fish82;1209086 wrote:I can't remember where it was, but I rmember reading what seemed like a legit analysis where the guy said that Bam has to pull at least 39% of the white vote to win.

If Bam wins...I'm movin to Canada! I'll hang out with Neal Boortz, Glen, and Mark Levin. All this communism talk makes me nervous.

Belly35;1208159 wrote:I was raised with the understanding that hard work, education and ambition would make me rich. Rich, prosperity and comfort was the goal.

That's how most people still are, but upward mobility has been practically eliminated and the actual wages of the working class have gone down over the past 30 years while the actual wages of the wealthiest have increased something like 400x. That's not sustainable. Or rather, not sustainable for most people.

But yeah, you keep thinking that it's the poor people who are "ruining" the country.

I Wear Pants;1210116 wrote:But yeah, you keep thinking that it's the poor people who are "ruining" the country.

Poor people aren't ruining the country. Elitist liberals are.

I Wear Pants;1210116 wrote:That's how most people still are, but upward mobility has been practically eliminated and the actual wages of the working class have gone down over the past 30 years while the actual wages of the wealthiest have increased something like 400x. That's not sustainable. Or rather, not sustainable for most people.

But yeah, you keep thinking that it's the poor people who are "ruining" the country.

Poor people aren't ruining the country, but your rich elite liberals are....those privileged few whose wealth have increased like 400x over the past 30 years.

believer;1210127 wrote:Poor people aren't ruining the country, but your rich elite liberals are....those privileged few whose wealth have increased like 400x over the past 30 years.

Using your logic, then so is the rich conservative elite, with their influence to keep the insane tax system in place to benefit them.

Bottom line is, you cannot lay blame on rich or poor. It's a collective failure.

Bottom line is, you cannot lay blame on rich or poor. It's a collective failure.

I can agree with this. You need a system that rewards hard work, and discourages sloth. You just can't giving handouts and entitlements to people who only contribution to society is to live within our borders. You cannot continue to hand out checks for irresponsible behaviors. You can't waste money on far flung, long term military adventures.

ptown_trojans_1;1210151 wrote:Using your logic, then so is the rich conservative elite, with their influence to keep the insane tax system in place to benefit them.

Bottom line is, you cannot lay blame on rich or poor. It's a collective failure.

I agree.

However, I grow tired hearing the left call out conservatives for expressing their very valid opinion that those who work hard for what they have and earn an honest living should not be held responsible for providing a living those who do not or will not do for themselves. Twisting that opinion into a "yeah, sure, blame the poor for our nation's problems" obfuscation is pure BS.

No, it's a failure of the rich (ruling) class. Who is supposed to lead, if not the people who have the most material wealth? Instead of leading us into the 21st century, they have bought politicians who have chiseled at the tax code and public policy to ensure money gets siphoned to those who already have the most of it.

Explain to me how a poor person is suppose to have as an effective impact as that sleezeball who single-handily kept Newt Romney's salamander-ass in a Presidential election. Tell me how a poor neighborhood is supposed to have the same effect on our political process as the small army of billionaires who have pledged their whatever is needed from their war chests to unseat "socialist" Obama.

These are the same people who think upward mobility still exists in this country. They allowed education to be profiteered on and allowed bottom-rung wages to stagnate.

This country peaked in the 1970's. It's already too late for America. Maybe I will vote for Romney, that way I can hasten America's downfall, so we can finally take our L and shove the baby boomer's corpses out of the political process and actually solve some god damn problems in this country. First and foremost for me is the divine right of money in our culture and our joke of an education system.

Sage;1210187 wrote:Explain to me how a poor person is suppose to have as an effective impact as that sleezeball who single-handily kept Newt Romney's salamander-ass in a Presidential election. Tell me how a poor neighborhood is supposed to have the same effect on our political process as the small army of billionaires who have pledged their whatever is needed from their war chests to unseat "socialist" Obama.

Oh I dunno....Your Community Organizer turned miraculously POTUS seemed to do OK. :rolleyes:

Sage;1210187 wrote:No, it's a failure of the rich (ruling) class. Who is supposed to lead, if not the people who have the most material wealth? Instead of leading us into the 21st century, they have bought politicians who have chiseled at the tax code and public policy to ensure money gets siphoned to those who already have the most of it.

Explain to me how a poor person is suppose to have as an effective impact as that sleezeball who single-handily kept Newt Romney's salamander-ass in a Presidential election. Tell me how a poor neighborhood is supposed to have the same effect on our political process as the small army of billionaires who have pledged their whatever is needed from their war chests to unseat "socialist" Obama.

