Sign in to follow this  
Azazello1313

McJobs

Recommended Posts

We need to take all the money from the rich! It will fix everything*

 

 

* - for about 8 1/2 days. After that we'll have to find another source of income... :thinking:

 

 

Since you're so good at building straw men, I could use a scarecrow for the my vegetable garden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you're so good at building straw men, I could use a scarecrow for the my vegetable garden.

 

 

I've got a Brett Favre Big Head I could send. If you wrap that around a duffle bag it could make a nice scarecrow. It would also keep Jenn Sterger's out of your garden.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I've got a Brett Favre Big Head I could send. If you wrap that around a duffle bag it could make a nice scarecrow. It would also keep Jenn Sterger's out of your garden.

 

 

I want the Jenn Stergers in my garden, it's the rabbits I want to keep out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Since you're so good at building straw men, I could use a scarecrow for the my vegetable garden.

 

 

Strawmen? Really? The current President's self-proclaimed solution to our financial crisis in this country is to increase taxes on any person whose income is greater than $200k or any couple whose income is greater than $250k. Simple question - is that true or false? That's in the name of what he calls "fairness" despite those income earners paying a significantly disproportionately greater portion of Federal taxes than the rest of the country already.

 

But given the rate this administration is spending money far in excess of its revenues, the Federal government couls strip the upper 1% of income earners in this country of every penny of income that they have and it wouldn't come anywhere close to closing the annual deficit. And once that money is gone, who invests in businesses? Who provides the capital that allows businesses to startup and then grow? More importantly, who does the Federal government turn to afterwards to fund its wildly outrageous excess spending?

 

Pretty fundamental questions. I'll wait to hear your answer.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the answer is going to be me. I think I will be required to work harder, to produce more, so that it can be taken. I Boxer will have to pull harder on my wagon while remembering that two legs are bad and four are good, and that while all are created equal, some are more equal than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the answer is going to be me. I think I will be required to work harder, to produce more, so that it can be taken. I Boxer will have to pull harder on my wagon while remembering that two legs are bad and four are good, and that while all are created equal, some are more equal than others.

 

Freakin' teachers. :nerd:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawmen? Really? The current President's self-proclaimed solution to our financial crisis in this country is to increase taxes on any person whose income is greater than $200k or any couple whose income is greater than $250k. Simple question - is that true or false? That's in the name of what he calls "fairness" despite those income earners paying a significantly disproportionately greater portion of Federal taxes than the rest of the country already.

 

But given the rate this administration is spending money far in excess of its revenues, the Federal government couls strip the upper 1% of income earners in this country of every penny of income that they have and it wouldn't come anywhere close to closing the annual deficit. And once that money is gone, who invests in businesses? Who provides the capital that allows businesses to startup and then grow? More importantly, who does the Federal government turn to afterwards to fund its wildly outrageous excess spending?

 

Pretty fundamental questions. I'll wait to hear your answer.

 

You may not be right, but at least you're loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be right, but at least you're loud.

 

I may not be right, but I'd sure like you to point out what of the above is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess Az is arguing for high paying benefited union jobs instead of republican utopian cheap labor. Who woulda thunk it?

It's no secret that real wages for the low and middle class have stagnated while income and wealth creation for the upper class has grown considerably. That's been happening to varying degrees since the 90s. There's probably a dozen or more factors that have contributed to that reality - its not something that can be explained or solved with bumper sticker logic. The only thing I'm certain of in this regard is that it won't really matter who is elected president.

 

For those eager to place blame I believe the three main culprits are: (1) Congress' inability to get anything done; (2) the "job creators" are better at getting more work out of fewer employees; and (3) America's middle class labor market has been slow to pick up the skills and eduction necessary for today's good jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be right, but I'd sure like you to point out what of the above is wrong.

 

I'd too would like to know what's wrong with BB's comments as it appears that the current course that we're on, within just a few years, it'll take every penny of tax revenue just to make an interest only payment on our debt... is that correct?

 

I don't know what amounts of raising taxes and cutting spending is required, but it seems like simple math to show that with no changes, a complete default is inevitable and soon, yeah? I sure hope the Fed is secretly using that printed money to buy gold as we'll have to go to that standard afterwards with our new currency, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we had passed that jobs bill the Republicans put forward...

 

Oh, that's right, they were too busy trying to rule America's 'poon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no secret that real wages for the low and middle class have stagnated while income and wealth creation for the upper class has grown considerably. That's been happening to varying degrees since the 90s. There's probably a dozen or more factors that have contributed to that reality - its not something that can be explained or solved with bumper sticker logic. The only thing I'm certain of in this regard is that it won't really matter who is elected president.

 

For those eager to place blame I believe the three main culprits are: (1) Congress' inability to get anything done; (2) the "job creators" are better at getting more work out of fewer employees; and (3) America's middle class labor market has been slow to pick up the skills and eduction necessary for today's good jobs.

 

 

I'm pretty ignorant and have had my head in the sand for some time, but I think one of the biggest issues is the bank deregulation (glass stegal?) that was proposed by republicans and approved by the democrat PotUS. Our banks are leveraged beyond their eyeballs using retirement accoutns (401k, IRAs) as the collateral in risky derivatives. When the banks collapse again, it seems like it'll be permanent.

