91 posts
Pulled the cord for Romney today. Hope I don't regret it to bad. ;D I think he'll be fine.
If he's elected, I would be shocked if between 6 and 12 months we don't have a significant improvement in the shape of the economy. Not necessarily because of anything brilliant he did, but just because. Completely a wild guess on my part. I have 0 evidence of that. Just to be safe. ;D
Here's the bad news. The rest of the world is going into recession. Therefore, I kind of hope Romney wins because there's a pretty good chance we're heading back into a downturn and I don't mind letting the Pubs get slapped around for it. Because, when I look at them, these are people who wanted this country to fail merely because they disliked the president. And I wouldn't mind them getting a little taste of their own medicine.
On the other hand, I'm voting for Obama because, even though the rest of the world is going into recession, and we might too, I think he's got a better chance of preventing it from getting bad. Romney's plan is tax cuts, and tax cuts have never, ever saved or prevented a country from recession or added jobs. And, the last thing I want is two more cons on the Supreme Court.
Why would the pubs be blamed for what happened on Obama's watch? Thats kinda hypocritical, isn't it?
I was embarrassed as a citizen at the Romnesia sp?? comments of Obama. That was the low of his Presidency IMO. And to hear his add about the deficit after 4 years of no budget just makes me sick to my stomach.
Nothing either of these guys have said is worthy of me waiting in line for 45 minutes just to vote for one of the idiots. Obama has had 4 years to work with congress and gets things done. He failed. Instead, he dictated what he wanted and wouldn't settle or negotiate for the better of our country. I like Obama, I wish he would have done really well, and in some cases he did ... but it's time for a change.
The two big issues are the economy and the debt, and for me, the military. So three. I don't see Obama's actions in 4 years as taking any of those very seriously when you don't even have a budget. It's just spending money at will and with no thought to the consequences at all. Print and spend. Give and give. Borrow and borrow. Smile and smile.
If Romney doesn't have a budget the first year, no matter what he does the next three, I'll vote for the democrat running against him. If he's elected.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Noice, ya bought it all again. Full script in effect and wonderful reasoning in the last statement.
I don't think voting for either is reasonable.
Well, Romney's not getting elected. None of the fault lies with the Republicans in Congress, in your estimate? the fact that Obama had even worked out a "grand bargain" with Boehner, and then Boehner couldn't get a single asshole tea partier to vote for it? Or Mitch McConnell saying on day one of Obama's presidency that their goal for the next four years was to make Obama a one-term president? Really, it's all Obama's fault?
Shocking.
Hookbender — Oct 26, 2012Why would the pubs be blamed for what happened on Obama's watch? Thats kinda hypocritical, isn't it?
Dude, I know you must be watching Fox News all fucking day if you think that Romney will inherit anything but a golden opportunity, if he wins. There's nothing to blame on Obama. The economy is in recovery. We've had job growth for 34 months. We're in growth mode. We're not in recession. If we go into recession, there's no frigging way you can pin it on Obama--he steered the country out of recession quite capably.
Now, Romney has promised 12 million new jobs, reductions in the deficit, all sorts of shit. Though, without any plans, no one can figure out how he wants to get there. But believe me, if we go into recession under Romney, even if it's because of Europe, Romney and Republicans will get the blame. And rightly so. Obama has handed him an economy on the upswing, and Obama's proved himself quite capable of negotiating the European disaster without it harming us. There's no possible way any Republican or Fox News can spin this otherwise. Neither can you.
charger — Oct 26, 2012There's no possible way any Republican or Fox News can spin this otherwise.
Wow, first naive thing I've heard from you in a while Charger!
I'm forced to listen to my Mom (who ONLY watches Fox News) all the time and the bulk of their programming has all their viewers convinced that EVERYTHING you have referenced is indeed fabricated or flat wrong. Of course, other channels say
the exact opposite and my personal opinion is that BOTH are full of shit (but I'm voting for Johnson so another year of watching the media decide things again -
regardless of whether Romney or Obama win...).
Hookbender — Oct 26, 2012I don't think voting for either is reasonable.
And yet, ya did.
charger — Oct 26, 2012Well, Romney's not getting elected. None of the fault lies with the Republicans in Congress, in your estimate? the fact that Obama had even worked out a "grand bargain" with Boehner, and then Boehner couldn't get a single asshole tea partier to vote for it? Or Mitch McConnell saying on day one of Obama's presidency that their goal for the next four years was to make Obama a one-term president? Really, it's all Obama's fault?
Shocking.
Hell yes congress is at fault. You've read my post in the past with my disgust of these lifers in congress and senate. I'm not really assigning blame with my vote.
charger — Oct 26, 2012[quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/0#2 date=1351222392]Why would the pubs be blamed for what happened on Obama's watch? Thats kinda hypocritical, isn't it?
