Then we must get a fairer tax system for all. Lower taxes on business, remove the inheritance
and death tax. With drastically less payroll tax paid by employer and employee
wages can go up and money can return to the economy.
You see? This is where you're missing others' point. I agree with you.
But they basically do not trust the individual AT ALL. They believe the government can do a better job of aportioning money.
They do not believe that if you put more money in a business owner's pocket that they will pass it on to their employees. You do because YOU ARE a business owner and know what you would do. But, they beg to differ and insist your money must be taken from you and given to someone who is not as fortunate (whatever that means) as you. The government will ensure it gets spread fairly. You will not. (Again, whatever fair means).
So, tax, tax, tax. We don't trust the individual business owner. We don't trust the individual to be able to pull themselves up. We trust the gov't.
That's basically what your "opponents" here are trying to get through to you. I agree with you. What they are missing is even if you don't hire more workers or raise wages with your money, you'll do SOMETHING with it. So, as long as you're not saving 100% of of it or sending it off shore (as we all know how rich the business owner making $250K is :roll: ), you are putting SOMETHING back into the economy and at least creating PART of a job.
But, once again - no. You don't know what to do with your money, so we must take it and tell you what to do with it because the government that has spent more money than it has does. :roll: :roll: :roll:
When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
their will always be people on the bottom but the idea of how to help these people has to change.
The unbelievably obvious answer to me is education. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but it is the only way to turn this thing around. And personally, I have no fucking clue how to fix it.
Like I said in another thread. We are building schools in Afghanistan but closing them in Philly. Fucking brilliant.
their will always be people on the bottom but the idea of how to help these people has to change.
The unbelievably obvious answer to me is education. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but it is the only way to turn this thing around. And personally, I have no fucking clue how to fix it.
Like I said in another thread. We are building schools in Afghanistan but closing them in Philly. Fucking brilliant.
Thanks for posting this. That was going to be my contribution to the discussion. People can't self-actualize if their basic needs aren't being met. Setting goals and working hard are important, but supports need to be provided to fill in the gaps for people that don't have those basic supports within their family or their basic support system. How is that mother of 3 going to work full time and go to school if she can't feed herself and her kids? If she doesn't have a safe roof to put over their heads? If they don't have adequate clothing? If they don't have safe daycare? It's important to remember that there are huge disparities of what people have experienced and what they have survived. That is too easily discounted. Romney may have built his business and lived in a basement apartment for a time, but what about the people that are born into abuse? That have no one taking care of their basic needs from the time they are born? These people may have resiliency, determination and a strong work ethic, but some of them need supports that the majority of us just can't even dream of. Give people a fighting chance at least.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
their will always be people on the bottom but the idea of how to help these people has to change.
The unbelievably obvious answer to me is education. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but it is the only way to turn this thing around. And personally, I have no fucking clue how to fix it.
Like I said in another thread. We are building schools in Afghanistan but closing them in Philly. Fucking brilliant.
The point of it is that your side does not have the answer; however, both sides have the answer.
Sorry for the interruption, carry on.
wow that is awesome! more or less my thinking but i've never been able to put it into words
This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends.
Then we must get a fairer tax system for all. Lower taxes on business, remove the inheritance
and death tax. With drastically less payroll tax paid by employer and employee
wages can go up and money can return to the economy.
You see? This is where you're missing others' point. I agree with you.
But they basically do not trust the individual AT ALL. They believe the government can do a better job of aportioning money.
They do not believe that if you put more money in a business owner's pocket that they will pass it on to their employees. You do because YOU ARE a business owner and know what you would do. But, they beg to differ and insist your money must be taken from you and given to someone who is not as fortunate (whatever that means) as you. The government will ensure it gets spread fairly. You will not. (Again, whatever fair means).
So, tax, tax, tax. We don't trust the individual business owner. We don't trust the individual to be able to pull themselves up. We trust the gov't.
That's basically what your "opponents" here are trying to get through to you. I agree with you. What they are missing is even if you don't hire more workers or raise wages with your money, you'll do SOMETHING with it. So, as long as you're not saving 100% of of it or sending it off shore (as we all know how rich the business owner making $250K is :roll: ), you are putting SOMETHING back into the economy and at least creating PART of a job.
