"you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

[solletica]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

More accurately, Romney is running against a woefully incompetent excuse of a president.

That was in 2004. Now he's up against Obama.

 

[solletica]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

again, not true. we expect the govt to create an environment that is conducive to job creation, not to create the jobs themselves

Please explain how the GOP practice of sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy to pay for wasteful military spending is conducive to hiring.

 

[solletica]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

I wonder why no liberal has responded to the fact that the Obama team offered Jeremiah Wright $150,000 to keep his mouth shut?

We're more interested in how much Romney offered his accountant to keep his mouth shut.

 

[solletica]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

No. Thats what economics taught me. If you raise the cost of something, the price going to market will increase.

The price of a good only increases if the cost to produce that good increases.

That's likely too complicated for you to grasp, so let me explain in to you in a simpler way.

If a cartel/firm already sets the price of a good at a level that maximizes profits (total income before taxes) for itself, why would that profit-maximization price change just because that profit was taxed?

You will have to pardon me if I cant find a Berkeley prof to be a reputable source

:lol: A scholar in the field of energy markets at one of the world's top universities is not reputable ? ?

Please tell us, O sage, who is wiser on the topic.

Wonder if these conservatives can explain why oil cos. vehemently oppose subsidy cuts if it's true that they could easily "pass those costs onto the consumer"--the famous right wing economic myth.

 

[Boo Radley]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

Absolutely! Unlike Obama, Romney banned assault weapons and raised taxes. And he increased spending by 25% in four years, versus less than 15% for Obama.

I said weaker.

 

[Boo Radley]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

If they are the same, why do you support Obama over Romney?

This is such a stupid argument, only a little kid would make such an argument. If they were the same, or if liberals truly thought they were the same, they wouldn't oppose Romney the way they do.

These are the types of comments and idea threads that are genuinely worthless....

Because he's not the weaker one.

Look, the parties aren't that different from one another. The real reason we should have a problem is they are not largely different. But then republicans go an nominate a person who really at his core supports the health care reform you got, and is liberal light. To top it off, he has to lie in order to try and get support from his base, making him actually weaker. Such hurt McCain more than a little. If you side really wanted a contrast, why didn't someone actually strong run? Why did Romney actually win the nomination?

 

[OpportunityCost]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

The price of a good only increases if the cost to produce that good increases.

That's likely too complicated for you to grasp, so let me explain in to you in a simpler way. Take this stilted personal insult bull**** and stick it. Really damn tired of liberals on this board calling people either stupid or liars because they disagree with them ideaologically. Be civil or shut up.

If a cartel/firm already sets the price of a good at a level that maximizes profits (total income before taxes) for itself, why would that profit-maximization price change just because that profit was taxed?
Because there isnt a cartel. Liberal conspiracy issues regarding gas and oil pricing is an unproven idea. Taxing profit reduces profit unless you get more profit by charging consumers more.



:lol: A scholar in the field of energy markets at one of the world's top universities is not reputable ? ? One that doesnt have a dog in the hunt on promoting and expanding liberal energy policy in the area of "green" energy.

Please tell us, O sage, who is wiser on the topic. Condescension, its bread and butter for you, isnt it?

Wonder if these conservatives can explain why oil cos. vehemently oppose subsidy cuts if it's true that they could easily "pass those costs onto the consumer"--the famous right wing economic myth.

Because only a moron would want to increase their costs if they dont have to. Are these real questions for you?

In what world is it going to have the same cost if you increase costs of exploration and production by eliminating reductions in costs through tax breaks? Its not only going to increase costs to produce its also going to increase costs to explore meaning less exploration and less demand. How does this make costs remain the same?

 

[AdamT]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

At least Romney didn't oppose a bill that would of protected babies of failed abortions OUTSIDE THE WOMB three different times.

He voted against bills that would have banned all abortions ... and frankly I don't give a **** either way. Anyone who would let a woman die to protect a protohuman has serious problems.

And I don't see Romney out there offering his pastor $150,000 to shut his mouth. But look at the little Energizer Adam go.....just fresh off his daily marching orders. He's coming in a little late today, because school started back today in most places. He must of had class all day.....

Not sure what the bribe talk is all about, and the personal insults are rather unimaginative. I'm sure Hugh Atkinson will have some stern words for you about that. :roll:

 

[Bobcat]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

Please explain how the GOP practice of sucking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy to pay for wasteful military spending is conducive to hiring.

Are the people building planes, ships, tanks, guns, ammo, uniforms etc working? Are the people in uniform working? Do they have jobs?

Do you think the money spent on the military is just stacked up on pallets and shipped overseas? It creates american jobs.

 

[OpportunityCost]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

He voted against bills that would have banned all abortions ... and frankly I don't give a **** either way. Anyone who would let a woman die to protect a protohuman has serious problems.