These are the same people who think upward mobility still exists in this country. They allowed education to be profiteered on and allowed bottom-rung wages to stagnate.

This country peaked in the 1970's. It's already too late for America. Maybe I will vote for Romney, that way I can hasten America's downfall, so we can finally take our L and shove the baby boomer's corpses out of the political process and actually solve some god damn problems in this country. First and foremost for me is the divine right of money in our culture and our joke of an education system.

Don't blame Romney...nor Obama either for that matter. Plutacracy happens with unbridled capitalism. What has occurred over the past 35 years is exactly what Adam Smith forewarned about. Adam Smith was the recognized founder of free market capitalism. He recognized the frailties of the human psyche and forewarned of collusion by the power elitism that had to be watched. Smith made it clear in several chapters of his book, the Wealth of Nations, that corporations should never, ever have a place in a free market society. Today you see the fruits of what could happen....and did happen.

People on the right complain that Congress should not be regulating the free marketers. The truth is, the free marketers should not be regulating the Congressmen. Unfortunately, the latter far exceeds the former.

Footwedge;1210283 wrote:Don't blame Romney...nor Obama either for that matter. Plutacracy happens with unbridled capitalism. What has occurred over the past 35 years is exactly what Adam Smith forewarned about. Adam Smith was the recognized founder of free market capitalism. He recognized the frailties of the human psyche and forewarned of collusion by the power elitism that had to be watched. Smith made it clear in several chapters of his book, the Wealth of Nations, that corporations should never, ever have a place in a free market society. Today you see the fruits of what could happen....and did happen.

People on the right complain that Congress should not be regulating the free marketers. The truth is, the free marketers should not be regulating the Congressmen. Unfortunately, the latter far exceeds the former.

I don't disagree but one thing is also certain....unbridled Big Government is not the answer either.

Nobody is calling for unbridled government....not even the the communist in the White House.

I dont quite recall this true market capitalism you think has been going on the last 30yrs.

Footwedge;1210392 wrote:Nobody is calling for unbridled government....not even the the communist in the White House.

ObamaKare, $785 Billion Porkulus Sammich, Gubmint Motors, Fast & Furious, bailouts du Jour, etc., etc.

Yes, yes Neocon Nazi Bush did similar things.

Business as usual then in DC. Hope and change my ass.

Yes, there should be no government and no oversight because human beings, en mass, are rational thinking and non-greedy people. lmao.

And to the guy who said Obama is a communist? Do you even know what that is? I don't think you do.

Sage;1210525 wrote:Yes, there should be no government and no oversight because human beings, en mass, are rational thinking and non-greedy people. lmao.

And to the guy who said Obama is a communist? Do you even know what that is? I don't think you do.

[video=youtube;C6cxNR9ML8k][/video]

pmoney25;1210398 wrote:I dont quite recall this true market capitalism you think has been going on the last 30yrs.

It's pretty easy to find actually. Free market capitalism has been the catalyst for the outsourcing of millions and millions of American jobs. Free market capitalism over the past 35 years has resulted in CEO's annual income rising 400x...vs....0 times for the hard working, middle class. In fact, inflation adjusted, people make less today than they did in the 1980's. Free market capitalism is directly responsible for the banking monstrocity of 2008. (Cue repeal of Glass Steagal]. Free market capitalism had allowed the comglomerates to become oligopolies which through shear power in numbers control where government tax dollars are allocated...including endless wars...and other corporate welfare programs that permeate American governance today. Free market capitalism has enabled collusion amongst the investment banks to price fix interest "spreads" to protect themselves and keep their bottom lines roaring strong....at the expense of tens of millions of Americans. People who worked hard, saved up a down payment, bought a home, moved in celebrating success and the American dream, only to see the bubble pop and the subsequent foreclosures....as in underwater mortgages. Ever wonder how the banks paid off that 800 billion so quickly that the tax payers "loaned them"? It's called lowering the interest rates across the board for the most fiscally sound American middle class members investments...from their money markets, checking and savings accounts. It's called legalized thievery through corporate collusion of the banking cartel. Thank you unregulated, free market system. Free market capitalism has loosened the reigns of fair competition as established way back in 1890, The first anti trust laws (Sherman) was put in place to seatbelt collusive practices. Deregulation of said laws has enabled the banking industry to thieve 40% of the American Wealth from the hard working middle class. (Middle class encomposing those making between 40-500K per year.)