But, once again - no. You don't know what to do with your money, so we must take it and tell you what to do with it because the government that has spent more money than it has does. :roll: :roll: :roll:
When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?
It doesn't!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
their will always be people on the bottom but the idea of how to help these people has to change.
The unbelievably obvious answer to me is education. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but it is the only way to turn this thing around. And personally, I have no fucking clue how to fix it.
Like I said in another thread. We are building schools in Afghanistan but closing them in Philly. Fucking brilliant.
Say you did, and the idea is for everyone to "succeed" and make more money. Who will serve our coffee, mop floors, pick up trash, man converyor belts, and do all the other shitty low-paying jobs while all of us roll around in the money we make for being hard working people who don't mooch off the government in order to pay for our health care and help get food on the table? Are the wonderful harder working people with all the education going to start paying their stupid, lazy janitors and factory workers $40k a year with an extra $10k for each child they need to care for?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The point of it is that your side does not have the answer; however, both sides have the answer.
Sorry for the interruption, carry on.
wow that is awesome! more or less my thinking but i've never been able to put it into words
This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends.
:thumbup:
"This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends."
It's all so silly. The lefts premise is actually more insulting to those "down on their luck" than the right.
I think an argument could be made that there are some on the left who could be considered insulting to to the poor- those give a little to assuage their feeling of guilt for being rich and liberal. But I wouldn't characterize the left as a whole that way. I think the same could be said for the right. As for the wealthiest 1%- I can't imagine what they think. I'm guessing they live in another world from the rest of us and have a hard time relating to our world.
Someone (a few pages behind) posted that the government does not trust business owners to do the right thing to its workers. That is why these social programs exist. On the other side of the fence, some have said that we should give the business owners tax breaks, and once they get it they will do the right thing to its workers.
I'm assuming, in Romney's view, that times have changed and businesses and the affluent, will take care of the people and make this economy work again. Personally, I disagree. History has shown that some, not all, big businesses have taken advantage of their workers and have not treated them fairly- have not given them a living wage- and generally hoarded the money. This is how unions and social programs have come about. If the rich really want people off of public assistance, then they would pay them enough so that they can be dependent upon themselves.
There was an article I read- either here or somewhere else- about the heiress of Walmart- she said the wages in Austraila- where the average person makes $15+ per hour- was too high. http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national ... fault.aspx
If the american worker got that, do you think the at the economy would get better and then people could afford their own healthcare, buy goods- in essence- spend money?
edit: I know this is a simplistic view, and there are other social and emotional issues that come into play. As in, if those workers were given the money- would they use that money wisely- that is where education comes about. Home Economics is dying in the schools- and they should definitely bring that back-
When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?
It doesn't!
It's all so silly. The lefts premise is actually more insulting to those "down on their luck" than the right.
I also love the it's rigged theory. So, now you're also insulting those that are successful. Is there anyone the left actually admires?
And the 1980's would be the correct answer to your question. That was also the decade we didn't hate ourselves.
Now off to the lounge car......
Alright, Mr. Long Island. Let's not talk about our "down on their luck", let's talk about our "dirt poor". How, my friend, are tax cuts for Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Dick Fuld and the likes going to give our dirt poor an education or any chance in this life? Come on buddy. I'd love an answer. Or do we on Long Island not give a fuck about them?
You're the insulting motherfuckers that act like having a couple extra bucks in your pocket is somehow going to benefit everyone else. Oh, I may not give my employee a raise, but I will but a new TV and that will stimulate the economy, even if that TV was made in China.
You know what's really silly. Acting like Mitt Romney is actually a legitimate candidate. For all you fuckers swearing a GOP win in 6 weeks, good fucking luck. I have a feel you're gonna need it.
Eddie Vedder rejected Mitt Romney's recent characterization of 47 percent of Americans as people who see themselves as victims who don't pay income taxes. "It's very upsetting to hear a presidential candidate be so easily dismissive of such a ginormous amount of the population," Vedder said yesterday at a fundraiser for President Obama in Tampa, Florida, according to a pool report passed along by The Hollywood Reporter.
Vedder, who played a short set for Obama at the home of singer-songwriter Don Miggs and Lisa DeBartolo (daughter of former San Francisco 49ers owenr Eddie DeBartolo Jr.), shared his own story of how government programs helped him.