Anyone that considers a fetus past 7 months a protohuman needs a humanity check of their own.

 

[Somerville]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

Are the people building planes, ships, tanks, guns, ammo, uniforms etc working? Are the people in uniform working? Do they have jobs?

Do you think the money spent on the military is just stacked up on pallets and shipped overseas? It creates american jobs.

HEY! I though the mantra was "Government can't create jobs!" But I guess that only means non-defence related jobs, which aren't real jobs anyway in the minds of the bilateral thinkers who seem to be able to hold totally opposing views within their brains without comprehending the conflict between the two positions. :roll:

 

[Bobcat]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

HEY! I though the mantra was "Government can't create jobs!" But I guess that only means non-defence related jobs, which aren't real jobs anyway in the minds of the bilateral thinkers who seem to be able to hold totally opposing views within their brains without comprehending the conflict between the two positions. :roll:

the government can, and does, create jobs when it spends tax money on the military. The primary role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.

I happen to agree with you that we should not be engaging in foolish wasteful wars----beginning with Kennedy and Johnson's war in Viet Nam that killed 50,000 americans for nothing.

But thats not your point is it? you just want to use the red herring of military spending to bash republicans, when the blame clearly falls on both parties.

The other fact here is that military spending does provide good paying blue collar american jobs, so your original post on this topic is BS.

 

[apdst]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

HEY! I though the mantra was "Government can't create jobs!" But I guess that only means non-defence related jobs, which aren't real jobs anyway in the minds of the bilateral thinkers who seem to be able to hold totally opposing views within their brains without comprehending the conflict between the two positions. :roll:

I thought the mantra was that government spending is the quickest way out if the recession. Why are the Libbos so anxious to cut defense spending?

 

[Somerville]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

I thought the mantra was that government spending is the quickest way out if the recession. Why are the Libbos so anxious to cut defense spending?

What are "Libbos"?

Uh ... maybe you hadn't heard the (old) news but it was the Republican-led House, along with the Dem-led Senate, which passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which calls for these cuts.


Since nobody was willing to 'compromise' (that's 'compromise' using the modern GOP definition - Do it our way or no way!) we have now reached the stage where the debate has become a matter of political theatre more than rationality.

 

[Boo Radley]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

I thought the mantra was that government spending is the quickest way out if the recession. Why are the Libbos so anxious to cut defense spending?

I see your problem. You're debating someone named Libbos. Many liberals argue that we need to cut spending and raise taxes. This is better than the Bush increase spending and cut taxes.

 

[apdst]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

I see your problem. You're debating someone named Libbos. Many liberals argue that we need to cut spending and raise taxes. This is better than the Bush increase spending and cut taxes.

But...but...but...givernment spending is the only way out of the recession.

 

[Boo Radley]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

But...but...but...givernment spending is the only way out of the recession.

It is a way. But many argue for a two pronged approach. Remember, cutting government jobs adds to unemployment. They do not immediately leap from public to private sector jobs. It also put less money on the economy, meaning fewer spending, meaning less private sector jobs. There are consequences to everything.

 

[apdst]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

What are "Libbos"?

Uh ... maybe you hadn't heard the (old) news but it was the Republican-led House, along with the Dem-led Senate, which passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which calls for these cuts.


Since nobody was willing to 'compromise' (that's 'compromise' using the modern GOP definition - Do it our way or no way!) we have now reached the stage where the debate has become a matter of political theatre more than rationality.

When you say "comprimise" are you talking about Obama's version of compromise where he said, "the republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in back"?

 

[Masada]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

He voted against bills that would have banned all abortions ... and frankly I don't give a **** either way. Anyone who would let a woman die to protect a protohuman has serious problems.



Not sure what the bribe talk is all about, and the personal insults are rather unimaginative. I'm sure Hugh Atkinson will have some stern words for you about that. :roll:

And what about people who would allow a baby to die, simply because the abortion failed? Just throwing them into waste baskets in a back room, baby crying, until it died? Because it happened several times in Illinois, which is why the state legislature picked up the bill and voted on it. A bill that Obama refused to support three different times.

And why are you upset Romney didn't vote against a bill that would ban ALL abortions. I don't even want to "ban" ALL abortions. I think there should be legal avenues for when the woman's life is in danger, rape, and incest. Shocking that Romney feels the same way I know, but disingenuous people like you think Romney somehow looks like a hypocrite for not opposing ALL abortions.

In another shocking occurrance, you didn't know about the bribe that the Obama team gave to Jeremiah Wright. Once again, you have failed to educate yourself. Here Adam, let me help you out. The Obama team went to Wright, and offered him $150,000 to just keep his mouth shut. He refused to take the money. So, Obama went and talked with him again. In that meeting, Obama tells Wright, "you know what your problem is? You just have to tell the truth".

