Politics

[Buster Bluth]

I watched the DNC and RNC without gritting my teeth the entire time. Perhaps you missed all of Bill Clinton's speech which was entirely policy and called true by politifact and other fact checking sites.

I watched Bill Clinton's speech and laughed. Bill Clinton hates Obama and is not unfriendly with Romney. He actually respects Romney's economic record. I thought his speech was show business (like it all is) and a rather lukewarm embracing of Obama. I like Clinton, a lot; Obama is no Clinton. That much is obvious.

Perhaps you missed Obama talking about wanting to keep fighting for the American Jobs Act which economists project will add 1.9 Million jobs (and was voted down unanimously by republicans already)

1) The federal government did a pretty solid job showing us in 2009 that it sucks at stimulus. Decent politicians can come up with policies in which the government takes care of X, great politicians come up with policies in which capitalism takes care of X.

2) We're $16,000,000,000,000 in the hole, if you didn't know. We can't afford many more swings that miss.

3) It was a $447,000,000,000 bill, with would "create" 1,900,000 jobs. That's $235,263.16 per job. Sounds efficient.

4) Of the $447bil, here's where some went:

Spending $62 billion for a Pathways Back to Work Program for expanding opportunities for low-income youth and adults.

Sounds legit...what does that entail?

$49 billion - Extending unemployment benefits for up to 6 million long-term beneficiaries.
$8 billion - Jobs tax credit for the long term unemployed.
$5 billion - Pathways back to work fund.

Oh...nevermind.

Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

Nothing says "economic revitalization" like handouts to hire more public employees. Wouldn't want to force local governments to live in reality, would we? Why renegotiate public employee contracts when the Feds can write you a big fat check, huh?

Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.

Awesome! A hand out to big union contractors! Feds hand the money to the states, states issue it to the districts, districts require prevailing wage, union intimidates district to win job union builds ****** high school.

No thanks.

Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.

More big union construction? Nice. This time, it's for roads. That'll get the economy flowing again.

Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.

We need to fix up privately-owned buildings so that nothing can go in them because the economy sucks. Gotcha. If a building has potential, the banks will finance it, no? Isn't that how it should work? Is that not working? Fix that, don't throw money at it.

Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.

I actually really like this idea. I'd like it even more if they mandated that a certain percentage had to go for street car lines/HSR/bike lanes. It's a great idea.

Cutting and suspending $245 billion worth of payroll taxes for qualifying employers and 160 million medium to low income employees.

Didn't that happen?

Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.

Huh?

Creating additional regulations on businesses who discriminate against hiring those who are long-term unemployed.

Sounds awesome! Errrrr actually that sounds like more regulations that add to the straws on the camel's back which sound pretty hard to prove and only add to the arsenal trial lawyers (read: Democratic fundraisers) have to attack businesses with.

Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

+1000000

Overall, sounds like a pretty ****** bill honestly. There are ways to stimulate this economy, this is an amateur's way of trying to do it.

or him letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250K.

In the middle of a recession? Didn't Barry just tell me earlier: "He’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession." Still looks pretty recession-like to me.

And aren't we trying to stimulate small business here? I know that it's not uncommon at all to make like $800,000....but then turned around and paid his employees, corporate taxes, state taxes, local taxes, business insurances, employees' benefits....and then reinvested into his company and took home like $100,000. It sounds extraordinarily stupid to raise taxes on small businesses.

Here's something I've never understood: why we never have an honest talk, in this country, on who the job creators really are. Republicans say that the job creators are the millionaires and CEO's and Wall Street....and I think that's more or less bullsh*t.

Take a CEO, of Apple, for example. The CEO of Apple is not a "direct" job creator. He does not reinvest his money into the company to produce goods or jobs. His creating of jobs would be the same if he were taxes at 40% or 4%, because job creation is his actual job. He is paid to create jobs, but that doesn't at all make him a "job creator," if that makes sense. Now, he certainly is an indirect job creator because he may go buy a yacht, or expand his kitchen, or fine dine more often, etc etc etc and that creates jobs and that is impacted from a higher tax rate.

The real job creators own small businesses. You see, when a corporation expands a far greater percentage of its expansion is overseas. Is Apple expands, sure it'll hire more corporate office works and that is awesome...but it'll also build a factory in China. That's where the real job growth is.

If a small business expands, it's hiring another American. It's creating more product in America. It's expanding its business in America. Small business do such a greater amount of its expansion in this f*cking country.

....and yet, small business often are taxed as an LLC and an individual and it doesn't make any sense to tax the hell out of people who appear to be rich on paper who aren't quite after they take care of their employees and needs.

They compared where the $700 billion cut to medicare will come from savings and the expansion of Obamacare compared to Ryans $700 billion cut that will come from actual cuts and creating a voucher program. He talked about his bill that will give businesses tax breaks for hiring veterans and a plan to help vets with housing. That is not even going into social policies which are a complete contrast with the Republicans.

Ahhhhh **** yeah! More programs!! Yeah!!!!!! Woooo!!!!!!

