Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 38941 - 38960 of total 52563 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Nov 15, 2012 - 04:12pm PT
jstan,

If you're saying that we should require complete disclosure of funding sources for political campaigns, I strongly agree. The article you quote says a whole lot more than that, however, including a lot of the spew of the late, unlamented "occupy" movement. When I see statements about "the 1%," I tend to discount what follows.

And Dave, I agree that anyone can be a "job creator," but I think it would be a worthwhile study to see if there is any correlation between reported income and the number of people employed by that particular person. Entrepreneurial risk is an essential element of employment, and too many refuse to acknowledge its importance.

Now, back to work for the rest of the day.

John
Norte_Carolińa_Climber

Gym climber
BigWall Baller From the Holler
Nov 15, 2012 - 04:19pm PT
Jealous Aryan,

You say no misdirection, and then you get straight to the misdirection talkin about Clinton being in office when CEO pay was highest. Total BS, cause last I checked Slick Willie or any other president wasn't sittin on the compensation comittees of these corps, deciding what the proper division of the fruits of the labor is.

Mealy mouth like that, Let me guess, you must be a lawyer? Or a politician. Maybe a CEO. Either way, a weasel.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Nov 15, 2012 - 04:26pm PT
I even found that Obama and I have a 73% agreement rate


Wow. you have actually measured that? you really must be some sort of number cruncher!

About the thread title. Provocative yes and I would say in this day and age more correct than not.
Needlessly polarizing? maybe. Pandering to sensationalism? Yeah totally but thats the pot calling the kettle black. Not that that is any justification yet there it is. The fact is the Republicans have been and still are very much dominated by complete raving lunatics. That surely you would not deny. The Democrats, less so. Very less so. Maybe they are not wrong about everything but they are enough wrong to deserve tar and feathers and a ride out of town.

I think the best action is vote for those who will do the least damage.
John M

climber
Nov 15, 2012 - 04:28pm PT
but I think it would be a worthwhile study to see if there is any correlation between reported income and the number of people employed by that particular person.

you would want to include where they started. when I was a carpet cleaner my boss had 8 employees and He was going broke. He had one of the best areas, but he didn't know how to run a business. I went to work for him and me and another guy were his best workers. We convinced him that if he didn't change his ways, we would start a competing business. He agreed with our plan and now he has 100 employees and is one of the most profitable franchises of this particular carpet cleaning company in the nation.

Too bad my health went south or I would be on my way to being well off. But that is another story. My point is that he was completely underwater. He owed way more then he had in his business. All of his trucks were ancient and hardly worth anything. The only thing of real value that he had was the franchise in a very lucrative location.

Money didn't make the jobs. Smart decisions and an area with plenty of customers did.

No customers meant no business and no jobs. Money wasn't the main reason those jobs were created. Hard work and supplying what people wanted did.

Oh.. and he got the original franchise not with money, but because he had worked for the company for 20 years and they fronted the franchise to him.

If there was no one to sell the product to, then there would be no jobs.

One of his biggest headaches is helping his employees have health care.
jstan

climber
Nov 15, 2012 - 04:36pm PT
Below the secret recording. Mitt's explanation for his loss is straight out of the script for the 47% talk to donors.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser#13530258433651&action=collapse_widget&id=381710


Mitt is still running. Almost seems the loss never happened.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 05:30pm PT
You seem like a weasely dishonest type to me, with your bs nitpicks and misdirection plays, are you a Republican?

Yes, a honest Republican
He is ST's most rational right winger
A pillar of partisan respect
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 07:05pm PT
Money didn't make the jobs. Smart decisions and an area with plenty of customers did.

Investments and Money do not create Jobs, tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs

What is the number one thing that creates jobs?
Demand.

people with money in their pocket to spend creates demand for products
and that demand creates jobs.

The only other thing that creates jobs in any significant number is the Government. Infra structure, education, police, military etc.

Better wages for the poor and middle class creates jobs, because they have more to spend, and hence more customers to your business.