That comment is evidence that Obama agrees with Wright, but his only problem is, he HAS to say it publicly. Obama just wanted Wright to be quiet. "You just have to tell the TRUTH". So, it's clear that Obama accepts Wright's views and comments as "truth", he just has a problem with Wright being so open about it. So, he offers him $150,000 just to shut his mouth.

But once again, you prove your ignorance. I don't even have to try with you anymore, you're like a self-destructing record player. I just give you enough space, and you go and destroy your own credibility. You must really live in a bubble man. Everyone else here knew what the bribery reference was about. MSNBC didn't mention this story, which explains why you probably had no knowledge of it.

 

[Somerville]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

When you say "comprimise" are you talking about Obama's version of compromise where he said, "the republicans can come along for the ride, but they have to sit in back"?

No, I am talking about the debate at the time the Budget Control Act was in the Congress. Oh, and the word is "compromise" - SpellCheck is your friend

 

[apdst]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

No, I am talking about the debate at the time the Budget Control Act was in the Congress. Oh, and the word is "compromise" - SpellCheck is your friend

Let's don't do the grammer nazi thing.

 

[Masada]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

It is a way. But many argue for a two pronged approach. Remember, cutting government jobs adds to unemployment. They do not immediately leap from public to private sector jobs. It also put less money on the economy, meaning fewer spending, meaning less private sector jobs. There are consequences to everything.

Yes, that is true, I admit. But for the first time in history, a public sector employee earns more than a private sector employee on average. So, the question is, How long can the country sustain that, when private sector jobs are what fund public sector jobs? It makes no sense.

Creating government jobs is one thing. Creating government jobs, and then paying them higher than their private sector counterparts is another. Remember the stories coming out of some of these states like California, where the City Manager, not the Mayor, but the City Manager was making like $800,000 a year? Come on man. That's not feasible and realistic, and it certain isn't sustainable. When that guy was exposed, he quit, but he got to keep his pension and benefits. This is the type of corruption that the Tea Party rails against. It's not food stamps for people who really need them. It's crap like this. And it's not isolated instances. Look around, people are abusing government programs like never before. The CBO estimates that 23% of ALL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES are wasteful or fraudulent. 23%.

This is the type of mismanagement, cronie style politics, wasteful spending, and fraud that conservatives are sick of. We don't wanna push granny off a cliff. We want to tighten the reins on entitlements and hand outs to stop abuse, waste, and fraud. You do that, and you save over $800 Billion per year in waste and fraud. That almost closes the budget deficit.

Think about it. Why should we be giving assistance to people who are cheating the system? If they are smart enough to do that, aren't they smart enough to work? But the White House sent out a statement through their website just this week, that said "NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS TURN TO GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE". Are you kidding me?

This is a serious question, why would our government be actively SUPPORTING entitlements and food stamps? Why? It shows their complete lack of confidence in improving the economy and creating jobs. Another fundamental question, that liberals always get right, but they never actually SUPPORT IT is, is a person better of on government assistance, or working? LIberals always get that one right, but then turn around and actively support one over the other. Makes no sense whatsoever.

If liberals understand that people are better off when they are working, why do they take work requirements out of welfare? Why is the White House actively encouraging people to get on welfare?

 

[Somerville]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

Masada posted words that are nothing more than lies

And what about people who would allow a baby to die, simply because the abortion failed? Just throwing them into waste baskets in a back room, baby crying, until it died? Because it happened several times in Illinois, which is why the state legislature picked up the bill and voted on it. A bill that Obama refused to support three different times.

The so-called Ban Partial-Birth Abortion bills that Senator Obama voted against were nothing more than attempts to stop all abortions in Illinois. The state already had a law that said viable infants at the time of an attempted abortion were to be saved. The bills that Senator Obama voted against would have elevated the life of the infant over that of the mother, despite the opinions of attending physicians.

Illinois Abortion Law of 1975: Sec. 6

No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.

 

[AdamT]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

And what about people who would allow a baby to die, simply because the abortion failed? Just throwing them into waste baskets in a back room, baby crying, until it died? Because it happened several times in Illinois, which is why the state legislature picked up the bill and voted on it. A bill that Obama refused to support three different times.

I'm sure you post some links to back up those claims? opcorn2:

And why are you upset Romney didn't vote against a bill that would ban ALL abortions. I don't even want to "ban" ALL abortions. I think there should be legal avenues for when the woman's life is in danger, rape, and incest. Shocking that Romney feels the same way I know, but disingenuous people like you think Romney somehow looks like a hypocrite for not opposing ALL abortions.

