Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > AAA -> AA+

AAA -> AA+ (Page 3)
Thread Tools
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2011, 10:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post

Your "rugged individualism" is admirable. Given your position here I fully expect that you will not claim any Medicare or Social Security Benefits when eligible.
So wait, how is it no one is willing to pay for these things? The last time I looked, one had a choice.

No, I doubt I'll ever claim Medicare. I won't need it.

As for Social Security- I've paid for it. I didn't give away that money to your precious nanny state- they've confiscated it from me in the guise of an insurance scheme. (Ponzi scheme is more accurate). So sure, I'll take what's mine back, plus the interest I should have made investing the same money in an actual legitimate way. A blind monkey could have taken the garganturan fortune that is the money collected for Soc. Security and even in the WORST POSSIBLE market, turned it into the biggest fortune ever seen on this planet. What's your precious nanny state done with it? First off- they've raided it. (Bernie Madoff is in jail for doing FAR less). And secondly, they've done nothing but turn it into what will eventually be nothing but another pile of debt.

So I'm sure your position is the Madoff "solution": just keep sticking it to new suckers to pay for the ponzi scheme (IE: tax the rich!!!) and screw the fact that your precious nanny state is stealing the money they take from you and tossing it down more blackholes.



And if you are ever laid off you won't claim any Unemployment or Medicaid benefits.
In addition to working for someone, I'm also self-employed. I can't claim Unemployment benefits, nor would I want to. Nothing against anyone who does- but DUH- THEY PAID FOR THEM!

Once again, you had to ignore the facts to dredge that up as an 'entitlement'. You're one of those that thinks that this money just comes raining from the sky? So once again, enlighten us: who is it that's eligible for UI that hasn't paid for it? Do you just get a claim form that lasts forever then? If so, why do we hear all this debate about extending benefits? Even if you extend benefits, do you really think the average person doesn't work more of their life and pay into UI with no gain, than they do collecting benefits?

For example, the last time I collected UI was back in the 1990's- but I've paid into it with no gain before and ever since. So who is it that's collecting without being willing to pay for it again, or were you just blowing more smoke out of your ass, as usual?

As for Medicaid benefits- I have no clue how I'd even go about claiming them, have no need or desire to, and know of absolutely NO ONE my age that does either. Maybe it's typical in some circles to need these things all during your life, but not in mine. If it's something I might need in old age, why shouldn't my YEARS of paying into it without collecting pay for my needs later- UNLESS IT'S JUST ANOTHER PONZI SCHEME?

- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
All I and everyone else who works pays for.

Not my fault that someone else is stealing the money as fast as they collect it in Bernie Madoff fashion. That's for you to cheerlead for.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2011, 10:49 PM
 
These are all Ponzi schemes. Example Medicare:

Over a 45 year working life (20 - 65) the median family pays $65,250 in Medicare tax.

The median family contains, today, about 1.5 working people (many families are single-earner - either one adult with kids, or an adult alone.)  We'll be kind and assume that the median family contains just one working adult - that is, no married households at all.

Here's the problem: The average person will consume approximately $300,000 in Medicare-reimbursed medical expenses during the time period from retirement to death.
Market-Ticker - MarketTicker Forums

-t
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2011, 11:15 PM
 
If it were properly invested, it would be easy to take $65,000 and turn it into $300,000 by end of the average person's working life. That's not even a very high return.

Instead, the government crooks are doing exactly what Madoff did- taking people's money, and deficit spending it as soon as they get it. Also: It's not like a private insurance plan. Private insurance companies use current funds to pay for current benefits- BUT- if they raid their client's accounts to pay for all sorts of other shit and run up massive deficits, that's called FRAUD. People go to jail for that in the private sector- IE: the real world.

