even bigger profits by not paying their employees more.  If McDonalds paid more their workers wouldn't need government assistance and you wouldn't be supporting them through your taxes even if you never go to McDonalds.  Same for Walmart.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 29, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> Exactly. It doesn't entitle you to more profit and IT IS a crap shoot.
> 
> This is exactly why government shouldn't be limiting business owner's profit because  the RISK of starting and running a business is so high.  The time, money, and stress involved in doing this far exceeds what the average worker has to deal with.  And unless YOU'VE done it, you can't dismiss it.



Without your workers the work isn't getting done.  Can you handle doing everything they do if you didn't have them?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

Bowden said:


> In some industries people that work the hardest get compensated the least.
> People that work in a McDonalds work their asses off for a bit above minimum wage and get limited to no benefits.
> 
> Have you ever worked at McDonalds?
> ...



I've not worked McDonalds, but I've worked fast food (pizza hut) while in high school. My original post stands. I like my 99 cent sandwiches, and don't believe a McDonalds employee deserves $15/hour for the work they do. I don't believe the government, or myself owes a McDonalds worker, or anyone else anything. Give people back their taxes, redesign welfare programs so they don't trap people on welfare, and let the American people through their own initiative decide how to handle those needy and less fortunate.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Guess what? You are responsible for feeding and housing fast food and Walmart employees with your taxes so the companies can make even bigger profits by not paying their employees more.  If McDonalds paid more their workers wouldn't need government assistance and you wouldn't be supporting them through your taxes even if you never go to McDonalds.  Same for Walmart.



No, my idiot compatriots elected fools who chose to make laws using my taxes for that purpose. I'm not responsible for, and neither is my government. The government has gotten in the business of welfare, it isn't a responsibility. welfare is broken right now. We live in a system that promotes laziness. Yes, their are people out their who genuinely need help, there are also those who are working the system to do the least amount possible so that they can continue to subsidize their laziness.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Without your workers the work isn't getting done.  Can you handle doing everything they do if you didn't have them?



If they don't like the pay they can go somewhere else and work.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 29, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> No, my idiot compatriots elected fools who chose to make laws using my taxes for that purpose. I'm not responsible for, and neither is my government. The government has gotten in the business of welfare, it isn't a responsibility. welfare is broken right now. We live in a system that promotes laziness. Yes, their are people out their who genuinely need help, there are also those who are working the system to do the least amount possible so that they can continue to subsidize their laziness.



JP Morgan Chase are in the business of Welfare, of which they get .85 cents from each transaction they handle.  Sounds like they had a plan, trip up uncle sam with Subprime mortgages and then hold him by the ankles and shake the loose change from his pockets, of course leave that fat over stuffed wallet alone, don't want to raise the ire of the Military Gov Contractors, just get a little taste from all the "lazy bums" who can't afford to buy food since their cushy little job was downsized to weather the economic downturn...


----------



## Big Puppy (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Without your workers the work isn't getting done.  Can you handle doing everything they do if you didn't have them?



I never even mentioned that, nor do I argue it.  But I have more invested, and can't just quit and find another job.  Like I said, until you do it, you can't understand.  Looks pretty easy to do a double backflip on a motorcycle, but I doubt Travis pastrami would agree.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 29, 2014)

maniclion said:


> JP Morgan Chase are in the business of Welfare, of which they get .85 cents from each transaction they handle.  Sounds like they had a plan, trip up uncle sam with Subprime mortgages and then hold him by the ankles and shake the loose change from his pockets, of course leave that fat over stuffed wallet alone, don't want to raise the ire of the Military Gov Contractors, just get a little taste from all the "lazy bums" who can't afford to buy food since their cushy little job was downsized to weather the economic downturn...


McDonald's employees? nice straw man here bro. we are talking about wages for the unskilled laborer here not skilled labor. That''s another topic and a whole other set of circumstances


----------



## fizs#1 (Mar 29, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> I'd still vote the same way and I didn't vote for either one.  Both are bad for the country.  I'm not willing to sacrifice my principles simply to vote for a political party name.  It would be stupid to do that since both parties really are the same, and neither one has the interests of you or this country in mind.