Can you name me some gigantic federal programs that were successfully financed and paid for the way the Feds told us they would be? When you can do that, I'll believe for a second that we'll have "savings" and whatnot. Until then, I'll look at their history of failure and lies, often called "projections" and "statistics" and best yet.... "facts."

Like i said previously, you may not agree with the policy but they talked policy. I would link websites verifying all this but the last time I did you completely dismissed them and said:

They didn't talk policy, this was a shake up of his 2008 speech:

Barack Obama Accepts Democratic Nomination - YouTube

But it's cool, you have websites. If the interwebz tell me, it must be true.

....and can you tell me what the f*ck Paul Ryan's plan has to do with any of this? I'm not even going to go into the pros/cons of it; it's an old plan by a man who will be sitting in the VP office. Do you want me to bring Joe Biden up for discussion, REALLY?

So clearly facts mean nothing to you. Now this is where you tell me about the policies and details you heard at the RNC. Also, keep in mind that Paul Ryans speech has been labeled completely false by everyone. So will you fill in the policy for me?

There you go with "facts" again.

Paul Ryan's speech sucked. Happy? I believe I said on here that I wasn't a big fan of his. And he won't talk policy, he will play the politically smart hand and rile up the pissed up conservatives. Duhhhhhh. John McCain played the high road and go stomped, they won't take that mistake again.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I agree that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and I have consistently said here that I respect conservatism as a philosophy and recognize it as a legitimate worldview. Now, as a liberal, I think it is basically wrong, but I don't dismiss people who identify as conservative just on that basis alone.

I do think, however, that people should not be expected to ignore or excuse cynical campaign tactics in an attempt to seem more objective or civil. I'm not denying that campaigns on my side could engage in some tactics the other side objects to, also. But in this campaign, I think part of what aggravates and motivates my side is the propensity that the Romney campaign has shown to make up and misrepresent facts on a regular basis, and to say anything - without regard for its truthfulness - that they have found to test well in focus groups.

Unfortunately, the Romney campaign has engaged in some truly disgusting tactics, especially running racially-coded and demonstrably false ads concerning welfare reform in the battleground states. This comes after four years of not-even-coded bullsh;t concerning the President's citizenship, and a nationwide republican effort to restrict the voting access of democratic constituencies under the laughable guise of "preventing voter fraud" - a solution without a problem if there ever was one.

I, and most others on my side, welcome a debate about the issues in this election. We believe that, while surely not everyone agrees with liberal policy, more people will side with us than the other guys. But the other side has not engaged in an honest debate on the issues. Instead, they have tried to win the election using underhanded political tactics. The President has a lead despite the underperforming economy, despite being outspent by uber-wealthy special interests because of the Citizens United travesty of a SCOTUS decision, and despite the tactics being used by the other side. And we're coming into the debates, which I think liberals are salivating over.

Dude if you can't see Obama and his CPAC doing the same exact thing...you're delusional.

When you have prominent Democratic mayors and even BILL CLINTON bemoaning your ads because of their ridiculous attacks on capitalism....you've done something seriously wrong.

But I guess it's okay because Romney sucks--he did give a woman cancer, after all.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Dude if you can't see Obama and his CPAC doing the same exact thing...you're delusional.

When you have prominent Democratic mayors and even BILL CLINTON bemoaning your ads because of their ridiculous attacks on capitalism....you've done something seriously wrong.

But I guess it's okay because Romney sucks--he did give a woman cancer, after all.

Obama is attacking capitalism? I think giving tax breaks to 95% of Americans and to small businesses would be strengthening capitalism.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Obama is attacking capitalism? I think giving tax breaks to 95% of Americans and to small businesses would be strengthening capitalism.

That, ummm...isn't at all capitalism.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Don't try to explain anything Buster. He obviously knows everything, and has 5000 word adventures in logic to prove it.

 

[Irish Canuck]

Disclaimer - I'm Canadian.

Our natural position on social and economic issues could be best characterized as left leaning. Our political parties could best be described as starting centrist and then slowly working their way left. So we don't really get hung up on issues concerning the individual. Things like abortion, gay marriage, legalized marijuana, etc are non-issues. They are all legal here. We generally also expect that our banking industry will be properly regulated and that everyone should have access to health-care.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

Interestingly, I would also think that generally speaking... if our politicians quoted scripture as a part of an address... it would send most Canadians running the opposite direction. So it doesn't happen here. We have a much more distinct separation of church and state. I'm a Catholic. However, I think we generally have an understanding that politicians and political parties should not govern with religion in mind. So government does not generally tend to get involved with issues of morality. In other words, religious beliefs are for personal life and not projected through government onto others.
<o></o>

We also have a 3 party system that tends to keep the other 2 parties a little more honest. It's hard to keep up a lie when 2 other parties are pointing out that it's a lie. Simply speaking a 3 party system tends to moderate the process.
<o></o>

We tend to lack a deep rooted entrenchment in our political alliances. And because each party does not really get too concerned with individual rights and freedoms (social issues), my friends tend to vote for whatever party seems to best make the case of dealing with more pressing issues.
<o></o>