So there are no returns in these govt. programs, and the money isn't just strictly used to pay benefits related to what the money is taxed for. There's just money going in, tossed into a general fund and going down the usual black holes. The hope is that in the future there will be enough slaves paying into the ponzi scheme currently, to pay the returns owed from the past. Madoff is in prison for WAY less of a crime than that, yet this is the kind of thing liberals not only cheerlead for when it comes to the nanny-state, but encourage them to perpetrate even MORE of.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
No, I doubt I'll ever claim Medicare. I won't need it.
Spoken like the relatively young and healthy. But when you are elderly and retired and private insurance won't touch you with a 10 foot pole then what? Medical care paid for with savings and investments? Ok .... that's cool. Provided that you are lucky enough to stay relatively healthy. But one major illness can drain that away in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
As for Social Security- I've paid for it. I didn't give away that money to your precious nanny state- they've confiscated it from me in the guise of an insurance scheme. (Ponzi scheme is more accurate). So sure, I'll take what's mine back, plus the interest I should have made investing the same money in an actual legitimate way. A blind monkey could have taken the garganturan fortune that is the money collected for Soc. Security and even in the WORST POSSIBLE market, turned it into the biggest fortune ever seen on this planet. What's your precious nanny state done with it? First off- they've raided it. (Bernie Madoff is in jail for doing FAR less). And secondly, they've done nothing but turn it into what will eventually be nothing but another pile of debt.
You won't see me defending how Social Security is structured. While I certainly think it's needed considering the living standards of the elderly prior to its existence ... it could definitely use an overhaul IMO.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
In addition to working for someone, I'm also self-employed. I can't claim Unemployment benefits, nor would I want to. Nothing against anyone who does- but DUH- THEY PAID FOR THEM!
If you work for someone (i.e. as an employee and not as a contractor) then why couldn't you claim UI if need be?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
Once again, you had to ignore the facts to dredge that up as an 'entitlement'.
Entitlement - a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation

And just what facts would those be exactly given what an "entitlement" actually is?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
You're one of those that thinks that this money just comes raining from the sky?
Crash ... please don't tell me what I think. I'm quite capable of saying what I think all on my own. Moreover, do trust and believe that I'm well aware of the sizable deductions that come out my checks in taxes.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE
So once again, enlighten us: who is it that's eligible for UI that hasn't paid for it? Do you just get a claim form that lasts forever then? If so, why do we hear all this debate about extending benefits? Even if you extend benefits, do you really think the average person doesn't work more of their life and pay into UI with no gain, than they do collecting benefits?

For example, the last time I collected UI was back in the 1990's- but I've paid into it with no gain before and ever since. So who is it that's collecting without being willing to pay for it again, or were you just blowing more smoke out of your ass, as usual?
Hmmm ... let me see. You pay into something over time with the hope that you will never need to claim the benefits ... but they are available if necessary. Sounds like insurance to me. In any event, we'll just note that in this response you've essentially just reiterated what you said before and conveniently ignored my fundamental point:

Originally Posted by OAW
The fallacy in your thinking is that you are trying to equate "unwilling to pay for them" with "unwilling to pay for them at all". And that simply is not the issue here. What's meant when it is said that "People want entitlements but are unwilling to pay for them." is that "People want to drink champagne but only want to pay beer prices.".
So no Crash ... I'm not "blowing more smoke out of my ass, as usual". What's happening here ... "as usual" ... is that you are arguing a point that is not in dispute. NO ONE here has claimed that people don't pay for entitlements AT ALL ... least of all me. Anyone who works for a living and pays taxes is paying for entitlements ... so why hang your hat on such an inane argument that is only a keen observation of the obvious? The point that is being made is that people want a full array of benefits but are unwilling to shoulder the tax burden that is necessary to pay the full cost of said benefits. Case in point with Medicare. People are living longer and health care cost inflation in the private sector is quite literally out of control. So the cost of the Medicare program is going through the roof ... especially as the baby boomers begin to retire. This isn't because Medicare is some evil government program. It's one of the most popular government programs in existence ... and politicians touch it at their peril. A lesson Rep. Paul Ryan learned the hard way. But how many people are willing to see their payroll taxes increase .... even just a little bit ... to keep pace with the program's rising costs? And how many of these same people think that if a politician even dreams of cutting Medicare benefits he better wake up and apologize?

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm not blowing more smoke out of my ass, as usual.
Quoted for truth and future reference

-t
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:22 PM
 
I really like Perry taking a tough stance on the Fed, saying more QE would be tantamount to treason. I think of the current front runners I'm getting swayed toward Perry.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:31 PM
 
He can definitely compete with Michele Bachmann eating corn dogs





WTF ?

-t
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:41 PM
 
For Perry, perhaps it's marginal cover for any charges of being anti-homosexual.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Quoted for truth and future reference

-t
Well if you are going to quote it then quote it properly. Punctuation, italics, and all.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 01:01 PM
 
I hope this election season we don't see candidates trying to dumb themselves down to pander to rural audiences by pretending that they are simple country folk. Nothing wrong with being simple country folk, and I realize it is also unfair to imply that simple country folk are also uneducated, so let's just say that I mean the "simple country folk" stereotype, but let's face it: each of the candidates are the wealthy and educated elite and probably built that in a more urban environment.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Spoken like the relatively young and healthy. But when you are elderly and retired and private insurance won't touch you with a 10 foot pole then what? Medical care paid for with savings and investments? Ok .... that's cool. Provided that you are lucky enough to stay relatively healthy. But one major illness can drain that away in a heartbeat.
It's telling how you (and many libs) specialize so much in being helpless and hopeless, you simply can't conceive of others not being that way.

I won't need any government dole because I've prepared and am preparing for my OWN future. I, like my parents, and theirs before them, will be able to take care of myself and my family. Others can wallow in being helpless and hopeless, but that's on them, not me. Just be thankful there are still people like me, making it easier for the freeloaders of the world to laze back and be freeloaders. I don't and won't need any of the make-believe freeloader 'free money!!!" , so MAYBE, just maybe there will be more freeloading for those that are into that. Or then again, maybe not, once your precious nanny state goes belly up and totally goes back on all the bullshit they promised you because they'll simply be completely unable to afford it, and the current crop of slaves won't be willing to pay 80% of their earnings to support it. Before it's too late, you might want to look into more viable alternatives.



You won't see me defending how Social Security is structured. While I certainly think it's needed considering the living standards of the elderly prior to its existence ... it could definitely use an overhaul IMO.
On this we agree. I'm not even opposed to means-testing. As I say, I'll gladly take back what was taken from me, plus proper interest for the loan of it- but I'm not setting myself up to NEED any of it, because on its own it'll be a pittance. The crappy government can't even afford to pay out pittances to all the people they owe, and this situation won't get any better.



If you work for someone (i.e. as an employee and not as a contractor) then why couldn't you claim UI if need be?
Is your entitlement mentality really so entrenched you can't understand that many people like myself simply don't revolve their lives around that?
I'm an employee of a company, yes, but I also run my own business. Even in the event of my unemployment from the 'day job' I'm not without an income- I have other sources of income due to being self employed.

Why would I purposefully stop earning from clients I do work for in my own business, in order to "qualify" to collect some pittance from UI?

Once more, rather than banging your head against a wall over people that don't accept your mantra of "HELPLESS AND HOPELESS!" why not just relax and enjoy it? Maybe they can extend your UI longer when you need it, because people like me aren't collecting it. (Oh wait, but that would require you to get over your class-envy crutch, and there's no way you're giving that up!)

And by the way, it's already YOUR OWN MONEY if you collect UI. Your precious nanny-state (just as is virtually ALWAYS the case) is not giving you jack-squat. You're simply getting a fraction of your own money back. That's it. As soon as they can, they'll cut you off and act like it's a big deal to give you an extension (that you already paid for in some previous stretch of employment). But notice, there's NEVER a cutoff for you PAYING into UI when you're employed.


Hmmm ... let me see. You pay into something over time with the hope that you will never need to claim the benefits ... but they are available if necessary. Sounds like insurance to me. In any event, we'll just note that in this response you've essentially just reiterated what you said before and conveniently ignored my fundamental point:
A legitimate insurance company not only doesn't go broke just because costs go up, they actually manage to turn a profit from being in that business. If the government can't make their 'insurance' business work- then GET OUT OF IT. They problem is, the money they are playing with doesn't belong to them- it's yours and mine and everyone that pays taxes.

So no Crash ... I'm not "blowing more smoke out of my ass, as usual".
Heh. That is funny.

What's happening here ... "as usual" ... is that you are arguing a point that is not in dispute. NO ONE here has claimed that people don't pay for entitlements AT ALL ... least of all me.
YOU just said it was true that people want entitlements but don't want to pay for them. That's been the whole point I'm saying isn't true. Now you just did a complete 180.

But how many people are willing to see their payroll taxes increase .... even just a little bit ... to keep pace with the program's rising costs? And how many of these same people think that if a politician even dreams of cutting Medicare benefits he better wake up and apologize?
It's just a myth that payroll taxes need to increase to cover the rising costs. Everything has rising costs. And let's not even get into the fact that government meddling is in a big way responsible for many of the rising costs. Medicare, like any other program, could be paid for if the money was properly invested and taxpayers got an actual return for their money. Private health insurance companies DO invest their funds- because it's virtually the only way an insurance account can really work, unless it's just a front for a ponzi scheme. And as I said, no private insurance company would dare raid their clients accounts in order to deficit spend for tons of unrelated crap. That's called fraud and theft in the real world. For your nanny state, it's business as usual.

The way govt. runs all their programs, they are all ponzi schemes- they use not even subtle tricks to raid the money; like buying bonds from themselves, and using the bond money to deficit spend on general budget crap- an obvious shell game. For those depending on this crap, which even you admit can't keep up with the eventual costs- there's eventually going to be a very RUDE awakening when the govt simply can't live up to its obligations which are all based on pure fraud. Future taxpayers won't be willing to pay outrageous percentages of their income to float the current nanny-state's mistakes.

So basically, who will the broke govt screw over in order to get out of the jam? You- by then, some geriatric who's working years are behind him, that some future bunch of political hacks couldn't give two craps about no matter how much you cheer led for their predecessors- or the current younger generation of working taxpayers that fund the political hacks and their current gravy trains and have to be enslaved to float you on top of it. My money is on them cutting YOU loose and saying, "Ah well. Too bad. You should have prepared for your own future old man, because WE sure as hell didn't!"
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Aug 16, 2011 at 03:33 PM. )
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I really like Perry taking a tough stance on the Fed, saying more QE would be tantamount to treason. I think of the current front runners I'm getting swayed toward Perry.
If Perry ends up being the nominee, he'll have my vote.

Watch for the left's hate-machine to start going full-bore on Perry. Of all the potential front runners, he probably scares them the most- they KNOW he can beat Obama.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I hope this election season we don't see candidates trying to dumb themselves down to pander to rural audiences by pretending that they are simple country folk.
Or... Lets hope this election season we don't see candidates trying to dumb themselves down to pander to arrogant know-it -all city slicker simpleton hippies of today's recent college grads. Nothing wrong with being an inner city spoiled brat except for the fact that they think they're more intelligent than everyone else; they don't contribute as much to society as they think they do; other than paper pusher office jobs, and don't appreciate the fact that they're entire existence is dependent on the rural country folk who feed them and do most the manual labor in the country. Inner city simpletons haven't experienced much; and don't know much about how the real world works, but they're proud authorities on many subjects because they've read one liners and sound bites about everything.

A side note.. As the economy collapses it's the educated city brats that will lose the most jobs. All of a sudden people will see how much they don't need whatever easy luxury service or pyramid scam they're selling. At which point the educated city people will resort to rioting in the streets burning, destroying their own neighborhoods and killing each other; starving to death and once they've robbed each other dry they'll progress to robbing the rural people who provided real commodities of value. History will repeat itself again and again as predictable as it ever was... It's already starting.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
It's telling how you (and many libs) specialize so much in being helpless and hopeless, you simply can't conceive of others not being that way.

I won't need any government dole because I've prepared and am preparing for my OWN future. I, like my parents, and theirs before them, will be able to take care of myself and my family.
There were plenty of elderly people who had prepared for their own future financially via diligent savings and investments ... and yet they were wiped out by a major hospitalization or chronic illness. It happened all the time prior to the enactment of Medicare. It happens all the time to the uninsured today. You say that could never be you ... and we have no way of validating the claim one way or the other. So fair enough. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Is your entitlement mentality really so entrenched you can't understand that many people like myself simply don't revolve their lives around that?
I'm an employee of a company, yes, but I also run my own business. Even in the event of my unemployment from the 'day job' I'm not without an income- I have other sources of income due to being self employed.

Why would I purposefully stop earning from clients I do work for in my own business, in order to "qualify" to collect some pittance from UI?
It appears that in the question I asked you that led to this response you have confused the word "couldn't" with "wouldn't". You had made a statement that implied that UI wasn't even an option for you. All I was saying was that as an employee you could receive such benefits if need be. Clearly if you were laid off it would be beyond retarded to stop earning from your side hustle just to collect UI. But that's not what I was suggesting. And I surmise you very well know that. But why have a reasoned conversation when you can make silly little insulting comments like this?

|
|
v

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Once more, rather than banging your head against a wall over people that don't accept your mantra of "HELPLESS AND HOPELESS!" why not just relax and enjoy it? Maybe they can extend your UI longer when you need it, because people like me aren't collecting it. (Oh wait, but that would require you to get over your class-envy crutch, and there's no way you're giving that up!)
Right?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
And by the way, it's already YOUR OWN MONEY if you collect UI. Your precious nanny-state (just as is virtually ALWAYS the case) is not giving you jack-squat. You're simply getting a fraction of your own money back. That's it. As soon as they can, they'll cut you off and act like it's a big deal to give you an extension (that you already paid for in some previous stretch of employment). But notice, there's NEVER a cutoff for you PAYING into UI when you're employed.
Wow. Your ability to inform me of what I already know is just so overwhelming. Whatever will I do?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
A legitimate insurance company not only doesn't go broke just because costs go up, they actually manage to turn a profit from being in that business. If the government can't make their 'insurance' business work- then GET OUT OF IT. They problem is, the money they are playing with doesn't belong to them- it's yours and mine and everyone that pays taxes.
The fact still remains that health care cost inflation has been double the overall inflation rate since the 1970s ... and that is simply unsustainable in the long-term. Regardless of if the "insurance company" is a public or private entity.

The rising cost of health care in the United States represents a significant threat to the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and the fiscal sustainability of government finances.
Why health care reform is critical for the U.S. economy - Fidelity.com

The point here is that given this trajectory health insurance .... private or public ... will simply become unaffordable. This simply isn't a "government vs. private sector" issue. Perhaps if you would ease up off the throttle of your usual anti-government tirades just a little bit you could see that?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
YOU just said it was true that people want entitlements but don't want to pay for them. That's been the whole point I'm saying isn't true. Now you just did a complete 180.
What I said was that people want a full array of benefits but are unwilling to shoulder the tax burden that is necessary to pay the full cost of said benefits. This is what is meant by "People want entitlements but don't want to pay for them." I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept for you to comprehend.

Oh wait ... let me put in terms that will probably register more with you. "People want their 'nanny-state' but they only want guys like you to pay for it. And there aren't enough guys like you to cover the cost of all the 'freeloaders'." Get it now?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 16, 2011 at 06:27 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Watch for the left's hate-machine to start going full-bore on Perry.
What's going to happen is that Gov. Perry will start to get the scrutiny that any major candidate for the Presidency would receive. Don't be so dramatic.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Of all the potential front runners, he probably scares them the most- they KNOW he can beat Obama.
He certainly scares me. A weak economy can always make a one-termer out of even a relatively popular President. Even if it's not his fault ... the one left holding the bag still gets the blame. Just ask George H. W. Bush. Gov. Perry has the potential to unite the Tea-Party and Establishment factions of the GOP. He's a very photogenic man who exudes an "executive" aura. He can easily run on a record of job creation in Texas that lends itself well to a 30 second political ad. And he just might pull it off because the average person in the US electorate won't bother to look beyond the headline statistic to see that a huge portion of those jobs were minimum wage and filled by immigrants. If Perry gets the GOP nomination and the economy is still weak .... which is a distinct possibility since the GOP will certainly oppose anything that might actually improve it prior to the 2012 election ... Obama's only hope will be if Independents are put off his far-right social conservatism.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 16, 2011 at 05:28 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 16, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
If Perry ends up being the nominee, he'll have my vote.

Watch for the left's hate-machine to start going full-bore on Perry. Of all the potential front runners, he probably scares them the most- they KNOW he can beat Obama.
I'm going to give Perry some love.

OMG. Perry is so handsome. I love the way he handles that corn dog. That thick head of hair gives me something to hold onto while he works that corn dog. Gets me all excited to vote for him.

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:26 AM
 
More Rick Parry love. Vote Rick Parry:

Behind The Green Corn | ColbertSuperPAC on blip.tv
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 07:02 AM
 
Good 'ol Rick is taking credit for "job creation," but slickly avoids noting that almost every "created" job is extremely low paying and in positions that are the most disposable. Most of the created jobs in Texas that he's so proud of are low level service jobs, including hotel work (maids are cheap and easily fired) and waitstaff (ditto), and anyone who qualifies under the bad old "you get tips so you don't 'need' to get the whole minimum wage" is already at a disadvantage. But that's the kind of jobs that make up the bulk of Rick's bluster.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 07:04 AM
 
Assuming that's an accurate characterization, it's better than nothing, right? At least those who are working those jobs aren't on unemployment.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Good 'ol Rick is taking credit for "job creation," but slickly avoids noting that almost every "created" job is extremely low paying and in positions that are the most disposable. Most of the created jobs in Texas that he's so proud of are low level service jobs, including hotel work (maids are cheap and easily fired) and waitstaff (ditto), and anyone who qualifies under the bad old "you get tips so you don't 'need' to get the whole minimum wage" is already at a disadvantage. But that's the kind of jobs that make up the bulk of Rick's bluster.
This is exactly right. Not to mention most oil states are doing pretty good right now; but people don't want to move the the Dakotas so they move to Texas.
Texas job boom under Perry driven by government, energy and service sectors, numbers show | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

Texas unemployment is still about the same as the national average. Texas has only created jobs because more people have moved there for the energy industry and healthcare.... It's a positive feedback chain reaction where other jobs naturally fall in place after that to take care of the rising population. Perry has nothing to do with this unless he created Texas' oil industry.

Perry like to brag about regulations. In fact there's so many regulations in Texas alone that many contradict each other... I spend a lot of time arguing with government bureaucrats trying to get anything done; one regulation says "You must process it this way or you're not in compliance", another says "if you process it that way your breaking the law you must do it another way". Months are lost sorting this all out and getting the Texas gov to realize these discrepancies and give me permits. Perry has nothing to say when it comes to regulations. If we elect Perry we're just going to get the same thing we've been getting.

Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Assuming that's an accurate characterization, it's better than nothing, right? At least those who are working those jobs aren't on unemployment.
Except that Texas unemployment numbers aren't impressive... Same percentage of people on unemployment... Jobs were created for the rising migrants. But many migrants still didn't find jobs so its about the national average unemployment.

Imagine if 1 million people moved to your state. Since they all needed to be fed and provided for, new jobs were created to take care of their needs. 200,000 of the migrants got hired to basically to build stores/restaurants for them selves. 800 thousand still unemployed but your governor takes credit for creating 200,000 jobs. Just example.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Aug 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM. )
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 12:40 PM
 
There's something about Perry that I don't like AT ALL. Can't pinpoint it, but he won't get my vote.

-t
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 01:42 PM
 
Even if he's the nominee? Are you in a competitive state? Obama Take Two would be absolutely devastating in ways we can hardly fathom right now.

If Perry is the nominee, though, he's going to have to contend with Lefty elitists mocking his albeit unimpressive academic credentials. As if a highly educated president like Obama has done so well for us!

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2011, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Even if he's the nominee? Are you in a competitive state? Obama Take Two would be absolutely devastating in ways we can hardly fathom right now.
Yep. I'd probably vote Ron Paul, no matter what.
(Not because I agree with everything about him)

We're past the point where things can be fixed, no matter what party.
One more term of Obama would just bring us faster to the endgame.

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,