Rand to revitalize the republic.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 30, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> McDonald's employees? nice straw man here bro. we are talking about wages for the unskilled laborer here not skilled labor. That''s another topic and a whole other set of circumstances



Ever heard of the trickle down theory, sewage flows down hill into the ocean of the masses, theres a drain pipe up there poking through that glass ceiling and those assholes just keep flushing it to us, maybe you tried to stick your head up their to see how it would be, got a brown nose to prove it, probably!?!  
We need to clog that fucker, have the shit back up and stain that mirrored floor, thats right all they see is themselves when they peer down, imagine Jason Bateman flexing as he rear ends a whore.  They'll convene a committee to decide whose soles[souls?] will get shitty, send'em in with a roll of paper towels, and when the half assed clean up is pau they'll point and say "Aha caught you brown handed.  Next they'll sacrifice them like lambs, and threaten and bribe for their silence, reminding them that they have been branded...or even with violence,   Owned, marked like a beast, and then they'll need to renew, and seek out a few more with brown beaks...


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 30, 2014)

Manic, did you take your meds today?


----------



## solidassears (Mar 30, 2014)

maniclion said:


> Ever heard of the trickle down theory, sewage flows down hill into the ocean of the masses, theres a drain pipe up there poking through that glass ceiling and those assholes just keep flushing it to us, maybe you tried to stick your head up their to see how it would be, got a brown nose to prove it, probably!?!
> We need to clog that fucker, have the shit back up and stain that mirrored floor, thats right all they see is themselves when they peer down, imagine Jason Bateman flexing as he rear ends a whore.  They'll convene a committee to decide whose soles[souls?] will get shitty, send'em in with a roll of paper towels, and when the half assed clean up is pau they'll point and say "Aha caught you brown handed.  Next they'll sacrifice them like lambs, and threaten and bribe for their silence, reminding them that they have been branded...or even with violence,   Owned, marked like a beast, and then they'll need to renew, and seek out a few more with brown beaks...



Typical leftist, socialist, communist, democrat talking points with no substance, no reality, no facts and no knowledge of history. Leftist, socialist, communist, democrat agenda fails every time it's tried; no exceptions. Fail, fail, fail, fail, but stupid people who believe the talking points continue to blame those who work and produce for their own lack of success, which actually comes from sting on your ass and blaming everyone else for your problems.

Get government out of my life, get government out of every stupid idiotic democrat agenda and the economy and society will improve immediately. I lived through Jimmy Carter and I saw first hand what this country could be when you get ride of the idiotic democrat agenda. Now we have much worse than Jimmy Carter running things and it shows. Blame Bush all you want, but this mess is all on the Democrats and Barack Hussein Obama.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

Big Puppy said:


> I never even mentioned that, nor do I argue it.  But I have more invested, and can't just quit and find another job.  Like I said, until you do it, you can't understand.  Looks pretty easy to do a double backflip on a motorcycle, but I doubt Travis pastrami would agree.



You can just quit and find another job, just like your employees.  You're no more special than they are.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> If they don't like the pay they can go somewhere else and work.



When you can't find someone else to do the work for shit pay are you going to do it all?  Stock the incoming merchandise, work the register, sweep and mop, clean the shit spackled toilets every day, lock the doors, and balance the books in about five minutes before you need to unload the first incoming truck?


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> No, my idiot compatriots elected fools who chose to make laws using my taxes for that purpose. I'm not responsible for, and neither is my government. The government has gotten in the business of welfare, it isn't a responsibility. welfare is broken right now. We live in a system that promotes laziness. Yes, their are people out their who genuinely need help, there are also those who are working the system to do the least amount possible so that they can continue to subsidize their laziness.



No matter who won, republican or democrat, at one time or another you voted for a welfare system.  Corporate or social.  Hate to break it to you like that.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 30, 2014)

bio-chem said:


> No, my idiot compatriots elected fools who chose to make laws using my taxes for that purpose. I'm not responsible for, and neither is my government. The government has gotten in the business of welfare, it isn't a responsibility. welfare is broken right now. We live in a system that promotes laziness. Yes, their are people out their who genuinely need help, there are also those who are working the system to do the least amount possible so that they can continue to subsidize their laziness.



The government is in the welfare business alright.
All of it part of the corporate/government welfare state.

In the form of 100 Billions dollars+ of corporate welfare business.
That of course does not count all of the billions of dollars paid by corporations to lobby politicians.
As well all of the tax code rigging that is designed to provide government corporate welfare benefits to corporations.


http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/corporate-welfare-federal-budget


http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA703.pdf

Introduction
The federal government will spend almost $100 billion on corporate welfare in fiscal 2012. That includes direct and indirect sub-sidies to small businesses, large corporations, 
and industry organizations. These subsidies are handed out from programs in many departments, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 30, 2014)

To some people in the rich and investor classes taxpayer supplied corporate welfare is good.
It boosts the profit margins and EPS of corporations that receive corporate welfare from the govenrment.