Again, coming from a Canadian perspective on things... Americans seem to have two pretty simple choices:
<o></o>

Republicans:<o></o>
Less regulation on banks and economic systems.<o></o>
Less coverage on healthcare.<o></o>
More regulation on individual rights and freedoms.<o></o>
Lower taxes on corporations/wealthy.<o></o>


Democrats:<o></o>
More regulation on banking and economic systems.<o></o>
More coverage on healthcare.<o></o>
Less regulation on individual rights and freedoms.<o></o>
An equitable system of taxation that includes the wealthy.<o></o>


So from one Canadian's standpoint it seems a no-brainer.
<o></o>

I want banking and economic regulation. Corporations can't regulate themselves... that notion is ridiculous. And we've seen what happens when they are left to do so. <o></o>


I don't give a **** if someone wants to marry another person of the same sex. I mean good for them... I'm simply happy they found love and someone to share life with. And if they want to raise kids... I don't think they will do any more harm or good as many of my hetero friends. It's a personal moral issue anyway... not a government issue.
<o></o>

Pot... who cares. It's basically legal here. Heck, many Canadians think the government should grow it... sell it... tax it. Like they do with alcohol.
<o></o>

I think it's ridiculous that a bunch of crusty old white men should tell a woman what they should be doing with their body. I think it's ridiculous that politicians should get involved in trying to regulate morality. Again, government should stay out of moral issues.
<o></o>
Shouldn't everyone in a society have access to healthcare? Universal healthcare seems logical.
<o></o>

Shouldn't the wealthy have to pay an equitable share in taxes? The rich up here don't seem to be hard up. They do very well regardless of tax rates. Guess I'm just a classic Canadian socialist.
<o></o>

So from my perspective... I think the Democrats would seem the most plausible choice.
<o></o>

Anyway... just wanted to throw out an outsider’s perspective. <o></o>


Feel free to tell me to mind my own Canadian f-ing business. <o></o>


One thing I think we can all agree on.... <o></o>
...GO IRISH!<o></o>

 

[Irish Houstonian]

What do Canadians call a "Strawman Argument"? In the UK they call it an "Aunt Sally".

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

That, ummm...isn't at all capitalism.

Putting more money in peoples' pockets so they can spend it isn't contributing to capitalism? Putting more money in the hands of small business owners so they can improve their businesses and/or hire workers isn't capitalism?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Hiding money in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands sure isn't strengthening capitalism here in the US.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If Romney wins this election I think I'll look into moving to Canada. Good post, Canuck.

 

[pkt77242]

I watched Bill Clinton's speech and laughed. Bill Clinton hates Obama and is not unfriendly with Romney. He actually respects Romney's economic record. I thought his speech was show business (like it all is) and a rather lukewarm embracing of Obama. I like Clinton, a lot; Obama is no Clinton. That much is obvious.



1) The federal government did a pretty solid job showing us in 2009 that it sucks at stimulus. Decent politicians can come up with policies in which the government takes care of X, great politicians come up with policies in which capitalism takes care of X.

2) We're $16,000,000,000,000 in the hole, if you didn't know. We can't afford many more swings that miss.

3) It was a $447,000,000,000 bill, with would "create" 1,900,000 jobs. That's $235,263.16 per job. Sounds efficient.

4) Of the $447bil, here's where some went:



Sounds legit...what does that entail?



Oh...nevermind.



Nothing says "economic revitalization" like handouts to hire more public employees. Wouldn't want to force local governments to live in reality, would we? Why renegotiate public employee contracts when the Feds can write you a big fat check, huh?



Awesome! A hand out to big union contractors! Feds hand the money to the states, states issue it to the districts, districts require prevailing wage, union intimidates district to win job union builds ****** high school.

No thanks.



More big union construction? Nice. This time, it's for roads. That'll get the economy flowing again.



We need to fix up privately-owned buildings so that nothing can go in them because the economy sucks. Gotcha. If a building has potential, the banks will finance it, no? Isn't that how it should work? Is that not working? Fix that, don't throw money at it.



I actually really like this idea. I'd like it even more if they mandated that a certain percentage had to go for street car lines/HSR/bike lanes. It's a great idea.



Didn't that happen?



Huh?



Sounds awesome! Errrrr actually that sounds like more regulations that add to the straws on the camel's back which sound pretty hard to prove and only add to the arsenal trial lawyers (read: Democratic fundraisers) have to attack businesses with.



+1000000

Overall, sounds like a pretty ****** bill honestly. There are ways to stimulate this economy, this is an amateur's way of trying to do it.



In the middle of a recession? Didn't Barry just tell me earlier: "He’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession." Still looks pretty recession-like to me.

And aren't we trying to stimulate small business here? I know that it's not uncommon at all to make like $800,000....but then turned around and paid his employees, corporate taxes, state taxes, local taxes, business insurances, employees' benefits....and then reinvested into his company and took home like $100,000. It sounds extraordinarily stupid to raise taxes on small businesses.