"I'm an example of someone who never made it to university," Vedder told the small crowd. "I did have this dream to be a musician. I felt that this dream had an expiration date."
Vedder went on to recall signing up for a government security guard training program, which led to a midnight shift and position as security supervisor at a petroleum company.
"It was that job which allowed me to keep affording to guitars and microphones," the Pearl Jam frontman said. "For me, it all began with that ability to get the proper training for a decent job."
Vedder then introduced President Obama, who thanked the musician. "For you to share that story with us, Eddie, speaks volumes not only about you but about this country," Obama said. "That story captures better than anything what this campaign is about and what this country is about."
Vedder's four-song set on mandolin comprised "Rise," "Without You," a cover of James Taylor's "Millworker" and Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World."
"I can't say I've ever played that many songs in a suit before," Vedder said to the 85 guests, who paid $20,000 each for the dinner event.
I asked on porch and they freaked out and locked the thread, so I'll ask here:
Why does this supervisor security guard at a petroleum company not line up with the Eddie Vedder working as a gas station attendant when he heard back from Stone and Jeff - that I was familiar with? Anyone have ideas?
I asked on porch and they freaked out and locked the thread, so I'll ask here:
Why does this supervisor security guard at a petroleum company not line up with the Eddie Vedder working as a gas station attendant when he heard back from Stone and Jeff - that I was familiar with? Anyone have ideas?
I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I asked on porch and they freaked out and locked the thread, so I'll ask here:
Why does this supervisor security guard at a petroleum company not line up with the Eddie Vedder working as a gas station attendant when he heard back from Stone and Jeff - that I was familiar with? Anyone have ideas?
I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
The point of it is that your side does not have the answer; however, both sides have the answer.
Sorry for the interruption, carry on.
wow that is awesome! more or less my thinking but i've never been able to put it into words
This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends.
:thumbup:
"This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends."
I really dig this sentiment as well.
It''s really fucking fantastic. And the best part of it is, is that it comes from a true conservative. Not the Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Bohener, Mitch McConnell nonsense that is trotted out these days.
It's quite amusing where the GOP has gone in the last couple years. If there was actually a FISCAL conservative, an actual fiscal conservative, there is a very good chance I would vote for them. That doesn't exist anymore though. That is the reason people like David Frum and David Brooks are being ostracized from the party in favor of the Michelle Malkins and Sean Hannitys. It's such complete and utter nonsense, it's unreal. When Jeb Bush is worried about the party, you know you are in trouble.
Come on conservatives, you know the lunatics have taken over, right? Why don't you listen to Frum anymore?
I am pretty sure an unnecessary war with Iran is going to cost a lot more than domestic social programs.
I asked on porch and they freaked out and locked the thread, so I'll ask here:
Why does this supervisor security guard at a petroleum company not line up with the Eddie Vedder working as a gas station attendant when he heard back from Stone and Jeff - that I was familiar with? Anyone have ideas?
I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
I wish I could answer that question. I didn't realize his story had changed. How so? If you mean based on song lyrics, you might want to consider poetic license. Songs are rarely 100% reality based.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
ok fair enough..
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
The unbelievably obvious answer to me is education. It won't be easy and it won't be quick, but it is the only way to turn this thing around. And personally, I have no fucking clue how to fix it.
Like I said in another thread. We are building schools in Afghanistan but closing them in Philly. Fucking brilliant.
I knew this thread reminded me of Brooks' piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/opini ... lism-.html
The point of it is that your side does not have the answer; however, both sides have the answer.
Sorry for the interruption, carry on.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I dig that big time. :thumbup:
wow that is awesome! more or less my thinking but i've never been able to put it into words
:thumbup:
"This agenda is libertarian in the capitalist sector and activist in the human capital sector. Don’t triangulate meekly toward the center; select bold policies from both ends."
I really dig this sentiment as well.
It's all so silly. The lefts premise is actually more insulting to those "down on their luck" than the right.
I also love the it's rigged theory. So, now you're also insulting those that are successful. Is there anyone the left actually admires?
And the 1980's would be the correct answer to your question. That was also the decade we didn't hate ourselves.
Now off to the lounge car......
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I think an argument could be made that there are some on the left who could be considered insulting to to the poor- those give a little to assuage their feeling of guilt for being rich and liberal. But I wouldn't characterize the left as a whole that way. I think the same could be said for the right. As for the wealthiest 1%- I can't imagine what they think. I'm guessing they live in another world from the rest of us and have a hard time relating to our world.
I admire you, EdsonNascimento, because you're a good soul, you're generous and you always toast me in the lounge before you "go back to hating me".
Yeah, the 80's were mostly good. I liked that decade... other than disco! (Well, I kind of liked Blondie ok.)
Yeah, lounge time!
Cheers!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Just stay away from the Ding Dongs and Ho Hos- they gum up the controllers!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm assuming, in Romney's view, that times have changed and businesses and the affluent, will take care of the people and make this economy work again. Personally, I disagree. History has shown that some, not all, big businesses have taken advantage of their workers and have not treated them fairly- have not given them a living wage- and generally hoarded the money. This is how unions and social programs have come about. If the rich really want people off of public assistance, then they would pay them enough so that they can be dependent upon themselves.
There was an article I read- either here or somewhere else- about the heiress of Walmart- she said the wages in Austraila- where the average person makes $15+ per hour- was too high.
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay/national ... fault.aspx
If the american worker got that, do you think the at the economy would get better and then people could afford their own healthcare, buy goods- in essence- spend money?
edit: I know this is a simplistic view, and there are other social and emotional issues that come into play. As in, if those workers were given the money- would they use that money wisely- that is where education comes about. Home Economics is dying in the schools- and they should definitely bring that back-
Alright, Mr. Long Island. Let's not talk about our "down on their luck", let's talk about our "dirt poor". How, my friend, are tax cuts for Warren Buffet, Jamie Dimon, Dick Fuld and the likes going to give our dirt poor an education or any chance in this life? Come on buddy. I'd love an answer. Or do we on Long Island not give a fuck about them?
You're the insulting motherfuckers that act like having a couple extra bucks in your pocket is somehow going to benefit everyone else. Oh, I may not give my employee a raise, but I will but a new TV and that will stimulate the economy, even if that TV was made in China.
You know what's really silly. Acting like Mitt Romney is actually a legitimate candidate. For all you fuckers swearing a GOP win in 6 weeks, good fucking luck. I have a feel you're gonna need it.
I asked on porch and they freaked out and locked the thread, so I'll ask here:
Why does this supervisor security guard at a petroleum company not line up with the Eddie Vedder working as a gas station attendant when he heard back from Stone and Jeff - that I was familiar with? Anyone have ideas?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I can't for the life of me figure out what exactly it is you're asking here, Inlet. One of us has been hanging out in the Lounge Car too long.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
He said in the Obama opening he was a supervisor security guard at a petroleum co. and he received gov't assistance to be one. This is how he got into rock by funding it. I heard he was a gas station attendant. Not a supervisor security guard at an oil company.
Anyone who's familiar with PJ knows the gas station attendant, living in a shack, surfing story that ended with Once, Alive and Footsteps while surfing.
My point is - this doesn't add up. The story is changing. I'm looking for a reason - maybe I'm off somewhere.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It''s really fucking fantastic. And the best part of it is, is that it comes from a true conservative. Not the Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, John Bohener, Mitch McConnell nonsense that is trotted out these days.
It's quite amusing where the GOP has gone in the last couple years. If there was actually a FISCAL conservative, an actual fiscal conservative, there is a very good chance I would vote for them. That doesn't exist anymore though. That is the reason people like David Frum and David Brooks are being ostracized from the party in favor of the Michelle Malkins and Sean Hannitys. It's such complete and utter nonsense, it's unreal. When Jeb Bush is worried about the party, you know you are in trouble.
Come on conservatives, you know the lunatics have taken over, right? Why don't you listen to Frum anymore?
I am pretty sure an unnecessary war with Iran is going to cost a lot more than domestic social programs.
I wish I could answer that question. I didn't realize his story had changed. How so? If you mean based on song lyrics, you might want to consider poetic license. Songs are rarely 100% reality based.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm a 53%er voting for Obama, you must be an idiot armed with only cliches and stereotypes.
emoticon
WOOT
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say. That's not English, right?