Dude, I know you must be watching Fox News all fucking day if you think that Romney will inherit anything but a golden opportunity, if he wins. There's nothing to blame on Obama. The economy is in recovery. We've had job growth for 34 months. We're in growth mode. We're not in recession. If we go into recession, there's no frigging way you can pin it on Obama--he steered the country out of recession quite capably.
Now, Romney has promised 12 million new jobs, reductions in the deficit, all sorts of shit. Though, without any plans, no one can figure out how he wants to get there. But believe me, if we go into recession under Romney, even if it's because of Europe, Romney and Republicans will get the blame. And rightly so. Obama has handed him an economy on the upswing, and Obama's proved himself quite capable of negotiating the European disaster without it harming us. There's no possible way any Republican or Fox News can spin this otherwise. Neither can you.
With the shape of the worlds economy, and ours, I wouldn't describe what Romney would inherit as a golden opportunity. As I've said before, Obama did a good job of stabilizing the ship, now we need to get the engines running again. I have a gut feeling that Romney will get that done. Maybe he won't. Who knows. Calm down.
BINGEWOOD — Oct 27, 2012[quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/0#4 date=1351254483]I don't think voting for either is reasonable.
And yet, ya did.
So, you'd rather me not vote because we don't have a reasonable choice of President? Wow. That makes sense. ::)
Hookbender — Oct 27, 2012[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1351211112/0#8 date=1351296811][quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/0#4 date=1351254483]I don't think voting for either is reasonable.
And yet, ya did.
So, you'd rather me not vote because we don't have a reasonable choice of President? Wow. That makes sense. ::)
I didn't say anything about you not voting. You said voting for either isn't reasonable while having voted for one of them. You must have found one to be reasonable. That's fine too. Speaking of unreasonable, Roseanne Barr is on the ballot here.
If you had come in saying that you voted for Romney because you feel it would make the "business community" more comfortable which may lead to an upturn in the economy, instead of the pub talking points that take themselves out of the equation and put all the blame for everything on Bammer, you would have made a lil more sense. I'm not into extortion tho, so it would only make sense in a "now you do what they told ya!" kinda way. Like bosses telling their employees to vote for Romney if they know what's good for them. Disgusting.
There's no way I could vote for Romney. McCain had the worst campaign in my lifetime. Romney has the cheeziest campaign ever, going from "say anything" to "say everything". Flipped so many times he has embraced it ALL.
EDIT: Just saw yer top post again and you did come in with "a feeling" that the economy would improve if Romney got in. You've been given that feeling by the right wing media narrative. You later went into the other conservo talking points about it all being Bammer's fault.
Hookbender — Oct 27, 2012[quote author=charger link=1351211112/0#5 date=1351265038]Well, Romney's not getting elected. None of the fault lies with the Republicans in Congress, in your estimate? the fact that Obama had even worked out a "grand bargain" with Boehner, and then Boehner couldn't get a single asshole tea partier to vote for it? Or Mitch McConnell saying on day one of Obama's presidency that their goal for the next four years was to make Obama a one-term president? Really, it's all Obama's fault?
Shocking.
Hell yes congress is at fault. You've read my post in the past with my disgust of these lifers in congress and senate. I'm not really assigning blame with my vote.
What about the new schoolers, the Teeze Party members of Congress? Real cool the way they came in on a jobs platform then immediately went into abortion and repeal Bammercare, both over and over again, while doing nothing but block jobs bills as well as pulling out of the "Grand Bargain" to reduce the debt. I know, fuck the unions...
If Obama can't get anything done because of congress, it's a reasonable position to vote for the other candidate to get action from our government, don't ya think? Why waste 4 years time of no action from our government? Thats not blaming Obama, its blaming congress. Obama is a victim of our political system in this case. Like I said, real improvement in our country would be to limit the terms of these folks in congress. I hate everyone of those fuckers. Our system is corrupt.
If the house and senate stay under control of opposite parties, does it really matter who wins the Presidency? I'm voting for Romney for reasons I'll keep to myself ( political debates around here get too heated for me). I do agree with Charger that nobody can say Obama made things worse cause he really didn't. I'm just of the opinion that there have been a lot of missed opportunities he should have taken advantage of to really push his hope and change agenda. His administration has also done quite a few things over the past 4 years that have put a sour taste in my mouth as well. I don't think he's the anti Christ or anything retarded like that. Just wish things were significantly better than 4 years ago. 16 trillion in debt and drop in credit rating come to mind as well. We can blame that on congress, but you fire the captain of a ship, not the crew members.
Nothing's going to change until we get Grover Norquist out of our business. The idea that the whole body of a single political party is beholden to someone unelected, with no real authority for anything, and a single issue he's pushing, is just stupid. I keep waiting to see a rebirth in "reasonable" Republicanism--a wave of candidates who are like... well, like Romney was when he was in Massachusetts, or like we've had in Northern California forever. Problem is I don't believe Romney is that guy anymore, I think he'll say anything to get elected, fer chrissakes he's been running for president as his sole full-time job since 2007. But I don't think even he knows what he believes in.
He has a lot of great ideas for taking over failing businesses and making them profitable, selling them off, and making a bunch of money. Problem is, people confuse that with the ability to run a country's economy... the two have as little in common as orange and the invention of the wheel.
Divebomb — Oct 29, 2012 We can blame that on congress, but you fire the captain of a ship, not the crew members.
Perhaps...but they aren't crew, they are an equal branch.
This is just so lame. If the congress was mostly democrats, they would solely be the puppets of Obama.
Their should never be a majority. It should always be 50/50. Thats just another thing that should be changed. There shouldn't ever be a party that does anything it wants or stops government from functioning, basically.
And all these people should be held accountable for their actions. There is no excuse for government, in as bad shape as its ever been in, to be allowed to operate without a budget. Ever. We've been without one for I think 5 years now. I don't thing Bush had one his final year, or maybe even 2 years. Thats just irresponsible.
We just have to get these lifers out of congress somehow. We need terms for them. OK, I'll hush about that. I've said it enough, I know.
It's worse than that. We not only allow one house to control every item of the legislative agenda, we allow a minority party, with as few as 40% of the membership, to stop any legislation at all that they don't like. In that sense, since 2010, Republicans have controlled both the House (with a majority of the members) and the Senate. And in fact, Scott Brown got in in 2009, so Obama had less than a year with the Congress and Senate both willing to vote on anything.
You bitch about it, yet you vote for Republicans. You reward their bad behavior, then talk of how horrible it is, and how they should be termed out. Really? How many non-incumbents did you vote for? Just Romney?
charger — Oct 29, 2012It's worse than that. We not only allow one house to control every item of the legislative agenda, we allow a minority party, with as few as 40% of the membership, to stop any legislation at all that they don't like. In that sense, since 2010, Republicans have controlled both the House (with a majority of the members) and the Senate. And in fact, Scott Brown got in in 2009, so Obama had less than a year with the Congress and Senate both willing to vote on anything.
You bitch about it, yet you vote for Republicans. You reward their bad behavior, then talk of how horrible it is, and how they should be termed out. Really? How many non-incumbents did you vote for? Just Romney?
Half the Romney ticket is a lifer who led the call to blow our credit rating...
charger — Oct 29, 2012It's worse than that. We not only allow one house to control every item of the legislative agenda, we allow a minority party, with as few as 40% of the membership, to stop any legislation at all that they don't like. In that sense, since 2010, Republicans have controlled both the House (with a majority of the members) and the Senate. And in fact, Scott Brown got in in 2009, so Obama had less than a year with the Congress and Senate both willing to vote on anything.
You bitch about it, yet you vote for Republicans. You reward their bad behavior, then talk of how horrible it is, and how they should be termed out. Really? How many non-incumbents did you vote for? Just Romney?
Bitching about what republicans did or is doing isn't really relative to to my point. The democrats would have done the same thing, possibly, if the role's were reversed. Yeah, these republicans are guilty, but at some point the democrats will likely do the same to republicans.
So by voting for Obama, did I reward democrats bad behavior? Or, just the good behavior? Thats a ridiculous claim or accusation. My reason for voting for Romney is laid out, and very much off gut feeling that he will spur our economy within a year or so.
Why do you defend Obama so stubbornly? Do you want 4 more years of stagnation? Yes, because of Congress, so do you? If Romney can actually take some action, and get things going, do something, why wouldn't you give the guy a chance? Give America a chance? Why would you vote for someone you know can't get things done? Just saying. You think we can afford 4 more years without taking the time to draw up a budget and get one passed? Don't you think we deserve to see where our money's going sweet and simple like? Come on man. There is no excuse for for not having a budget. I'm sorry. Not for 4 damn years dude.
I'm not judging anyone for voting for Obama. I'm not against him. Just have a feeling a repub can get action right now.
Hookbender — Oct 30, 2012 ...why wouldn't you... Give America a chance?
I know, c'mon Charger... heh heh
Hook,
Was there no budget?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/zelizer-congress-polarization/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
360 filibusters since 2007 by the minority party (Republicans) in the Senate. No, Democrats have never come close to that, and never would. They at least operate with a sense of decency, that they are in Congress to pass laws. The Republicans have adopted the mantra of, "if it's not exactly our agenda, we will spoil the whole thing."
This is what I love, when people say "I'm sure Democrats would do the same thing." Democrats have not, and wouldn't. You're just giving yourself an out to not hold Republicans responsible. If you vote for Republicans because you think that Democrats are just as bad, you have not studied the facts, or read your history. You are allowing yourself to be blind and steered whichever way the idiots choose, and you're doing it willingly.
Just don't talk to me about how the Dems are just as bad. They are cleary not.
In all fairness here Charger, you also choose to get steered in a particular direction based on the source of information. We all make an asserted effort to stay informed, but we only like the news if its painted the color we like to read it in. CNN and Washington Post are liberal leaning media outlets, perhaps not quite as far out there as say MSNBC, but certainly not what I would call unbiased either. You are drawn to them because they present the news in a way that caters to your views. Do you really believe the republicans are being defiant on the senate floor because they don't want our country to move forward? Or are you at least open to the possibility that they continue to conduct filibusters based on the fact that the democrats aren't listening to anything they say? It's easy for us to come to the conclusion that the republicans are just being assholes, but we don't know the facts of WHY they are being assholes... If they have presented one compromise after another, and made numerous suggestions on how to make a certain bill more palatable for all involved, but the democrats move forward in an all or nothing strategy to push their agenda and ignore the republicans, I have to say I think I would filibuster the movement also. It's not cool to get bullied, and when your getting pushed into the corner, you're gonna do what you can to stop from getting bullied.
None of what I just said is based on fact, just a possible scenario of why the GOP senators have taken to the tactics they've been using as of late. I personally don't like listening to any media outlet and taking what they say as gospel. I like to absorb it all and decide for myself what's going on. Somewhere in the middle of MSNBC and FOX lies the truth. We have to be smart enough to take them all with a grain of salt, because no matter where you get your story from, they are always leaving out vital information...
I, unfortunately (?), end up watching too much of all of them on a daily basis. It is often what isn't said. The pubs said they wanted failure. Tried their best to work on things, draw them out, and bail when their stuff was adopted. Didn't support things time after time that they had proposed in the past.
As self serving and big money serving as they could be in the face of big money caused big problems. I never saw a sincere effort on their part at any time in the last four years. Maybe "smart politics" but I can't vote for it.
Fox and MSNBC aren't exactly the same, just as the two parties aren't the same as charger said. One side has shown itself willing to go much lower than the other. At least, in my opinion...
Unfortunately, most of what we go on anymore is opinions. Not that yours is wrong, or right for that matter... But it is yours.
My opinion is that I can't believe that any elected official would stoop to such acts in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Senate without being provoked. I just don't buy it...I have to believe that there is a lot more to that storyline than we are getting from any media source, and without engaging with senators directly to find out what's going on behind the scenes, all we have is our opinions...
Puts the voters in a pretty precarious position, in my opinion ;)
It is mostly the frumpy editorial guy the station used to disavow the opinion of, now. The information is pretty similar across the board with FOX getting mil/CIA leaks first. The difference is the repeat of the lie and what's left out. The senators speak in their own words on a daily basis, when they're working that is, or at least the cast of them that goes out. They have made themselves pretty clear all along.
How much of it is just theater?
With all due respect, your argument, Dave, as well-reasoned as it sounds, is not an argument for these times. These are not well-intentioned, reasonable Republicans we are dealing with here. This is the Senate of Mitch McConnell, who said on day one, "our agenda is to make sure Obama is a one-term president."
That's what he set out to do, and if he succeeds, and the Republicans are essentially rewarded for fucking the country over to get their way, that sets a horrible precedent for our politics.
As for "compromise"? Obama definitely worked as hard at compromise with this group as anyone should ever have to work. Read up on why the "grand bargain" failed... a massive "compromise" worked out between Obama and John Boehner that was agreed on in principle, then Boehner took it to his House, and realized that he couldn't even get minimum votes for it, because it was endorsed by Obama--not even particularly because of its content. I will leave that to you to look into. As far as the Republicans having legitimate arguments for legislation? yes, they might. For 360 pieces of legislation? No, that sounds like they are just assholes. Sorry. There's no good argument for their behavior at this point... unless it works.
One thing I find particularly galling--not that newspaper endorsements matter in a presidential race--but the number of endorsements that say "the Congress wouldn't work with Obama, but they might work with Romney." That's Mitch McConnell, winning big time right there. That's the party of "no" saying, we will only work with a president who we choose.
I'm not saying Republicans are all bad. But right now, most of them look terrible to me. I can't respect legislators who would discard their free will upon election, and hand their votes off to the Grover Norquist tax pledge, or who would just blanket vote as a block against everything proposed or endorsed by a Democrat. That just implies a level of automaton that isn't healthy or productive. Why even elect PEOPLE to those seats? Why not just elect a robotic blanket Republican vote--then have it vote with the party on everything, and never vote for anything sponsored by a Democrat? There's no difference. At least some of the Democrats have crossed ranks in their voting in the last 4 years. I challenge you to find one Republican who has since Scott Brown took office.
I'm not alone in this thinking:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/22/why_a_romney_win_would_be_bad_for_america/
http://www.newser.com/story/156227/electing-mitt-would-reward-bad-behavior.html
And this one--a letter endorsing Mitt Romney, to the Salt Lake Tribune, says it best:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54881744-82/romney-obama-republicans-issues.html.csp
... if Romney is president, hell propose solutions, which then will have to be moderated to get enough Democratic support to pass them. And as we have learned, Democrats are willing to compromise; Republicans arent.
I know this solution rewards Republicans for appallingly bad behavior, but I dont see any other way forward.
Several newspaper endorsements of Romney have said the same this year--the Republicans won't work with Obama, so they endorse Romney.
That's a cynical, and shitty, degradation of our electoral process. And yes, I blame Republicans. Because they ARE to blame.
You may be alone in your political insanity. You just don't get it. The vote for President isn't a vote for President. The President isn't anything but a puppet of the leading party, the majority. So a vote against the majority is a vote for stagnation. Today, you vote for action and hope the actions taken are favorable to the entire country. That won't happen. You'll return to a state of anger at first, then depression. Then you look for more facts, and find more depression, or persuade yourself with reading that is pleasing to the ear at the time. You fail. Then it starts over again. The whole time you scream about how we need to help people who sit on a porch all day drinking or have a mental problem that hasn't been fixed yet or even discovered even though they have been in jail 8 times prior to the killing the person they killed in which we will have to pay 40k a year to put in jail for life when we should have noticed that at age 14 he beat his teacher with a yardstick because he got a math problem wrong. All the money the government gives to people in need that is spent on drugs and cigarettes at $5.00 a pack is just fucking sick. Now they make it easier to spend the money by the swipe of a card..... that cost money as well.
Our system is so fucked up its embarrassing. Top to bottom. The fix is in a term for congress. And, a good ass whipping for good ole Nancy P. Bitch. She sickens me. ;D
Nancee says some dopee stuff...but dopier than Virginia Foxx?
I don't think Nancy Pelosi is as bad as you think she is. But you probably hear a lot of crap from Fox News. I also don't think John Boehner is as bad as he appears. I bet he's as unhappy as anyone that he finally ascended to the speakership right when the tea party lunacy took hold of his party. I don't think there's any joy in his job when he can't get 50 votes out of his party for stuff he actually supports.
As for me being alone in my thinking, Obama's going to get right around 50% of the vote, give or take a point or two. probably somewhere around 65 million votes. And the entire rant you just spewed which is, I think, about how poor insane people are spending money like kings on welfare on drugs, is frankly about 20 years out of date. That worked in 1984, and is just lame in 2012.
No Charger, I see the shit everyday at work. I visit c-stores everyday and see people buying cartons and packs of ciggs with their cards in 6 different states. I don't think the poor are living like kings, I think they use my tax money for unintended purpose and frankly, it pisses me the fuck off. Especially when they walk 3 miles to the store to get them but don't lift a finger to find employment. Or, quit looking, as they say. Wasted money.
I have 600 bucks every 2 weeks come out of my check for taxes for some lazy fuck to be able to buy ciggs and beer and live in a house of some sort for free. Every city should have busses to pick people up and bring them to work somewhere for the money they receive, if they are able. They could pick up trash off highways and make the criminals stay behind bars. Send the fuckers up north to help clean up after the storm, etc. Many things we could do with these people other than just give and give and give and get nothing in return. This isn't some crazy idea, we almost do that with city transportation already. The people usually have jobs though and can afford the quarter to be driven across town. :D
Who d'ya think keeps those stores' lights on? You? heh heh
So, you believe in welfare, but not freedom of choice? You think that people should get welfare if they can't get work, to live on, but you want to choose what they can do with the money? MORE regulation? Doesn't sound like you agree with the guy you voted for.
down that road lies:
regulating whether they can buy soda, so they don't get fat, get diabetes, and become a strain on our system.
regulating what food products companies can sell
regulating when liquor stores can sell beer, and to whom
ultimately, prohibition.
If that's what you support, it's news to me, and probably to you too.
But that's all beside the point. You act as if Obama invented social welfare? Or made the people you see make bad choices with the money? Obama didn't invent welfare, or food stamps. And you're more than willing to blame the people who buy beer and cigarettes with their welfare money, but do you give a crap at all that companies are allowed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising, to get people to buy products that are so addictive that in the end they will spend every last cent they have on those products over food?
Because either you believe in freedom of choice, and freedom from regulation (as Romney does), which leads to what you have now--the poor spending every cent on their addictions. Or you believe that someone else (e.g. government) should make those decisions for you--a somewhat liberal position, a la Bloomberg in NYC.
charger — Oct 31, 2012So, you believe in welfare, but not freedom of choice? You think that people should get welfare if they can't get work, to live on, but you want to choose what they can do with the money? MORE regulation? Doesn't sound like you agree with the guy you voted for.
down that road lies:
regulating whether they can buy soda, so they don't get fat, get diabetes, and become a strain on our system.
regulating what food products companies can sell
regulating when liquor stores can sell beer, and to whom
ultimately, prohibition.
If that's what you support, it's news to me, and probably to you too.
But that's all beside the point. You act as if Obama invented social welfare? Or made the people you see make bad choices with the money? Obama didn't invent welfare, or food stamps. And you're more than willing to blame the people who buy beer and cigarettes with their welfare money, but do you give a crap at all that companies are allowed to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising, to get people to buy products that are so addictive that in the end they will spend every last cent they have on those products over food?
Because either you believe in freedom of choice, and freedom from regulation (as Romney does), which leads to what you have now--the poor spending every cent on their addictions. Or you believe that someone else (e.g. government) should make those decisions for you--a somewhat liberal position, a la Bloomberg in NYC.
I wouldn't care what they did with their money if it were earned by them in some way. The money they receive is for food shelter, and clothing. Not ciggs, beer, drugs, cigars, wrapping papers, and bic lighters. I also think they should provide receipts for everything they purchase. I bet you don't like that do you? Yeah, I think their spending in general should be monitored. If they don't like the rules they can get a job. I'd be willing to bet that most able people, if working, would make more than what they get from the government. At very least, an equal amount working part time jobs. I know that sounds real harsh to you.
No. I don't give a crap about companies advertising their products. And I do believe that a person at some point that smokes ciggs, at some point, made a sane decision to purchase a pack of smokes and smoke them. Not at gun point. And they knew that the ciggs were not in anyway needed, good for you, or cured cancer and gas problems. I also know a person can stop smoking. They can stop when it cost them $30 or $40 a week if they smoke 1 pack a day that they can't afford. They also have free water. They don't really need cokes, but whatever, right? And I'm not blaming Obama for that. Or welfare.
I do believe in freedom of choice, depends on regulation. I don't want government making decisions for me, an asset to the government, but I don't mind the government requiring tax payers money that is free for these people, to be spent only on the essentials..... a liability. This isn't their money they are spending. It's not like your taking rights away from them.
It appears that "if they don't like the rules, they can get a job" doesn't apply. Because they can't get jobs. They either live in places that have very few jobs, or they have very low skills or education. If you have a college degree, your employment rate is under 5%--you have a 19 in 20 chance of having a job. If you haven't graduated from high school, your employment rate is over 14%, and if you do have a job, you make less than half the amount of money.
Investment in education would make use all richer.
Holly shit. Where are you getting your figures from? 19 in 20 chance of getting a job if you have a degree???? I call bullshit on that. Make that horse shit.
The fact of the matter is that college isn't a sure bet. A lot of people end up working in a field that has nothing to do with their studies. Some also end up working jobs they are overqualified for or in other words, take a less paying job in a field they didn't study to enter.
Nothing, and I do mean nothing, can replace good ole hard work. Old fashion bust your ass to make it hard work. Working 2 or more part time jobs and you can make it. Or, you can sit on your ass with your hand out.
I do agree that education is very important, but not for the sole purpose of finding employment. And in case you haven't noticed, kinda like congress and Obama, we don't have any money to invest in any damn thing. So, thats off the table. We need to invest our time into getting out of this massive debt we have and learn from our mistakes for a change. Our government needs to quit spending money and politics shouldn't be a career for anyone.
Hookbender — Nov 03, 2012Holly shit. Where are you getting your figures from? 19 in 20 chance of getting a job if you have a degree???? I call bullshit on that. Make that horse shit.
Umm... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
Dude, even republiCANT's--hell, even Mitt Romney himself, know this to be true. You could have googled it too. You have under 5% unemployment if you have a college degree, under 4% with a master's degree, 2.5% if you have a professional or doctorate degree. And you also make a lot more money.
These facts are not in dispute. I mean, I assume you have a degree, and a job too? Also, if got a college degree, you're probably not too stupid to read this chart, and you're probably smart enough to have googled this yourself, instead of calling bullshit on something just because months of negative bullshit from Faux News and the Romney campaign have led you to believe there are no jobs, and everything's going to hell.
Facts, my friend, matter.
charger — Nov 04, 2012[quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/25#37 date=1351974641]Holly shit. Where are you getting your figures from? 19 in 20 chance of getting a job if you have a degree???? I call bullshit on that. Make that horse shit.
Umm... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
Dude, even republiCANT's--hell, even Mitt Romney himself, know this to be true. You could have googled it too. You have under 5% unemployment if you have a college degree, under 4% with a master's degree, 2.5% if you have a professional or doctorate degree. And you also make a lot more money.
These facts are not in dispute. I mean, I assume you have a degree, and a job too? Also, if got a college degree, you're probably not too stupid to read this chart, and you're probably smart enough to have googled this yourself, instead of calling bullshit on something just because months of negative bullshit from Faux News and the Romney campaign have led you to believe there are no jobs, and everything's going to hell.
Facts, my friend, matter.
Where? Certainly NO WHERE that I know of... In fact, many of us up here with degrees are EXACTLY the ones out of work (unless you're counting working every side job we can just to survive). From 1992 thru 2003 the
worst I did was $164k, the best was over $300k. Now, I'm LUCKY to get $500 a month (and making up the difference by selling everything I have).
I've got prior fellow employees in So. California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Nevada and Massachusetts that have all called ME looking for jobs. Up here in Oregon and Washington there loads of educated people out of work - there's no middle class any more. Maybe your facts are all fucked up because most of us are NOT in them. I never qualified for unemployment and many others have had theirs and are no longer eligible. Also, working for $9 an hour is considered being employed by the Government even if that person used to make $60 to $80 an hour previously.
So. Out of all the folks that lost their homes, wonder how many of them had degrees? And wonder if the amount of debt acquired to get that degree is considered in your making more money claim? Lol
And why would I believe the government in the first place? Do you really think with the economy in the shape it's in now , graduates are gonna find jobs ? To the tune of 19 out of 20? Only in very few fields, like medical field, maybe.
This seems more realistic and certainly more relevant.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/
CraigBert — Nov 04, 2012[quote author=charger link=1351211112/25#38 date=1352001012][quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/25#37 date=1351974641]Holly shit. Where are you getting your figures from? 19 in 20 chance of getting a job if you have a degree???? I call bullshit on that. Make that horse shit.
Umm... from the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
Dude, even republiCANT's--hell, even Mitt Romney himself, know this to be true. You could have googled it too. You have under 5% unemployment if you have a college degree, under 4% with a master's degree, 2.5% if you have a professional or doctorate degree. And you also make a lot more money.
These facts are not in dispute. I mean, I assume you have a degree, and a job too? Also, if got a college degree, you're probably not too stupid to read this chart, and you're probably smart enough to have googled this yourself, instead of calling bullshit on something just because months of negative bullshit from Faux News and the Romney campaign have led you to believe there are no jobs, and everything's going to hell.
Facts, my friend, matter.
Where? Certainly NO WHERE that I know of... In fact, many of us up here with degrees are EXACTLY the ones out of work (unless you're counting working every side job we can just to survive). From 1992 thru 2003 the
worst I did was $164k, the best was over $300k. Now, I'm LUCKY to get $500 a month (and making up the difference by selling everything I have).
I've got prior fellow employees in So. California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Nevada and Massachusetts that have all called ME looking for jobs. Up here in Oregon and Washington there loads of educated people out of work - there's no middle class any more. Maybe your facts are all fucked up because most of us are NOT in them. I never qualified for unemployment and many others have had theirs and are no longer eligible. Also, working for $9 an hour is considered being employed by the Government even if that person used to make $60 to $80 an hour previously.
Craig, you chose your path. You had a lucrative career in programming, that you gave up to become a real estate speculator, if I remember correctly. The bottom fell out of the real estate market. That part sucks for a lot of people, not just you.
But you know as well as I do that you can't sit in Vancouver, Washington, waiting for tech to magically become hot there. It's not going to happen. There are plenty of places where tech is very hot. There's lots of hiring going on in Silicon Valley, Austin, Texas, the government corridor in Reston, Virginia, even in the South. There are tons of tech jobs, but they're not going to come to you.
We hire a lot of developers. As I've mentioned,we have such a hard time hiring developers that many we hire are on H1-B visas. I see the postings for these in my lunchroom every week. These are not $9 an hour jobs. These typically pay $120-160k. As for hiring in Washington, my company (which is based in Seattle) has a hardware group in Spokane. Over the last three years we've started moving the group to San Jose. Our VP of engineering has a saying--"we know all the hardware engineers in Spokane, and we've already hired all the good ones". There's a wealth of tech talent here, and good engineers have their pick of places to work. Companies like mine are paying employees $3-5k for every engineer they bring in. We can't fill all the jobs we have, and we're not the only company in this position.
You say there's no middle class in Washington or Oregon, as of 2010 the average wage in Washington state was $49,354. $9/hr is $18,720. In Oregon, it's around $40k (but for information workers in Oregon, it's $62.9k). That sounds like there is a thriving middle class to me. In California, average wage is 51.9k. Median wage for a software engineer is $82.9k, for a senior software engineer it's $102,273. I know from experience wages in my area are higher than that. But in any case, none of these are $9/hr jobs.
I can't speak for what other compelling qualities your area has, but I know there are jobs and decent wages out there. The days of expecting them to be right where you want to be have been gone for a long time. I stand by the stats from the BLS--you've got a very good chance of having a job if you have a college degree. Certainly much better than your chance with no degree, or without graduating from high school.
Hookbender — Nov 05, 2012So. Out of all the folks that lost their homes, wonder how many of them had degrees? And wonder if the amount of debt acquired to get that degree is considered in your making more money claim? Lol
And why would I believe the government in the first place? Do you really think with the economy in the shape it's in now , graduates are gonna find jobs ?
Yes, I do. If they want them.
To the tune of 19 out of 20?
Yes.
Only in very few fields, like medical field, maybe.
Oh? What about information technology? What about law? There are lots of fields that hire.
This seems more realistic and certainly more relevant.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/
We could certainly get into a discussion about current youth culture and the expectation of entitlement that accompanies it--among a lot of these kids, their expectation is that a job should be handed to them after they graduate from college. Hell, it took me six months to get a job myself out of college. If you are in the right field, present yourself well, and have the rights skills, yes, there are jobs. If you grew up feeling entitled because you're middle class, mom and dad took care of everything for you your whole life, and you think that working in technology means knowing how to use Facebook and Twitter (and yes, I've interviewed grads recently who thought that qualified them to work in technology) then you are in for a rude awakening. I interviewed 7 new grads for our entry level position this year, and 5 of them felt like they just needed to show up, hadn't done their homework on the company, had poor interviewing skills, ran the gamut of crappy. One of them came to the interview in a T-shirt. But I also interviewed two grads in the last two months who were so awesome we had a really tough time choosing between them, and we hired one of them for an entry-level job that pays 80k a year, and recommended the other to another company who hired her. Graduating from college doesn't guarantee you a job. But if you have a college degree, you have a lot higher chance of being employed. The statistics don't lie.
19 out of 20 chance..... very doubtful. That's my point. At least one of them. Another is that government stats are very questionable, in my opinion.
If you make 50k a year, even 40k, that isn't exactly suffering.
Hookbender — Nov 06, 201219 out of 20 chance..... very doubtful. That's my point. At least one of them. Another is that government stats are very questionable, in my opinion.
And we all know you're an expert. :)
If you make 50k a year, even 40k, that isn't exactly suffering.
It is if you're living in a place with a very high cost of living.
Perspective... :)
Tripper
I can't help you if you don't believe the numbers tracked by the government. They're the only source. If we're not going to use facts and statistics in this discussion, then we can just do the classic argument. I'll go down to my work, and tell you that everyone looks like they have jobs, and they all make over 100k. And you can tell me that everyone around you looks like only a few people have jobs, and they're making $9 an hour, and we can both then believe that those are the "facts."
Tripper — Nov 06, 2012[quote author=Hookbender link=1351211112/25#43 date=1352170095]19 out of 20 chance..... very doubtful. That's my point. At least one of them. Another is that government stats are very questionable, in my opinion.
And we all know you're an expert. :)
If you make 50k a year, even 40k, that isn't exactly suffering.
It is if you're living in a place with a very high cost of living.
Perspective... :)
Tripper
I never claimed to be an expert and your post at times claims you to be an ass hole. Your damn sure not an expert.
If your suffering making 50k a year, fucking time to move. If you don't move, don't bitch. It's choice.
You sit here and tell me there is a 19 in 20 chance in getting a job with a college education is bullshit and you know it. I, 'll tell you there is a 100% chance of getting a job with effort.
P
charger — Nov 06, 2012I can't help you if you don't believe the numbers tracked by the government. They're the only source. If we're not going to use facts and statistics in this discussion, then we can just do the classic argument. I'll go down to my work, and tell you that everyone looks like they have jobs, and they all make over 100k. And you can tell me that everyone around you looks like only a few people have jobs, and they're making $9 an hour, and we can both then believe that those are the "facts."
Not worth a response.
I hate to say it, buddy, you're starting to sound like those folks on Fox News who have such a hard time accepting facts lately. A little factual and scientific reasoning goes a long way. If you have a way to disprove that the unemplyement rate for college graduates is under 5%, I'd love to hear it. Your main argument is "that doesn't sound right to me." That's not science or fact, that's your preconceived notion of the facts on the ground coloring your interpretation of the facts. Kind of like, living in North Carolina, you probably thought everybody hated Obama and he'd lose the election for sure.
charger — Nov 08, 2012I hate to say it, buddy, you're starting to sound like those folks on Fox News who have such a hard time accepting facts lately. A little factual and scientific reasoning goes a long way. If you have a way to disprove that the unemplyement rate for college graduates is under 5%, I'd love to hear it. Your main argument is "that doesn't sound right to me." That's not science or fact, that's your preconceived notion of the facts on the ground coloring your interpretation of the facts. Kind of like, living in North Carolina, you probably thought everybody hated Obama and he'd lose the election for sure.
I can't disprove something anymore the I can prove a negative.
I''ve told you why I voted for Romney. I don't feel that bad because Obama won. It just means we''ll have twice the debt we have now at least in 4 years if we can even figure that with no budget for 4 more years. You amaze me . How can anyone be so arrogant as to ask for a vote and can't perform one of the most basic obligations of office. And apparently, many people just ignore that shit. No wonder we have a debt problem. Ignorance.