Here's something I've never understood: why we never have an honest talk, in this country, on who the job creators really are. Republicans say that the job creators are the millionaires and CEO's and Wall Street....and I think that's more or less bullsh*t.

Take a CEO, of Apple, for example. The CEO of Apple is not a "direct" job creator. He does not reinvest his money into the company to produce goods or jobs. His creating of jobs would be the same if he were taxes at 40% or 4%, because job creation is his actual job. He is paid to create jobs, but that doesn't at all make him a "job creator," if that makes sense. Now, he certainly is an indirect job creator because he may go buy a yacht, or expand his kitchen, or fine dine more often, etc etc etc and that creates jobs and that is impacted from a higher tax rate.

The real job creators own small businesses. You see, when a corporation expands a far greater percentage of its expansion is overseas. Is Apple expands, sure it'll hire more corporate office works and that is awesome...but it'll also build a factory in China. That's where the real job growth is.

If a small business expands, it's hiring another American. It's creating more product in America. It's expanding its business in America. Small business do such a greater amount of its expansion in this f*cking country.

....and yet, small business often are taxed as an LLC and an individual and it doesn't make any sense to tax the hell out of people who appear to be rich on paper who aren't quite after they take care of their employees and needs.

Ahhhhh **** yeah! More programs!! Yeah!!!!!! Woooo!!!!!!

Can you name me some gigantic federal programs that were successfully financed and paid for the way the Feds told us they would be? When you can do that, I'll believe for a second that we'll have "savings" and whatnot. Until then, I'll look at their history of failure and lies, often called "projections" and "statistics" and best yet.... "facts."



They didn't talk policy, this was a shake up of his 2008 speech:

Barack Obama Accepts Democratic Nomination - YouTube

But it's cool, you have websites. If the interwebz tell me, it must be true.

....and can you tell me what the f*ck Paul Ryan's plan has to do with any of this? I'm not even going to go into the pros/cons of it; it's an old plan by a man who will be sitting in the VP office. Do you want me to bring Joe Biden up for discussion, REALLY?



There you go with "facts" again.

Paul Ryan's speech sucked. Happy? I believe I said on here that I wasn't a big fan of his. And he won't talk policy, he will play the politically smart hand and rile up the pissed up conservatives. Duhhhhhh. John McCain played the high road and go stomped, they won't take that mistake again.

I don't have time to pick apart all of this as I have things to do but here are a couple off of hand.

To number 2. I would say that we can't afford to not stimulate the economy. Big business is sitting on tons of cash but is refusing to spend it, so the government needs to greases the wheels enough to get businesses of the sideline.

To the bolded part. I have found your problem you hate unions. Seriously, you hate unions. Investing in teachers is great. One of the biggest problems facing the US in the future is our ability to educate our children so that they can compete (and don't even get me started on the crazy costs of going to college now. Spending money on hiring more teachers so we can keep classroom size down is a good, intelligent idea. Our roads and other infrastructure needs work and spending on that is a long term investment. In fact this is the type of thing our government should be investing in.

And to the last part of what I bolded, how do you fix banks not lending? Are you going to force that banks lend to people? So you are in favor of socialism then?

So as to the underlined portion. You are talking about the small business owner and the business makes 800k but he only takes home 100k, but you have this after talking about Obama raising taxes on the 200k (or 250k if married) which he wouldn't fall into and thus wouldn't see higher taxes (and even more ironically Obama wants to lower taxes on businesses so this guys overall tax liability would go down). So what is your point? Also Business in general are some of the worst abusers of the tax code. You on the news about how small businesses can't get loans, but what they aren't telling you is that during the good times most of these businesses wrote off so much **** that they showed close to $0 in profits every year to avoid taxes, and back then they could do stated income and stated asset loans. Well the downturn hits and now banks want to see a positive cashflow and the people because their past tax returns showed either the company making $0 or even losing money.

I have a firm believe that the government should run a slight surplus during the good times (2004-2007, early 2008) and deficit spend during downturns. The real problem is that during the good times we spent like a drunk frat boy at a strip club and we are now paying for it.

Sorry if this is a little short and discombobulated as I am trying to chase around my 3yo and 8mo while typing.

 

[Irish Canuck]

What do Canadians call a "Strawman Argument"? In the UK they call it an "Aunt Sally".

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ha ha ha... well done. I love the 'Strawman Argument' and have utilized it many times in debate... but that's not technically what I did in this case.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Besides... even if I did sprinkle in a little 'Strawman Argument' in my post... isn't it apropos to do so? This is politics for goodness sake.
<o></o>
I admit, perhaps many Americans who lean to the 'right' would be frustrated with my oversimplified delineation between the two parties, as my interpreted version of the Republican position is not flattering. From my perspective as a Canadian, that's what the Republicans led me to interpret. I just think that their stated premise of being able to support the middle class is not supported by the proposed conclusions they present of how to do so.
<o></o>
However, not living the American experience and simply watching 8 days of rhetorical discourse meant to inform, persuade, and/or motivate prospective voters as the basis for my simplified perspectives... do you blame me for the fallacy in my logic after listening to all the long-winded and fantastical oratory from both sides? <o></o>
Obviously I'm presenting a line of informal logic as this is a football forum and not a political one for the most part.
<o></o>
If I represented the average undecided person who has not paid much attention to the details other than the past two weeks well then the right should be a little nervous. If we agree that both sides are presenting distorted versions of their own position as well as distorted versions of the other sides positions. And that there is a ton of contextomony taking place. Americans must be left feeling apoplectic when it is all said and done. The relative amount of spin and counter-spin that takes place is overwhelming in my opinion. That said, I do think the Democrats did a better job of it all. Although, as I have admitted, I am coming from the perspective of living in a very left leaning society as a whole.
<o></o>
So perhaps you think I'm oversimplifying the debate and positions of both sides. Okay... you got me. Simplified yes... but completely false?
<o></o>
Anyway... I appreciate that you didn't simply tell me to go bleep myself. And I really did laugh at myself when I saw your response. Clever way to call me out. <o></o>

 

[Redbar]

I watched Bill Clinton's speech and laughed. Bill Clinton hates Obama and is not unfriendly with Romney. He actually respects Romney's economic record. I thought his speech was show business (like it all is) and a rather lukewarm embracing of Obama. I like Clinton, a lot; Obama is no Clinton. That much is obvious.



1) The federal government did a pretty solid job showing us in 2009 that it sucks at stimulus. Decent politicians can come up with policies in which the government takes care of X, great politicians come up with policies in which capitalism takes care of X.

2) We're $16,000,000,000,000 in the hole, if you didn't know. We can't afford many more swings that miss.

3) It was a $447,000,000,000 bill, with would "create" 1,900,000 jobs. That's $235,263.16 per job. Sounds efficient.

4) Of the $447bil, here's where some went:



Sounds legit...what does that entail?



Oh...nevermind.



Nothing says "economic revitalization" like handouts to hire more public employees. Wouldn't want to force local governments to live in reality, would we? Why renegotiate public employee contracts when the Feds can write you a big fat check, huh?



Awesome! A hand out to big union contractors! Feds hand the money to the states, states issue it to the districts, districts require prevailing wage, union intimidates district to win job union builds ****** high school.

No thanks.



More big union construction? Nice. This time, it's for roads. That'll get the economy flowing again.



We need to fix up privately-owned buildings so that nothing can go in them because the economy sucks. Gotcha. If a building has potential, the banks will finance it, no? Isn't that how it should work? Is that not working? Fix that, don't throw money at it.



I actually really like this idea. I'd like it even more if they mandated that a certain percentage had to go for street car lines/HSR/bike lanes. It's a great idea.



Didn't that happen?



Huh?



Sounds awesome! Errrrr actually that sounds like more regulations that add to the straws on the camel's back which sound pretty hard to prove and only add to the arsenal trial lawyers (read: Democratic fundraisers) have to attack businesses with.



+1000000

Overall, sounds like a pretty ****** bill honestly. There are ways to stimulate this economy, this is an amateur's way of trying to do it.



In the middle of a recession? Didn't Barry just tell me earlier: "He’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession." Still looks pretty recession-like to me.

And aren't we trying to stimulate small business here? I know that it's not uncommon at all to make like $800,000....but then turned around and paid his employees, corporate taxes, state taxes, local taxes, business insurances, employees' benefits....and then reinvested into his company and took home like $100,000. It sounds extraordinarily stupid to raise taxes on small businesses.

Here's something I've never understood: why we never have an honest talk, in this country, on who the job creators really are. Republicans say that the job creators are the millionaires and CEO's and Wall Street....and I think that's more or less bullsh*t.

Take a CEO, of Apple, for example. The CEO of Apple is not a "direct" job creator. He does not reinvest his money into the company to produce goods or jobs. His creating of jobs would be the same if he were taxes at 40% or 4%, because job creation is his actual job. He is paid to create jobs, but that doesn't at all make him a "job creator," if that makes sense. Now, he certainly is an indirect job creator because he may go buy a yacht, or expand his kitchen, or fine dine more often, etc etc etc and that creates jobs and that is impacted from a higher tax rate.

The real job creators own small businesses. You see, when a corporation expands a far greater percentage of its expansion is overseas. Is Apple expands, sure it'll hire more corporate office works and that is awesome...but it'll also build a factory in China. That's where the real job growth is.

If a small business expands, it's hiring another American. It's creating more product in America. It's expanding its business in America. Small business do such a greater amount of its expansion in this f*cking country.

....and yet, small business often are taxed as an LLC and an individual and it doesn't make any sense to tax the hell out of people who appear to be rich on paper who aren't quite after they take care of their employees and needs.



Ahhhhh **** yeah! More programs!! Yeah!!!!!! Woooo!!!!!!

Can you name me some gigantic federal programs that were successfully financed and paid for the way the Feds told us they would be? When you can do that, I'll believe for a second that we'll have "savings" and whatnot. Until then, I'll look at their history of failure and lies, often called "projections" and "statistics" and best yet.... "facts."