But all these ideas are the exact opposite of what the Republicans propose. They propose lower wages for the low income, and more tax cuts for the rich,
less Gov. spending, and more deficit spending subsides and tax breaks for their cronies.


Why would I sell cactus if there was no demand? I could have all the money in the world, and with no customers, I will sell no cactus, and never need to hire anyone or even have to bother to sell cactuses.
John M

climber
Nov 15, 2012 - 07:09pm PT
people with money in their pocket to spend creates demand for products
and that demand creates jobs.

money in your pocket is a form of wealth. The problem is that people have started confusing that with the extremely wealthy.
The Warbler

climber
the edge of America
Nov 15, 2012 - 07:44pm PT
Check out this republigoon's twisted attempt to justify opposing Susan Rice's nomination:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/soledad-obrien-joe-heck-susan-rice_n_2138101.html

Natural selection can't take these guys out soon enough
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 07:51pm PT
No economy can be sustained on what the rich spend.
They don't spend that much more than the middle class and poor.

Only the middle class and poor have the numbers to sustain an economy, the more money they have, the better the economy does.
That's why higher wages for them improves the economy so much, it's win win for everybody, including the rich.

And lower wages just brings the economy down, the rich keep getting richer, but they don't spend enough to boost the economy.
But the down ward trend brings more wages down, and unemployment up, it's just a downward spiral.

The Republican race to the Bottom.
philo

Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
Nov 15, 2012 - 07:51pm PT
69 bump
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 07:53pm PT
Looks like we are on track to hit 40,000 by the end of the month
Yea!
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 08:04pm PT
Life, Death and Deficits

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: November 15, 2012 NYT

America’s political landscape is infested with many zombie ideas — beliefs about policy that have been repeatedly refuted with evidence and analysis but refuse to die. The most prominent zombie is the insistence that low taxes on rich people are the key to prosperity. But there are others.

And right now the most dangerous zombie is probably the claim that rising life expectancy justifies a rise in both the Social Security retirement age and the age of eligibility for Medicare. Even some Democrats — including, according to reports, the president — have seemed susceptible to this argument. But it’s a cruel, foolish idea — cruel in the case of Social Security, foolish in the case of Medicare — and we shouldn’t let it eat our brains.

First of all, you need to understand that while life expectancy at birth has gone up a lot, that’s not relevant to this issue; what matters is life expectancy for those at or near retirement age. When, to take one example, Alan Simpson — the co-chairman of President Obama’s deficit commission — declared that Social Security was “never intended as a retirement program” because life expectancy when it was founded was only 63, he was displaying his ignorance. Even in 1940, Americans who made it to age 65 generally had many years left.

Now, life expectancy at age 65 has risen, too. But the rise has been very uneven since the 1970s, with only the relatively affluent and well-educated seeing large gains. Bear in mind, too, that the full retirement age has already gone up to 66 and is scheduled to rise to 67 under current law.

This means that any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren’t living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort that’s difficult even for healthy seniors. And these are precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.

So any rise in the Social Security retirement age would, as I said, be cruel, hurting the most vulnerable Americans. And this cruelty would be gratuitous: While the United States does have a long-run budget problem, Social Security is not a major factor in that problem.

Medicare, on the other hand, is a big budget problem. But raising the eligibility age, which means forcing seniors to seek private insurance, is no way to deal with that problem.

It’s true that thanks to Obamacare, seniors should actually be able to get insurance even without Medicare. (Although, what happens if a number of states block the expansion of Medicaid that’s a crucial piece of the program?) But let’s be clear: Government insurance via Medicare is better and more cost-effective than private insurance.

You might ask why, in that case, health reform didn’t just extend Medicare to everyone, as opposed to setting up a system that continues to rely on private insurers. The answer, of course, is political realism. Given the power of the insurance industry, the Obama administration had to keep that industry in the loop. But the fact that Medicare for all may have been politically out of reach is no reason to push millions of Americans out of a good system into a worse one.