That translates in part to higher stock share prices.
Which of course benefits the rich and investor classes that own stock in those corporations.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 30, 2014)

Everyone arguing in this thread against welfare needs to research as to if they personally benefit in any way from government corporate welfare.
I will bet you that everyone benefits from it in some way.


----------



## solidassears (Mar 30, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Everyone arguing in this thread against welfare needs to research as to if they personally benefit in any way from government corporate welfare.
> I will bet you that everyone benefits from it in some way.


Even if what you say is true; it doesn't mean welfare is a good thing. It's an evil thing when run by the government, it destroys peoples pride, culture and initiative to improve. If you want to take a really good look at what having the government taking care of you will do, just go live on an indian reservation. I have done that, have you? I lived with the indians in North and South Dakota for two years and it is the most horrible existence you can imagine and it is all due to the government taking care of the indians.

When welfare is run by the private sector who has to be accountable for what it does, the effect is a real welfare system that actually helps people instead of encouraging them to sit on their ass and get more "benefits". Government is evil, the less you have to have the better, the more government the more evil.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 30, 2014)

Bowden said:


> Everyone arguing in this thread against welfare needs to research as to if they personally benefit in any way from government corporate welfare.
> I will bet you that everyone benefits from it in some way.



like Walmart.  Walmart benefits   because people use their welfare money to purchase goods there. so yeah I agree we should abolish all welfare to keep evil profit making companies like Walmart from benefiting.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Even if what you say is true; it doesn't mean welfare is a good thing. It's an evil thing when run by the government, it destroys peoples pride, culture and initiative to improve. If you want to take a really good look at what having the government taking care of you will do, just go live on an indian reservation. I have done that, have you? I lived with the indians in North and South Dakota for two years and it is the most horrible existence you can imagine and it is all due to the government taking care of the indians.
> 
> When welfare is run by the private sector who has to be accountable for what it does, the effect is a real welfare system that actually helps people instead of encouraging them to sit on their ass and get more "benefits". Government is evil, the less you have to have the better, the more government the more evil.



It's the private sector that has rigged the welfare system to the form it is in today.  Business is accountable to nobody.  Not even to share holders.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2014)

Swiper said:


> like Walmart.  Walmart benefits   because people use their welfare money to purchase goods there. so yeah I agree we should abolish all welfare to keep evil profit making companies like Walmart from benefiting.



Walmart benefits from keeping their employees on welfare, so you and I make up for what Walmart won't pay.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 30, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> Walmart benefits from keeping their employees on welfare, so you and I make up for what Walmart won't pay.



I'm glad we both agree to abolish all types of welfare.  problem solved....


----------



## solidassears (Mar 30, 2014)

Zaphod said:


> It's the private sector that has rigged the welfare system to the form it is in today.  Business is accountable to nobody.  Not even to share holders.



Sure it isn't; just like how the government is accountable for Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS Targeting of Democrat foes, Welfare fraud in the trillions, Green Jobs scam, where the Presidents friends get Billions of Government guarantees loans, then they default; Government Bailouts where the Unions get preferential treatment and the bondholder get screwed, the government engineered housing bubble and crash. On the other hand is some fool burns themselves because they're too stupid to feel the coffee they get at McDonalds they sue and get millions... Yea, Business isn't accountable... You're a moron if you really believe the garbage you're spewing.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 31, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Sure it isn't; just like how the government is accountable for Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS Targeting of Democrat foes, Welfare fraud in the trillions, Green Jobs scam, where the Presidents friends get Billions of Government guarantees loans, then they default; Government Bailouts where the Unions get preferential treatment and the bondholder get screwed, the government engineered housing bubble and crash. On the other hand is some fool burns themselves because they're too stupid to feel the coffee they get at McDonalds they sue and get millions... Yea, Business isn't accountable... You're a moron if you really believe the garbage you're spewing.



Financial crash and nobody went to jail?  Businesses bailed out?  That ring a bell?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 31, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Even if what you say is true; it doesn't mean welfare is a good thing. It's an evil thing when run by the government, it destroys peoples pride, culture and initiative to improve. If you want to take a really good look at what having the government taking care of you will do, just go live on an indian reservation. I have done that, have you? I lived with the indians in North and South Dakota for two years and it is the most horrible existence you can imagine and it is all due to the government taking care of the indians.
> 
> When welfare is run by the private sector who has to be accountable for what it does, the effect is a real welfare system that actually helps people instead of encouraging them to sit on their ass and get more "benefits". Government is evil, the less you have to have the better, the more government the more evil.



You CANNOT be serious.  I'm pretty sure the reason an Indian reservation is miserable is because a bunch of foreign white men came and  took all of their land, not that the white man's government decided to throw them a few scraps.


----------



## LAM (Mar 31, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Sure it isn't; just like how the government is accountable for Fast & Furious, Benghazi, IRS Targeting of Democrat foes, Welfare fraud in the trillions, Green Jobs scam, where the Presidents friends get Billions of Government guarantees loans, then they default; Government Bailouts where the Unions get preferential treatment and the bondholder get screwed, the government engineered housing bubble and crash. On the other hand is some fool burns themselves because they're too stupid to feel the coffee they get at McDonalds they sue and get millions... Yea, Business isn't accountable... You're a moron if you really believe the garbage you're spewing.



Look in the mirror to see the definition of a moron.  It appears you have not a single clue about the impact of financialization and the right wing ideology of maximizing shareholder value (MSV) in the development of the US economy since the 1980's.


----------



## LAM (Mar 31, 2014)

The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value


----------



## LAM (Mar 31, 2014)

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html


----------



## Swiper (Mar 31, 2014)

LAM said:


> The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
> http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html



do you have a problem with companies making profits?


----------



## Bowden (Mar 31, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Even if what you say is true; it doesn't mean welfare is a good thing. It's an evil thing when run by the government, it destroys peoples pride, culture and initiative to improve. If you want to take a really good look at what having the government taking care of you will do, just go live on an indian reservation. I have done that, have you? I lived with the indians in North and South Dakota for two years and it is the most horrible existence you can imagine and it is all due to the government taking care of the indians.
> 
> When welfare is run by the private sector who has to be accountable for what it does, the effect is a real welfare system that actually helps people instead of encouraging them to sit on their ass and get more "benefits". Government is evil, the less you have to have the better, the more government the more evil.



What did you do for the two years while you were living with the "Indians on the Reservation"?
If you are referring to the Lakota in North and South Dakota, the government tried to exterminate them and forced what was left into the equivalent of concentration camps aka. reservations.
The government working in association with missionaries committed cultural genocide against the Lakota by taking their children away from them, shipping them off to boarding schools where they tried to turn them into christian white people.
Lakota children in these boarding schools were forbidden to speak their language, follow their cultural norms, follow the spiritual practices that they were taught by their people.

Indian Nations have signed treaties with the U.S. government.
They are classified in those treaties as sovereign nations with defined treaty rights.
Treaty rights are not welfare entitlements.
They are legal obligations of the U.S. government.


----------



## LAM (Mar 31, 2014)

Swiper said:


> do you have a problem with companies making profits?



When it occurs at the cost of the real economy, I sure do.  

You do realize that the speculative markets earn their profits on the back of the real economy don't you?  And they don't create anything of value because they are driven by debt and leverage.

What do you think is driving disinvestment in the U.S economy?  The disinvestment in the real US economy occurred simultaneously with the adoption MSV.   More faulty greed driven ideology out of the right wing in the U.S.

LOL...you think profits can be made with out creating anything of value.  Your still confusing your lack of knowledge in economics with being actually learned.  You forget that economics may be a soft science but it's based on the real world where physical goods and services are consumed which means that natural laws apply to it's function.

The financialization of economy's is the driving force behind the inequality of wealth and income across the OECD.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 31, 2014)

LAM said:


> When it occurs at the cost of the real economy, I sure do.
> 
> You do realize that the speculative markets earn their profits on the back of the real economy don't you?  And they don't create anything of value because they are driven by debt and leverage.
> 
> ...




you're talking about speculative markets now.   LOL   do you have a problem with Walmart making a profit? 

I like profits. i like when companies make profits too.


----------



## solidassears (Apr 1, 2014)

Bowden said:


> What did you do for the two years while you were living with the "Indians on the Reservation"?
> If you are referring to the Lakota in North and South Dakota, the government tried to exterminate them and forced what was left into the equivalent of concentration camps aka. reservations.
> The government working in association with missionaries committed cultural genocide against the Lakota by taking their children away from them, shipping them off to boarding schools where they tried to turn them into christian white people.
> Lakota children in these boarding schools were forbidden to speak their language, follow their cultural norms, follow the spiritual practices that they were taught by their people.
> ...



Yea, don't worry, the government would never do to you what they're doing to the indians. You just don't get it do you; the damn government wants to do the same thing to you and every other citizen, make them wards of the government so they can control you and make you do what they want you to do. Wake up; they're doing it right now! Sheeple just make excuses for the evil the government is because they hope they will get some benefit.


----------



## solidassears (Apr 1, 2014)

LAM said:


> Look in the mirror to see the definition of a moron.  It appears you have not a single clue about the impact of financialization and the right wing ideology of maximizing shareholder value (MSV) in the development of the US economy since the 1980's.



Oh yea, let the government tai over everything, that's the answer, it always works so well. What has caused the huge run up in the stock market? You think it's a right wing ideology? LOL!!! The stock market run up is due to one thing; the Fed printing $2 Trillion Dollars since 2008:

http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Ri...ed-Prints-Money,-What-Impact-Does-It-Hav.aspx

Just like every other liberal, leftists, socialist, communist, democrat, you have no clue what your own policies are doing and you just blame the disaster it's causing on the right. The bling leading the blind, blaming anyone but who is really responsible. You and your kind are responsible for the mess, not Bush, not the right wing, you.


----------



## 13bret (Apr 1, 2014)

There needs to be a common "middle ground" where both sides can work together to fix shit instead of finger pointing and blame shifting. I despise what politics does, making grown men act like spoiled children and crybabies. Just my opinion


----------



## LAM (Apr 1, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Oh yea, let the government tai over everything, that's the answer, it always works so well. What has caused the huge run up in the stock market? You think it's a right wing ideology? LOL!!! The stock market run up is due to one thing; the Fed printing $2 Trillion Dollars since 2008:
> 
> http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Ri...ed-Prints-Money,-What-Impact-Does-It-Hav.aspx
> 
> Just like every other liberal, leftists, socialist, communist, democrat, you have no clue what your own policies are doing and you just blame the disaster it's causing on the right. The bling leading the blind, blaming anyone but who is really responsible. You and your kind are responsible for the mess, not Bush, not the right wing, you.



Why is it that all of the most highly functioning economy's and country's across the world follow progressive economic policy then? And why are all the country's that follow neo-liberal policy going the way of fascism?

Why does comparative economics tell a completely different story when it comes to progressive and neo-liberal policy?


----------



## LAM (Apr 1, 2014)

Swiper said:


> you're talking about speculative markets now.   LOL   do you have a problem with Walmart making a profit?
> 
> I like profits. i like when companies make profits too.



that would be because the financialization of the economy is the diving force behind the speculative markets when then in turn have decreased investment in the real economy.  You do realize that causality still applies to the study of economics don't you?  

Because it has been removed from the subject in US mainstream media doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.


----------



## LAM (Apr 1, 2014)

solidassears said:


> Oh yea, let the government tai over everything, that's the answer, it always works so well. What has caused the huge run up in the stock market? You think it's a right wing ideology? LOL!!! The stock market run up is due to one thing; the Fed printing $2 Trillion Dollars since 2008:
> 
> http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Ri...ed-Prints-Money,-What-Impact-Does-It-Hav.aspx
> 
> Just like every other liberal, leftists, socialist, communist, democrat, you have no clue what your own policies are doing and you just blame the disaster it's causing on the right. The bling leading the blind, blaming anyone but who is really responsible. You and your kind are responsible for the mess, not Bush, not the right wing, you.



LOL...your talking about QE which shows just how clueless you are when the problem started decades ago.  Was it not the right wing ideology of Milton Friedman that caused the FED to double the monetary base every decades regardless of the population growth?   And the OPEC oil shock when the price of crude was doubled over-night?  what causes that again?


And was it not the right wing ideology out of Milton Friedman that started the MSV ideology in the 1970's?

And was is not right wing economic ideology that deregulated the US financial sector?  Because the names of republican politicians are on every major piece of legislation going back to the Monetary Control and Reform Act of 1980.   You might want to search the records and see how many pieces of legislation have the names Graham, Leech and Bliley on them as you obviously have not.

Try actually learning about US legislative history and policy before talking about what the right hasn't done.


----------



## solidassears (Apr 1, 2014)

LAM said:


> LOL...your talking about QE which shows just how clueless you are when the problem started decades ago.  Was it not the right wing ideology of Milton Friedman that caused the FED to double the monetary base every decades regardless of the population growth?   And the OPEC oil shock when the price of crude was doubled over-night?  what causes that again?
> 
> 
> And was it not the right wing ideology out of Milton Friedman that started the MSV ideology in the 1970's?
> ...