They didn't talk policy, this was a shake up of his 2008 speech:

Barack Obama Accepts Democratic Nomination - YouTube

But it's cool, you have websites. If the interwebz tell me, it must be true.

....and can you tell me what the f*ck Paul Ryan's plan has to do with any of this? I'm not even going to go into the pros/cons of it; it's an old plan by a man who will be sitting in the VP office. Do you want me to bring Joe Biden up for discussion, REALLY?



There you go with "facts" again.

Paul Ryan's speech sucked. Happy? I believe I said on here that I wasn't a big fan of his. And he won't talk policy, he will play the politically smart hand and rile up the pissed up conservatives. Duhhhhhh. John McCain played the high road and go stomped, they won't take that mistake again.

Return. stop.
button. stop.
friend. stop.

 

[Redbar]

Disclaimer - I'm Canadian.

Our natural position on social and economic issues could be best characterized as left leaning. Our political parties could best be described as starting centrist and then slowly working their way left. So we don't really get hung up on issues concerning the individual. Things like abortion, gay marriage, legalized marijuana, etc are non-issues. They are all legal here. We generally also expect that our banking industry will be properly regulated and that everyone should have access to health-care.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

Interestingly, I would also think that generally speaking... if our politicians quoted scripture as a part of an address... it would send most Canadians running the opposite direction. So it doesn't happen here. We have a much more distinct separation of church and state. I'm a Catholic. However, I think we generally have an understanding that politicians and political parties should not govern with religion in mind. So government does not generally tend to get involved with issues of morality. In other words, religious beliefs are for personal life and not projected through government onto others.
<o></o>

We also have a 3 party system that tends to keep the other 2 parties a little more honest. It's hard to keep up a lie when 2 other parties are pointing out that it's a lie. Simply speaking a 3 party system tends to moderate the process.
<o></o>

We tend to lack a deep rooted entrenchment in our political alliances. And because each party does not really get too concerned with individual rights and freedoms (social issues), my friends tend to vote for whatever party seems to best make the case of dealing with more pressing issues.
<o></o>

Again, coming from a Canadian perspective on things... Americans seem to have two pretty simple choices:
<o></o>

Republicans:<o></o>
Less regulation on banks and economic systems.<o></o>
Less coverage on healthcare.<o></o>
More regulation on individual rights and freedoms.<o></o>
Lower taxes on corporations/wealthy.<o></o>


Democrats:<o></o>
More regulation on banking and economic systems.<o></o>
More coverage on healthcare.<o></o>
Less regulation on individual rights and freedoms.<o></o>
An equitable system of taxation that includes the wealthy.<o></o>


So from one Canadian's standpoint it seems a no-brainer.
<o></o>

I want banking and economic regulation. Corporations can't regulate themselves... that notion is ridiculous. And we've seen what happens when they are left to do so. <o></o>


I don't give a **** if someone wants to marry another person of the same sex. I mean good for them... I'm simply happy they found love and someone to share life with. And if they want to raise kids... I don't think they will do any more harm or good as many of my hetero friends. It's a personal moral issue anyway... not a government issue.
<o></o>

Pot... who cares. It's basically legal here. Heck, many Canadians think the government should grow it... sell it... tax it. Like they do with alcohol.
<o></o>

I think it's ridiculous that a bunch of crusty old white men should tell a woman what they should be doing with their body. I think it's ridiculous that politicians should get involved in trying to regulate morality. Again, government should stay out of moral issues.
<o></o>
Shouldn't everyone in a society have access to healthcare? Universal healthcare seems logical.
<o></o>

Shouldn't the wealthy have to pay an equitable share in taxes? The rich up here don't seem to be hard up. They do very well regardless of tax rates. Guess I'm just a classic Canadian socialist.
<o></o>

So from my perspective... I think the Democrats would seem the most plausible choice.
<o></o>

Anyway... just wanted to throw out an outsider’s perspective. <o></o>


Feel free to tell me to mind my own Canadian f-ing business. <o></o>


One thing I think we can all agree on.... <o></o>
...GO IRISH!<o></o>

So as an objective, third party without a dog in the hunt, I'm not crazy? Or maybe we are not smart enough to realize what a genius Romney is through all of the "liberal, gotcha" media.

 

[Redbar]

Pretty dismal numbers on jobs this morning. Lowered the job gains from previous months and reported the lowest labor force participation in over 30 years. The rate dropped, but that is more or less a mirage.

I really hope those is Washington figure out that the longer they bicker between themselves and allow the economy to stumble forward, the bigger the hole will be. Looks like Ben is ready to fire up the printing press again.........

From the press release:

"While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July, that was because so many Americans gave up the hunt for work. The survey of households from which the jobless rate is derived actually showed a drop in employment.

The weak tenor of the report was also emphasized by revisions to June and July data to show 41,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.

In addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.5 percent -- the lowest since September 1981.

A total of 368,000 people gave up looking for work in August, the household survey showed.