 

I welcome correction and education, but from what little I know, those at the very top have been sucking the lifeblood from our country for a decade now, even more than the previous century, since deregulation.

 

I head that the Fed bank has lent out trillions of dollars to these banks to cover their fook ups over the past couple of years. I believe that our debt is far beyond the $16trillion due to these extra loans made at 0% interest.

 

I'm sure your points are correct, just adding to the list of serious issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only we had passed that jobs bill the Republicans put forward...

 

Oh, that's right, they were too busy trying to rule America's 'poon.

 

 

Obama is absolutely relying on people like you for his re-election bid.

 

The GOP's "jobs bill" is pretty simplistic: Get the Federal government off of the private sector's back and jobs will be a byproduct of the recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not be right, but I'd sure like you to point out what of the above is wrong.

 

Let's start with your two most egregious comments.

 

First, your comment that "The current President's self-proclaimed solution to our financial crisis in this country is to increase taxes on any person whose income is greater than $200k or any couple whose income is greater than $250k. Simple question - is that true or false?" Please locate the proclamation by President Obama in which he stated that this tax increase is the "solution to our financial crisis."

 

Second, let's focus on your comment about how "this administration is spending money far in excess of its revenues." Perhaps you would care to educate us on which administrations in the past 50 years *haven't* spent more than it took in. While national spending has grown under President Obama, he has successfully slowed that growth better than any modern president, including Reagan. Yes, the deficit has grown but that is because the deficit is the result of two forces - spending and revenue. And revenue is way down for two reasons, namely: (1) taxes are at historic lows; and (2) the global economy sucks. Those things were true when Obama took office and there is no rational economist that I am aware of suggesting that Obama (or any other president) had the means to fix the economy in just a couple of years. We're likely on a 10+ year path to a slow, slogging recovery and that's going to be true regardless of who sits in the White House.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US Slips Down the Ranks of Global Competitiveness

 

The United States has slipped further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, according to a World Economic Forum (WEF) survey released on Wednesday.

 

The world's largest economy, which was placed 5th last year, fell two positions to the 7th spot - marking its fourth year of decline.

A lack of macroeconomic stability, the business community’s continued mistrust of the government and concerns over its fiscal health were some of the reasons for the downgrade, according to the annual survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's start with your two most egregious comments.

 

First, your comment that "The current President's self-proclaimed solution to our financial crisis in this country is to increase taxes on any person whose income is greater than $200k or any couple whose income is greater than $250k. Simple question - is that true or false?" Please locate the proclamation by President Obama in which he stated that this tax increase is the "solution to our financial crisis."

 

Second, let's focus on your comment about how "this administration is spending money far in excess of its revenues." Perhaps you would care to educate us on which administrations in the past 50 years *haven't* spent more than it took in. While national spending has grown under President Obama, he has successfully slowed that growth better than any modern president, including Reagan. Yes, the deficit has grown but that is because the deficit is the result of two forces - spending and revenue. And revenue is way down for two reasons, namely: (1) taxes are at historic lows; and (2) the global economy sucks. Those things were true when Obama took office and there is no rational economist that I am aware of suggesting that Obama (or any other president) had the means to fix the economy in just a couple of years. We're likely on a 10+ year path to a slow, slogging recovery and that's going to be true regardless of who sits in the White House.

 

 

Well, I hate to argue with a Forbes writer, but, dude is wrong.

 

From the sources I have seen, the 2012 budget is 3.79 trillion (not the 3.58 the author is quoting and 2013 is estimated to be 3.80 trillion)

 

So, we have a baseline of 3.456 trillion in 2010 and that has moved up to an estimated 3.80 trillion in 2013... That is an increase of 347 BILLION which equates to a +/- 9% increase from your base line of 2010. Yes, this is better than Bush, Clinton, Bush and Regan (actually, it seems all of the authors numbers are skewed due to the way he chooses to view them.) but this is hardly "thrifty" considering a few facts.

 

A large portion of the spending increases during the Bush admin were to fight two illegal wars against sovereign nations. These wars have been supposedly, for the most part, ended..;. where are the savings?

 

Secondly, there was a large amount of govt. spending that went toward establishing new national security measures, essentially, new government bureaus were created at monumental costs, so that added to the budget.

 

Then, the first stimulus was carried by the Bush admin, adding considerably to the budget.

 

So, you cn look at it however you want, but in total $$ Obama is not nearly as frugal as one may think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you cn look at it however you want, but in total $$ Obama is not nearly as frugal as one may think.

 

My point is that he's a more frugal president than most people give him credit for. The Bronco Billy's of the world think he spends like a drunken sailor but it just isn't true, especially when you considering that much of his budgetary spending is attributable to wars he didn't start and one-time stimulus spending that isn't a recurring item in the budget. As far as the "security measures" he's damned if he does (because he spent money) damned if he doesn't (because he isn't "securing our borders). At least that spending employed some Americans and made us all a little safer - there are certainly worse things we could have done with that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is easy. our elected leaders in government.

 

And their political opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of blame for fiscal stalemate and gridlock, I just recently read an interesting piece on that, detailing a lot of the inside baseball that went down between obama and boehner when they were actually incredibly close to a far-reaching debt deal before it fell apart at the last minute. it's a very balanced piece, and either side can find plenty of grist for their partisan mill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who are also elected leaders in government, thus redundant.

 

Tongue, meet cheek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.