Pardon me for not falling all over myself because Romney claims he wouldn't force rape victims to bear their attackers' children. But he did choose as his VP a person would would force rape victims to bear those children, and forcing rape victims to bear those children is a part of the Republican platform.

In another shocking occurrance, you didn't know about the bribe that the Obama team gave to Jeremiah Wright. Once again, you have failed to educate yourself. Here Adam, let me help you out. The Obama team went to Wright, and offered him $150,000 to just keep his mouth shut. He refused to take the money. So, Obama went and talked with him again. In that meeting, Obama tells Wright, "you know what your problem is? You just have to tell the truth".

That comment is evidence that Obama agrees with Wright, but his only problem is, he HAS to say it publicly. Obama just wanted Wright to be quiet. "You just have to tell the TRUTH". So, it's clear that Obama accepts Wright's views and comments as "truth", he just has a problem with Wright being so open about it. So, he offers him $150,000 just to shut his mouth.

Yeah, as a rule I tune out anyone who mentions Rev. Wright, but I looked into it and it appears that Wright claims that a FRIEND of Obama's offered him the money to stop criticizing Obama during the campaign. Now why would Obama want someone to stop ripping him during the campaign? Hard to figure, right?

But once again, you prove your ignorance. I don't even have to try with you anymore, you're like a self-destructing record player. I just give you enough space, and you go and destroy your own credibility. You must really live in a bubble man. Everyone else here knew what the bribery reference was about. MSNBC didn't mention this story, which explains why you probably had no knowledge of it.

It's funny how conspiracy theorists always seem to think that EVERYONE is super concerned about the crazy theories they're spinning, when in reality 99% of the people don't even know about them. Some day I'll have to make a list of all of the OMG-this-is-it-for-Obama fake controversies that were literally forgotten within a period of two weeks.

 

[Boo Radley]

re: "you didn't build it" the real meaning [W:838]

Yes, that is true, I admit. But for the first time in history, a public sector employee earns more than a private sector employee on average. So, the question is, How long can the country sustain that, when private sector jobs are what fund public sector jobs? It makes no sense.

Creating government jobs is one thing. Creating government jobs, and then paying them higher than their private sector counterparts is another. Remember the stories coming out of some of these states like California, where the City Manager, not the Mayor, but the City Manager was making like $800,000 a year? Come on man. That's not feasible and realistic, and it certain isn't sustainable. When that guy was exposed, he quit, but he got to keep his pension and benefits. This is the type of corruption that the Tea Party rails against. It's not food stamps for people who really need them. It's crap like this. And it's not isolated instances. Look around, people are abusing government programs like never before. The CBO estimates that 23% of ALL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES are wasteful or fraudulent. 23%.

This is the type of mismanagement, cronie style politics, wasteful spending, and fraud that conservatives are sick of. We don't wanna push granny off a cliff. We want to tighten the reins on entitlements and hand outs to stop abuse, waste, and fraud. You do that, and you save over $800 Billion per year in waste and fraud. That almost closes the budget deficit.

Think about it. Why should we be giving assistance to people who are cheating the system? If they are smart enough to do that, aren't they smart enough to work? But the White House sent out a statement through their website just this week, that said "NOT ENOUGH AMERICANS TURN TO GOVERNMENT FOR ASSISTANCE". Are you kidding me?

This is a serious question, why would our government be actively SUPPORTING entitlements and food stamps? Why? It shows their complete lack of confidence in improving the economy and creating jobs. Another fundamental question, that liberals always get right, but they never actually SUPPORT IT is, is a person better of on government assistance, or working? LIberals always get that one right, but then turn around and actively support one over the other. Makes no sense whatsoever.

If liberals understand that people are better off when they are working, why do they take work requirements out of welfare? Why is the White House actively encouraging people to get on welfare?

How much sense it all does or doesn't make is up for debate.

However I will say this, the number of poor gaming the system is likely less than the wealthy. It is human nature to try and get your best deal, but wealthy folks can hire folks to help them know how to game.

And not one single liberal I know doesn't want people working, or doesn't believe in work. It is more how one views fairness. Conservatives (wild generalization #1) tend to view getting what you earn as fair. Liberals tend to see more nuanced problems and think fairness includes considering those problems (wild generalization #2). Neither is all wrong or all right, but this minor difference is often where the real debate begins. The problem we have is there is so much poison being vomited by both sides about the other that reasonable discussion is difficult at best, and impossible at worse.

Now the 23% number (wonder how that compares with the private sector) should certainly be addressed, though the effect even if we rid all of it would be minor. And salaries? What do CEOs make today? How does the growth in their pay compare to growth in worker pay? See, we can find problems everywhere. And while we should address problems, how we see what is fair and what isn't will be where the real disagreement is.