Since the beginning of the year, job growth has averaged 139,000 per month, compared with an average monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011. The latest gain left the economy 4.7 million jobs in the hole since a brutal recession struck in December 2007, and that does not take into account population growth, which would make the deficit even greater.

Economists blame fears of the so-called U.S. fiscal cliff -- the $500 billion or so in expiring tax cuts and government spending reductions set to take hold at the start of next year unless Congress acts -- and Europe's long-running debt problems, for the slowdown in hiring."

So policies that started thirty, forty years ago, and have trended further and further in that direction since haven't been cured in three and a half years??? not even in this last quarter???#disingenious argument.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I think we can all agree with Romney on the issues because he's been on every side possible on them.

 

[pkt77242]

So as an objective, third party without a dog in the hunt, I'm not crazy? Or maybe we are not smart enough to realize what a genius Romney is through all of the "liberal, gotcha" media.

Please tell me you forgot the italics. While MSNBC is very liberal, Fox News is crazy conservative (emphasis on crazy) and CNN is more middle of the road, leaning liberal on some things and more conservative on others (just look at how many ex-Bush administration people write opinions for them). So the whole liberal media thing makes me laugh.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Interesting:

Bob Kerrey slams health insurance mandate - Omaha.com

 

[Irish Canuck]

Interesting:

Bob Kerrey slams health insurance mandate - Omaha.com

Wow... that's a guy I'd love to work for. (Sarcastic)

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Originally Posted by Buster Bluth
I watched Bill Clinton's speech and laughed. Bill Clinton hates Obama and is not unfriendly with Romney. He actually respects Romney's economic record. I thought his speech was show business (like it all is) and a rather lukewarm embracing of Obama. I like Clinton, a lot; Obama is no Clinton. That much is obvious.

This negates the whole rest of your post. It is either based upon untruth or facts not in evidence. There is no way to read on.

 

[Redbar]

Please tell me you forgot the italics. While MSNBC is very liberal, Fox News is crazy conservative (emphasis on crazy) and CNN is more middle of the road, leaning liberal on some things and more conservative on others (just look at how many ex-Bush administration people write opinions for them). So the whole liberal media thing makes me laugh.

Sorry, I thought my perspective was clear from my previous posts. I agree MSNBC is liberal, CNN is trying to stake out the center and FOX is crazy. However, I disagree that the entity as a whole is their political lean. While MSNBC is liberal they are still a news organization that reports news and questions politicians and power, they try to make reasoned arguments and give examples for their perspective. That is not the same as FOX which is a propaganda machine for a foreign corporatist/facist, that tries to pass off personalities as journalist, and talking points as news.

CNN is in my opinion schizophrenic because they are fighting for a middle, that seems to be disappearing in the country (both ideologically and economically) and they frequently in their pursuit seem to cater too much to one side or another they sort of "pile on" certain issues depending on what they think will help their brand.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Sorry, I thought my perspective was clear from my previous posts. I agree MSNBC is liberal, CNN is trying to stake out the center and FOX is crazy. However, I disagree that the entity as a whole is their political lean. While MSNBC is liberal they are still a news organization that reports news and questions politicians and power, they try to make reasoned arguments and give examples for their perspective. That is not the same as FOX which is a propaganda machine for a foreign corporatist/facist, that tries to pass off personalities as journalist, and talking points as news.

CNN is in my opinion schizophrenic because they are fighting for a middle, that seems to be disappearing in the country (both ideologically and economically) and they frequently in their pursuit seem to cater too much to one side or another they sort of "pile on" certain issues depending on what they think will help their brand.

I'd also like to point out that the MSNBC morning show is hosted by a former republican congressman. He's not a tea party guy, but he's a traditional conservative. We would NEVER see such a thing on Fox. The Fox morning show, by contrast, is hosted by three knee-jerk tea party types. The afternoon/evening lineups are quite partisan.

In my opinion, Rachel Maddow deals more in facts than most of the rest of them, both on MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure many of you disagree with me. Ed and Lawrence are relatively equivalent to O'Reilly and Hannity.

PBS does the best job of anyone.

 

[pkt77242]

I'd also like to point out that the MSNBC morning show is hosted by a former republican congressman. He's not a tea party guy, but he's a traditional conservative. We would NEVER see such a thing on Fox. The Fox morning show, by contrast, is hosted by three knee-jerk tea party types. The afternoon/evening lineups are quite partisan.

In my opinion, Rachel Maddow deals more in facts than most of the rest of them, both on MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure many of you disagree with me. Ed and Lawrence are relatively equivalent to O'Reilly and Hannity.

PBS does the best job of anyone.

I loved watching John Stewart lampoon them (well and all of Fox's DNC/RNC coverage) last night. I don't think that Fox's morning show has ever had a thought of their own.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'd also like to point out that the MSNBC morning show is hosted by a former republican congressman. He's not a tea party guy, but he's a traditional conservative. We would NEVER see such a thing on Fox. The Fox morning show, by contrast, is hosted by three knee-jerk tea party types. The afternoon/evening lineups are quite partisan.