Free market capitalism has enticed corporate America to offshore any and all manufacturing in order to circumvent the workers' human rights placed into US law regarding safety, workman's comp, minimum wages, 40 hour work week, clean air, clean water and the legal right to collectively bargain. Thank you unbridled free market. You want third world? Thank an Austrian economist who loves to turn blind eyes to the criminality that Adam Smith oh so warned us about.

The pro Austrian schoolers need to wake up and recognize exactly was has happened over the past 35 years and realize that laissez faire, as described by Adam Smith is never going to provide a progressing society. Never. It's been tried...and now it is failing....miserably. Our society from an economics point of view has witnessed the complete destruction of the American dream. It's no longer there. And...it matters not who is in power...D's or R's. They are bought and paid for by the powerful. Thank you free market capitalism and the bastardization of the lobby system that our forefathers initiated. Nobody wants over regulation....but no regulationat all is 100 times worse for Americans collectively or aggregately. You want to make a prophet out of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels? Do you want a system whereby 1% of the people control 99% of the wealth? Are we in fact headed for a proletariat/bourgeosie state as the commie writers listed above wrote in the mid 1800's? Well, that's what you will have...and it's coming fast and furious...as the numbers over the past 35 years clearly bear it out.

The fact that the govt has had as much involvement in the economy as it has over that time frame debunks your whole total free market system you claim has been in effect this whole time.

Over the last 30 years, regulations have been repealed, left toothless by the letter of the law, or left unenforced. "Regulations" has turned into some anti-business word to the point most people probably couldn't tell you what they do.

believer;1210585 wrote:[video=youtube;C6cxNR9ML8k][/video]

You didn't touch his stuff, did you?

believer;1210176 wrote:I agree.

However, I grow tired hearing the left call out conservatives for expressing their very valid opinion that those who work hard for what they have and earn an honest living should not be held responsible for providing a living those who do not or will not do for themselves. Twisting that opinion into a "yeah, sure, blame the poor for our nation's problems" obfuscation is pure BS.

We agree entirely with that.

But you're confusing the CEOs and massive corporations for "those who work hard for what they have and earn an honest living".

Twisting wanting massive corporations and people with millions and millions of dollars to pay a reasonable amount of taxes into "tax the rich so we can have more entitlements and fix all our problems" obfuscation is pure BS.

Shit works both ways.

believer;1210405 wrote:ObamaKare, $785 Billion Porkulus Sammich, Gubmint Motors, Fast & Furious, bailouts du Jour, etc., etc.

Yes, yes Neocon Nazi Bush did similar things.

Business as usual then in DC. Hope and change my ass.

Yes Bush did do similar things and yes, you were likely not foaming at the mouth when you talked about him.

And before you claim me as a hypocrite, I think Bush was a shitty president and also think Obama has been one too precisely because he's similar to Bush.

I Wear Pants;1210677 wrote:Yes Bush did do similar things and yes, you were likely not foaming at the mouth when you talked about him.

And before you claim me as a hypocrite, I think Bush was a shitty president and also think Obama has been one too precisely because he's similar to Bush.

Similarly, I thought Bush was a piss-poor president as well, and think the same of Obama. I think Obama has been worse, only because he's built on what Bush did (more military intervention while maintaining the ones Bush set into motion, and more spending -- though not as much more as people seem to think). That, naturally, isn't to trivialize how bad I think Bush was as a president.

I'm betting both are probably nice people ... even well-intentioned. Just bad presidents.

O-Trap;1210684 wrote:Similarly, I thought Bush was a piss-poor president as well, and think the same of Obama. I think Obama has been worse, only because he's built on what Bush did (more military intervention while maintaining the ones Bush set into motion, and more spending -- though not as much more as people seem to think). That, naturally, isn't to trivialize how bad I think Bush was as a president.

I'm betting both are probably nice people ... even well-intentioned. Just bad presidents.

I agree with most all of this. Don't know really who I consider worse out of the two though.

But just because I think Obama is shitty doesn't mean I think Romney is a better choice. Which is why I'm fucking frustrated.

I Wear Pants;1210691 wrote:I agree with most all of this. Don't know really who I consider worse out of the two though.

But just because I think Obama is shitty doesn't mean I think Romney is a better choice. Which is why I'm fucking frustrated.

You won't hear a disagreement from me. EACH of the last several presidents have spent more than their predecessors, at varying increments. That includes the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

As such, do you think Romney is going to bring down the spending, when all he seems to do in light of the party is what his predecessors have done?

Yeah, I don't either. He's not even a bandaid. He's just a different-shaped splinter to plug into the same wound.