Yea right; BUSH did it!!! 







http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-013SNR95Q3k/TfybxuKFdEI/AAAAAAAAAOc/CyBD9IczwpU/s400/heads_up_ass.jpg


----------



## FUZO (Apr 1, 2014)

Lets just wait until the Republicans take the senate which they will and then the white house which they will then we can get started on repealing this scum bags health care.Wow this thread still going.Liberalism is a mental disorder


----------



## Swiper (Apr 1, 2014)

LAM said:


> that would be because the financialization of the economy is the diving force behind the speculative markets when then in turn have decreased investment in the real economy.  You do realize that causality still applies to the study of economics don't you?
> 
> Because it has been removed from the subject in US mainstream media doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.




raising the minimum wage will cost the economy 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs according to the non-partisan CBO and many other reports have said this as well.  That would be devastating to the economy and low skilled workers the fascist far left claims to want to help.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 1, 2014)

LAM said:


> that would be because the financialization of the economy is the diving force behind the speculative markets when then in turn have decreased investment in the real economy.  You do realize that causality still applies to the study of economics don't you?
> 
> Because it has been removed from the subject in US mainstream media doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.





Bubbleberg News LP: Why We Are Plagued With Drivel Masquerading As Financial Reporting
By David Stockman
David Stockman's Contra Corner
April 1, 2014


One of the evils of massive over-financialization is that it enables Wall Street to scalp vast ?rents? from the Main Street economy. These zero sum extractions not only bloat the paper wealth of the 1% but also fund a parasitic bubble finance infrastructure that would largely not exist in a world of free market finance and honest money.


The infrastructure of bubble finance can be likened to the illegal drug cartels. In that dystopic world, the immense revenue ?surplus? from the 1000-fold elevation of drug prices owing to government enforced scarcity finances a giant but uneconomic apparatus of sourcing, transportation, wholesaling, distribution, corruption, coercion, murder and mayhem that would not even exist in a free market. The latter would only need LTL trucking lines and $900 vending machines.

In this context, the sprawling empire known as Bloomberg LP is the Juarez Cartel of bubble finance. Its lucrative 320,000 terminals and profit-rich $10 billion in revenue are not purely a testament to the extraordinary inventive genius of Michael Bloomberg The Younger. In fact, Bloomberg?s 1981 invention owed a huge debt of gratitude to Richard Nixon and Milton Friedman. It was they who destroyed the Bretton Woods regime of anchored money and global financial discipline that made ?Bloombergs? necessary.

Let me explain. Under the fixed exchange rate regime of Bretton Woods?ironically, designed mostly by J.M. Keynes himself with help from Comrade Harry Dexter White?there was no $4 trillion daily currency futures and options market; no interest rate swap monster with $500 trillion outstanding and counting; no gamblers den called the SPX futures pit and all its variants, imitators, derivatives and mutations; no ETF casino for the plodders or multi-trillion market in ?bespoke? (OTC) derivatives for the fast money insiders. Indeed, prior to Friedman?s victory for floating central bank money at Camp David in August 1971 there were not even any cash settled equity options at all.

The world of fixed exchange rates between national monies ultimately anchored by the solemn obligation of the US government to redeem dollars for gold at $35 per ounce was happily Bloomberg-free for reasons that are obvious?albeit long forgotten. Importers and exporters did not need currency hedges because the exchange rates never changed. Interest rate swaps did not exist because the Fed did not micro-manage the yield curve. Consequently, there were no central bank generated inefficiencies and anomalies for dealers to arbitrage. Stated differently, interest rate swaps are ?sold? not bought, and no dealers were selling.

There were also natural two-way markets in equities and bonds because the (peacetime) Fed did not peg money market rates or interpose puts, props and bailouts under the price of capital securities. This means that returns to carry trades and high-churn speculation were vastly lower than under the current regime of monetary central planning. Financial gamblers could not buy cheap S&P puts to hedge long positions in mo-mo trades, for example, meaning that free market profits from speculative trading (i.e. hedge funds) would have been meager. Indeed, the profit from ?trading the dips? is a gift of the Fed because the underlying chart pattern?mild periodic undulations rising from the lower left to the upper right?is an artifice of central bank bubble finance.

And, in fact, so are all the other distincitive features of the modern equity gambling halls?index baskets, cash-settled options, ETFs, OTCs, HFTs. None of these arose from the free market; they were enabled by central bank promotion of one-way markets?that is, the Greenspan/Bernanke/Yellen ?put?. The latter, in turn, is a product of the hoary doctrine called ?wealth effects? which would have been laughed out of court by officials like William McChesney Martin who operated in the old world of sound money.

In short, Wall Street?s triumphalist doctrine?claiming that massive financialization of the economy is a product of market innovation and technological advance?is dead wrong. We need ?bloombergs? not owing to the good fortune of high speed computers and Blythe Master?s knack for financial engineering; we are stuck with them owing to the bad fortune that Nixon and then the rest of the world adopted Milton Friedman?s flawed recipe for monetary central planning.



Needless to say, the parabolic rise in financial sector profits from about 1.25% of GDP prior to Camp David to 4.25% of GDP today?call it a round $500 billion per year?is only the tip of the ice-berg. What lies beneath, according to the Commerce Department numbers crunchers, is ?value-added? of some $3.75 trillion in the FIRE sector (finance, insurance and real estate), which generates the aforementioned accounting profits and consists primarily of compensation.

Here the uplift is even more dramatic. The FIRE sector?s 800 basis point gain from 14% of GDP in 1970 to 22% at present rounds to about $1.4 trillion. That?s the bloat from financialization?which is to say, the infrastructure of bubble finance. Embedded in that bloat is everything from the running cost of fund-of-funds and family offices (i.e. private chefs, ?investor? conferences at tony resorts etc.) to the vast network of bankers, brokers, appraisers, title insurers, settlement lawyers and escrow agents that tend the home mortgage churning machine.

In the latter case, the untoward impact of financialization on the world of George Bailey?s Savings and Loan can not be gainsaid. Back then, people took out mortgages and paid them off a bit at a time over 30 years owing to the fact that there was no basis for today?s serial ?mortgage refi?. On the free market, mortgages would either carry floating rates or have embedded call protection on fixed rates.

Moreover, the basis for today?s serial refi would not exist. Interest rates would have no directional trend in an environment where they represent the market clearing price, balancing the supply of savings and the demand for loanable funds.

By contrast, the artificial downward-sloping trend in mortgage rates in recent decades has been an intentional outcome of the Fed?s interest rate rigging policies designed to goose housing prices and spur homebuilding. During the 55 months that elapsed between Lehman?s failure and April 2013, for instance, the Freddie Mac reference rate for 30-year mortgages dropped almost linearly from 6.5% to 3.3%.

As it happened, this massive inducement to home-borrowing did not generate much lift in the home-building sector because the stock of residential homes is massively over-built from the first housing bubble. But it did generate a substantial ?refi? wave owing to the sheer math of mortgage finance. Indeed, the Bernanke-Yellen regime has made no bones about its alleged success in driving down the 10-year treasury benchmark rate and thereby reflating the housing market.

In truth, the monetary politburo induced nothing more than another round of mortgage churn among a small sub-set of existing homeowners. There are approximately 115 million households in the US?40 million of which are renters and 25 million own their homes free and clear. Yet even among the 50 million households with mortgages, upwards of 25 million are still under-water or do not have enough positive equity to cover transactions costs and meet today?s more stringent loan-to-value requirements.

So at the end of the day, the refi churn machine has arbitrarily conferred debt service relief on a randomly selected sub-set of perhaps 10-20% of households?many of which have engaged in serial refi for several decades now. This serves no evident principle of public policy based on need or merit. But that doesn?t matter to the monetary central planners. Their only goal is to stimulate GDP as measured by the government stat mills?even if what they are measuring is more bloat from financialization.

In fact, that?s about all the Fed?s housing stimulus is now generating. For nearly 40 years, household mortgage borrowing did stimulate measured GDP. During that span the ratio of debt/wage and salary income was ratched-up by periodic Fed reflations from a pre-1970 level of about 80 percent to a peak of 210% by 2007.

But now that ?peak? debt has been reached and the household leverage ratio has fallen back slightly to about 180%, what the Fed?s ministrations produce is only a tepid amount of GDP from financialization; that is, we get a dollop of GDP from the pointless churning of home mortgages?a financial engineering process that does not create new wealth, but simply siphons existing wealth into activity among loan brokers, appraisers and real estate attorneys that the BEA is pleased to call GDP.

.

Indeed, the elephant in the room lurking behind the rising FIRE line in the graph above is the nation?s current $59 trillion in credit market debt. At 3.5 turns of GDP it represents a vast aberration of bubble finance, and compares to a healthy ratio of 1.5 turns that prevailed for more than a century before 1971.

These two extra turns of combined household, business, finance and government debt are not simply statistical curiosities. It represents $30 trillion of incremental debt that not only weighs heavily on the stagnating incomes of borrowers, but also represents a vast inventory of loans, bonds, hypothecations, re-hypothecations, derivatives and securitizations. It goes without saying that this immense inventory must be constantly tended, serviced, repackaged, extended, pretended and re-sliced and re-diced. Juggling the debt and chasing the ?assets? which it funds and hypothecates is what financialization does.

As is well-known, the ?Bloombergs? at the center of the bubble finance casino are so immensely profitable that they generate the equivalent of a drug lord?s surplus? which, in turn, funds the extensive apparatus of financial information and news production that comprise the Bloomberg empire. But at the end of the day, Bloomberg News LP is only a vertically integrated representation of the entire infrastructure of bubble finance. Reuters, the Financial Times, CNBC, Dow-Jones/News Corp and Inside Mortgage Finance are all part of the food-chain by which the bloated financial sector maintains and services itself.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the scribes and pundits employed by the bubble infrastructure cannot see beyond it; that CNBC can find an endless supply of fund managers who are buying the dips and following the Fed?s promise to keep interest rates lower longer and stock prices rising higher forever; that a corrupt financial market in which all interest rates are pegged and rigged by the Fed is taken for granted as the natural order of economics; that government borrowing to stimulate and support the economy is viewed as essential regardless of its baleful future consequences; that arbitrary central banking targets like 2% inflation as an instrument of optimum GDP growth or the bogeyman of ?deflation? are embraced uncritically as axiomatic; or that economic absurdities such as zero money market interest rates for seven years running are rarely even noted.

In short, the vast infrastructure of bubble finance bends, shapes and curates the daily narrative so thoroughly that the denizens on the stage set do not even notice its vast artificiality. Its just one day at a time, and one more fix by the monetary and fiscal authorities to keep the bubble inflating, or at least stable.

In that context comes the monetary insanity of Abenomics and the economic freak-show of Japan Inc. After 20 years of relentless borrowing and money printing, it teeters on the edge of an economic abyss, shackled with massive public debt, a shrinking/aging population, a rapidly depleting savings pool, comically low interest rates on its public debt and a truly horrid fiscal posture?namely, it will need to borrow 50% of every dime its spends in the year ahead, even with the long-overdue rise of consumption taxes beginning in April.

Into that miasma comes a Bloomberg scribe, Matthew Klein, offering to essay on the upcoming baby-step toward fiscal sanity in Japan. The headline says it all:

Japan Is Taxing Itself Into Trouble

And then there follows more of the mindless narrative:

On April 1, Japan?s national sales tax will rise to 8 percent from 5 percent. Unless wages rise by an equal amount, the effect will be a drop in consumer spending?. Even if this isn?t enough to push the economy into recession, raising the sales tax is a bad move that will undermine Prime Minister Shinzo Abe?s agenda for the world?s third-largest economy?.If anything, the government should be cutting taxes now

Young Matthew also notes that the Japanese people have not been astute enough to recognize what Wall Street and London gunslingers intuitively understood. That is, with the BOJ expanding its balance sheet at three times the rate relative to GDP of the Fed?s mad money printing, stock prices would soar and wealth effects would be had by all:

For instance, Japanese have been large net sellers of Japanese stocks ever since the big rally that began in the fall of 2012. Foreign investors have more faith in Abenomics than the people with the most at stake.

Then there is the news that victory over ?deflation?  is in sight. Never mind that there has never been any sustained consumer price deflation in Japan, and that the current index of about 99.0 stands almost at the very spot it occupied 21 years ago in March 1993?with only tiny undulations during the intervening years:

A more encouraging bit of news is the rise in consumer prices, excluding food and energy. This measure of inflation has accelerated to 0.7 percent annually ? its fastest pace since 1998, although still slower than the official target of 2 percent?..

On the drivel meanders. Nowhere is it noted that Japan?s scheduled consumption tax rise is a bitter, chronically deferred, end-of-the line fiscal necessity; that sustained 2% inflation would destroy its monstrous $10 trillion government bond market; and that Abenomics has already manifestly failed.

By trashing the Yen, Abenomics has imported massive commodity inflation onto an island that has no hydrocarbons, industrial raw materials or even operational nuke plants. Consequently, real wages are falling at an even faster rates than before and the massive debt burdens created by decades of bubble finance push the world?s largest retirement community toward its final demise.

This bit of tommyrot was published under Bloomberg Views?perhaps suggesting that it represents opinion, not hard news. But that?s just the trouble. The vast infrastructure of bubble finance generates an overpowering consensus of opinion that is utterly blind to the very bubble in which it resides.


Lew Rockwell - Bubbleberg News http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/david-stockman/bubbleberg-news/


----------