In my opinion, Rachel Maddow deals more in facts than most of the rest of them, both on MSNBC and Fox. I'm sure many of you disagree with me. Ed and Lawrence are relatively equivalent to O'Reilly and Hannity.

PBS does the best job of anyone.

I agree on all points. I'd also like to point out another habit of FOX's that I've noticed. Here's an example:

Last night I flipped over to O'Reilly, as I sometimes do to hear what is going on in the right wing echo chamber, and it was being hosted by Laura Ingraham. In the segment that I saw, Laura had her panties in a bunch over the themes at the DNC targeted at the potentially disenfranchised (women and ethnic minorities). Her contention was that the democrats were lying - that republican policies were obviously not detrimental to women and minorities. In order to debate this point, she brought on a woman with pink hair and a 72 IQ who was ostensibly a "Race and Culture Analyst" and a liberal. Now, my personal opinion is that it is pretty clear that Laura is wrong - that the republican party poses a threat to women's health and that they are making a concerted effort to make voting (a fundamental right, mind you) more difficult for minorities. You may disagree with me, but I do feel like I could make a coherent argument that many people would agree with. Instead, FOX hand selects a person uniquely unqualified to make the argument - or seemingly any argument - and presents it as the liberal perspective - as if that is the establishment position of the left.

This practice is commonplace on FOX. Everytime I see them bring in a "liberal" to debate some point, I shutter. These people are not representative of the thinking they are supposedly there to represent. This is a longstanding practice, going all the way back to when they brought in Alan Colmes to be Sean Hannity's punching bag. I'm sure Alan is a very nice guy, but he's a patsy. There are plenty of people on the left who could go toe-to-toe with Hannity or O'Reilly or Ingraham, but instead FOX intentionally brings on people to make the left look weird (this woman last night), dopey (Colmes) and stupid (all of them) in order to both caricature liberals and undermine their ideas to their typically under-informed and incurious audience.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

I agree on all points. I'd also like to point out another habit of FOX's that I've noticed. Here's an example:

Last night I flipped over to O'Reilly, as I sometimes do to hear what is going on in the right wing echo chamber, and it was being hosted by Laura Ingraham. In the segment that I saw, Laura had her panties in a bunch over the themes at the DNC targeted at the potentially disenfranchised (women and ethnic minorities). Her contention was that the democrats were lying - that republican policies were obviously not detrimental to women and minorities. In order to debate this point, she brought on a woman with pink hair and a 72 IQ who was ostensibly a "Race and Culture Analyst" and a liberal. Now, my personal opinion is that it is pretty clear that Laura is wrong - that the republican party poses a threat to women's health and that they are making a concerted effort to make voting (a fundamental right, mind you) more difficult for minorities. You may disagree with me, but I do feel like I could make a coherent argument that many people would agree with. Instead, FOX hand selects a person uniquely unqualified to make the argument - or seemingly any argument - and presents it as the liberal perspective - as if that is the establishment position of the left.

This practice is commonplace on FOX. Everytime I see them bring in a "liberal" to debate some point, I shutter. These people are not representative of the thinking they are supposedly there to represent. This is a longstanding practice, going all the way back to when they brought in Alan Colmes to be Sean Hannity's punching bag. I'm sure Alan is a very nice guy, but he's a patsy. There are plenty of people on the left who could go toe-to-toe with Hannity or O'Reilly or Ingraham, but instead FOX intentionally brings on people to make the left look weird (this woman last night), dopey (Colmes) and stupid (all of them) in order to both caricature liberals and undermine their ideas to their typically under-informed and incurious audience.

Don't forget about the guy with the suspenders on The Five.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Don't forget about the guy with the suspenders on The Five.

Never even heard of The Five, but I can probably guess what it is about and what the guy looks like.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Don't forget about the guy with the suspenders on The Five.

Bob Beckel. He plays the role of unreasonable, over-emotional and angry, out of touch liberal. He also keeps swearing on the air...so he's morally corrupt to boot.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Never even heard of The Five, but I can probably guess what it is about and what the guy looks like.

Bob Beckel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Five" is always 4 on 1 debate. And Beckel doesn't represent his side well at all.

 

[Redbar]

News is supposed to be the window that allows the observer to cut through the political performance and drama and see the real story. Over at FOX they are the performance that obfuscates the real story and aims to lead politicians into areas that fit FOX's corporatist narrative and that play well with a mind that is highly susceptible to suggestion.

Which is essential to the corporatist agenda since most people are not living in the noble class but are nevertheless needed to push this minorities agenda.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

News is supposed to be the window that allows the observer to cut through the political performance and drama and see the real story. Over at FOX they are the performance that obfuscates the real story and aims to lead politicians into areas that fit FOX's corporatist narrative and that play well with a mind that is highly susceptible to suggestion.

Which is essential to the corporatist agenda since most people are not living in the noble class but are nevertheless needed to push this minorities agenda.

I want to know how many blondes they have on their payroll.