What would happen if we raised the Medicare eligibility age? The federal government would save only a small amount of money, because younger seniors are relatively healthy and hence low-cost. Meanwhile, however, those seniors would face sharply higher out-of-pocket costs. How could this trade-off be considered good policy?

The bottom line is that raising the age of eligibility for either Social Security benefits or Medicare would be destructive, making Americans’ lives worse without contributing in any significant way to deficit reduction. Democrats, in particular, who even consider either alternative need to ask themselves what on earth they think they’re doing.

But what, ask the deficit scolds, do people like me propose doing about rising spending? The answer is to do what every other advanced country does, and make a serious effort to rein in health care costs. Give Medicare the ability to bargain over drug prices. Let the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created as part of Obamacare to help Medicare control costs, do its job instead of crying “death panels.” (And isn’t it odd that the same people who demagogue attempts to help Medicare save money are eager to throw millions of people out of the program altogether?) We know that we have a health care system with skewed incentives and bloated costs, so why don’t we try to fix it?

What we know for sure is that there is no good case for denying older Americans access to the programs they count on. This should be a red line in any budget negotiations, and we can only hope that Mr. Obama doesn’t betray his supporters by crossing it.
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 15, 2012 - 08:11pm PT
CIA Looking Into Conduct Of CIA Ex-Chief After Affair


By KIMBERLY DOZIER 11/15/12 02:47 PM ET EST



WASHINGTON -- The CIA is opening an "exploratory" investigation into the general conduct of ex-CIA director David Petraeus, who resigned last week after acknowledging an affair.

CIA spokesman Preston Golson says the investigation by the CIA's inspector general "doesn't presuppose any particular outcome."

Lawmakers questioned top CIA and FBI officials about the affair Thursday, during hearings originally scheduled to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

Petraeus biographer and girlfriend Paula Broadwell was found to have classified information in her possession, apparently from her time researching Petraeus' career.

The FBI cleared Petraeus of mishandling classified information, but reserve Army officer Broadwell is under investigation and her security clearance has been suspended.

Petraeus will testify before Congress Friday about the events in Benghazi.
Fritz

Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:14pm PT
I appreciate how calm and well-reasoned the posters on this thread have been today.

Thank you!

A little fun!

Credit: Fritz
zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:14pm PT


zBrown

Ice climber
chingadero de chula vista
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:21pm PT
big guns, big dick, whatever


ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
SLO, Ca
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:25pm PT
The social stuff is what is killing the republicans.

I live in deep in blue country and here is the truth: the "job creators" are a highly educated, diverse, sometimes gay sometimes not, hard working, creative, motivated, goal oriented folks. Investment capital flows to them regardless of their beliefs on anything.

All of the foregoing "job creators" would never vote for some cretin republican talking about "legitimate rape." Oh yeah, the taxes, they can and are willing to pay them.

Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:53pm PT

Opportunity to recover from unsucessful actions is much less and more prone to total failure than anything the wealthy faces.

Not sure I agree with that. As Bob Dylan would sing, "When you ain't got nothin, you got nothin to lose."


when, because you have to work as a high school student because your single mother (who never went to college) barely makes a living wage for your family, and your grades suffer because of lack of study time, you can't have your Mom call the Chancellor of the University that she gave an endowment to, to "arrange" for you to get in.

when you are late to work at the accounting firm where you work, because you have to take public transit, and it broke, and you get fired, your Rich dad can't call the CEO and "fix things", CEO to CEO.

The thing you are talking about losing, is the OPPORTUNITY that an average/poor person does NOT have, compared to the wealthy and influencial.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Nov 15, 2012 - 08:54pm PT
You're comparing apples and oranges. Most CEO's compensation is tied to their company's profitability, so of course it rises and falls with profits.


Actually, that is almost NEVER true. What may be related to company profitability is BONUS compensation.
Messages 38941 - 38960 of total 52563 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews