Not good for Romney

blackredyellow

pandora wrote:

Zoso wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I'm sure a single mother of 3 working two jobs and struggling to feed her kids so they don't go hungry would get a kick out of you saying she should be happy because she is working hard. Sounds real joyful.

yes working hard as a millionaire is a lot different to working out on minimum wage with 2 or 3 jobs. a lot more satisfaction if you get something out of it. every seen death of a salesmen.. similar point.

Do you think a millionaire is more rewarded for their hard work than an average hard working person?
We might have different ideas of what rewards are in life.

Success is not measured by the amount of money in the bank.
I bet that Mom knows this and is quite happy after all.

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

The value of hard work is common sense really

I don't think I could disagree with this more. Sure it is to us. You are not born with values though, you learn them. And for our uneducated poor, many of them have never seen someone work hard, they have never met someone in their personal lives who has an education nor seen what hard work can get them. They grow up knowing nothing aside from what they are taught, which is fucking nothing. They are born into poverty, into drug addiction, into rat infested slums with no opportunity at all. No shot in life what so ever. And we expect them to just pick them selves up and work hard. Come on.

How the hell do we expect the cycle of poverty to change if we can't offer a decent education to our poor? How do we expect people to value education and hard work if they have never seen anyone in their life work hard and get anywhere?

There is no industry in our cities anymore. NONE. The days of working class in urban factories is gone. We offer our poor NOTHING. No shot at what was historically their only way out of poverty, no industrial labor and no educational opportunities.

It's so fucking condescening to tell someone to just work hard. Go visit North Philly and tell them to just work hard. What a fucking crock of shit.

And just to add. This is not me disagreeing that hard work and personal responsibility are the most important aspect to our country. They clearly are but you don't just pop out of the womb and say, let's go to work.

EdsonNascimento

pandora wrote:

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:

Zoso

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...

boogie on

generally the free market idea which is romney's center piece rewards people and lauds therm for making money and the people that don't are the losers.. the ones who make less money or the poor have a negative stigma as lazy or dependent, no credibility and less say on how things are run in the world.. a person who works 3 jobs and still barely makes is too busy and stressed to get any rewards.. on the other hand a millionaire may be busy but in a different less stressed way as they know their family will eat that night.

inlet13

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...

boogie on

generally the free market idea which is romney's center piece rewards people and lauds therm for making money and the people that don't are the losers.. the ones who make less money or the poor have a negative stigma as lazy or dependent, no credibility and less say on how things are run in the world.. a person who works 3 jobs and still barely makes is too busy and stressed to get any rewards.. on the other hand a millionaire may be busy but in a different less stressed way as they know their family will eat that night.

Romney's ideas aren't free market, bro.

peacefrompaul

inlet13 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...

boogie on

generally the free market idea which is romney's center piece rewards people and lauds therm for making money and the people that don't are the losers.. the ones who make less money or the poor have a negative stigma as lazy or dependent, no credibility and less say on how things are run in the world.. a person who works 3 jobs and still barely makes is too busy and stressed to get any rewards.. on the other hand a millionaire may be busy but in a different less stressed way as they know their family will eat that night.

Romney's ideas aren't free market, bro.

Agreed

EdsonNascimento

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...

boogie on

generally the free market idea which is romney's center piece rewards people and lauds therm for making money and the people that don't are the losers.. the ones who make less money or the poor have a negative stigma as lazy or dependent, no credibility and less say on how things are run in the world.. a person who works 3 jobs and still barely makes is too busy and stressed to get any rewards.. on the other hand a millionaire may be busy but in a different less stressed way as they know their family will eat that night.

So you don't think there are business owners that make a million that worry about their company b/c they are now not only supporting their family, they are supporting every family of every employee? And that that stress is 100 times worse than the guy who does his job, gets decent pay, goes home and enjoys his life? Why is everything looked at in such extremes?

You folks really do have a negative view on humans. And an even worse view on those that can actually achieve that level of success (I know - they all had some sort of unfair advantage and we should take, take, take). They weren't born smart and made good decisions. They were just luckier than the next guy. Either that or we should not reward the person that is smart and makes good decisions. We should reward the ones that make poor decisions. That's how progress is done. The guy that invented the square wheel should have been rewarded the same as the guy that made it round.

Zoso

inlet13 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...




Romney's ideas aren't free market, bro.

being serious.. what is his main economic idea in that case?

Zoso

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Zoso wrote:

pandora wrote:

:wave: Happiest of Friday evenings all ...

boogie on

generally the free market idea which is romney's center piece rewards people and lauds therm for making money and the people that don't are the losers.. the ones who make less money or the poor have a negative stigma as lazy or dependent, no credibility and less say on how things are run in the world.. a person who works 3 jobs and still barely makes is too busy and stressed to get any rewards.. on the other hand a millionaire may be busy but in a different less stressed way as they know their family will eat that night.

So you don't think there are business owners that make a million that worry about their company b/c they are now not only supporting their family, they are supporting every family of every employee? And that that stress is 100 times worse than the guy who does his job, gets decent pay, goes home and enjoys his life? Why is everything looked at in such extremes?

You folks really do have a negative view on humans. And an even worse view on those that can actually achieve that level of success (I know - they all had some sort of unfair advantage and we should take, take, take). They weren't born smart and made good decisions. They were just luckier than the next guy. Either that or we should not reward the person that is smart and makes good decisions. We should reward the ones that make poor decisions. That's how progress is done. The guy that invented the square wheel should have been rewarded the same as the guy that made it round.

I'm not saying people who make a lot of money don't have issues but surely someone who has 3 jobs on the and on the verge of getting kicked out of the rental.. or living in their car has a lot more?

I'm not saying at all that I support communism where everyone is equal sure I support the right for anyone to go out and make anything of themselves but it's a rigged system.. not everyone can just go out and make a million dollars and that's not right to me anyhow.. especially when the millionaires blame the poor for being where they are.. that's not right at all.

their will always be people on the bottom but the idea of how to help these people has to change.

inlet13

Zoso wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Romney's ideas aren't free market, bro.

being serious.. what is his main economic idea in that case?

I'd say his ideas are slightly to the right of Obama's. That's about it. Don't need to rehash all of his plans, or lack thereof.

They aren't free market though. Look up the definition, if you'd like. Mitt Romney is not a free-market guy. Not saying Obama is either - for sure.

blackredyellow

EdsonNascimento wrote:

pandora wrote:

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?

Zoso

inlet13 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Romney's ideas aren't free market, bro.

being serious.. what is his main economic idea in that case?

I'd say his ideas are slightly to the right of Obama's. That's about it. Don't need to rehash all of his plans, or lack thereof.

They aren't free market though. Look up the definition, if you'd like. Mitt Romney is not a free-market guy. Not saying Obama is either - for sure.

ok fair enough..

Cliffy6745

Zoso wrote:

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.

whygohome

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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.

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.

comebackgirl

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

Cliffy6745

whygohome wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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.

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 dig that big time. :thumbup:

norm

whygohome wrote:

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.

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:

PJ_Soul

blackredyellow wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

pandora wrote:

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!

PJ_Soul

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Zoso wrote:

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?

whygohome

norm wrote:

whygohome wrote:

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.

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.