Not good for Romney

EdsonNascimento

PJ_Soul wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

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......

PJ_Soul

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

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......

wow, that's a lot of assuming, generalizing, and stereotyping for one post!

chadwick

i'm poor. mitt dislikes me.

comebackgirl

chadwick wrote:

i'm poor. mitt dislikes me.

so you must be a lazy slacker and think you're entitled to......gasp.....food :roll:

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

When exactly has trickle down economics actually worked?

It doesn't!

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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.

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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?

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".

EdsonNascimento wrote:

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......

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!

chadwick

comebackgirl wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i'm poor. mitt dislikes me.

so you must be a lazy slacker and think you're entitled to......gasp.....food :roll:

exactly! i am entitled and i want cheetos & doritos... i game all day on the nintendo

brianlux

chadwick wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

chadwick wrote:

i'm poor. mitt dislikes me.

so you must be a lazy slacker and think you're entitled to......gasp.....food :roll:

exactly! i am entitled and i want cheetos & doritos... i game all day on the nintendo

Just stay away from the Ding Dongs and Ho Hos- they gum up the controllers!

vduboise

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-

Cliffy6745

EdsonNascimento wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

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.

inlet13

ComeToTX wrote:

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?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

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.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

Cliffy6745

whygohome wrote:

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.

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.

Cliffy6745

My best guess would be that a gas station attendant=security guard at a sunoco station.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

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.

usamamasan1

you must be a 47%'er

Cliffy6745

usamamasan1 wrote:

you must be a 47%'er

I'm a 53%er voting for Obama, you must be an idiot armed with only cliches and stereotypes.

usamamasan1

Cliffy6745 wrote:

You're the insulting motherfuckers that act like having a couple extra bucks in your pocket is somehow going to benefit everyone else.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

I'm a 53%er voting for Obama, you must be an idiot armed with only cliches and stereotypes.

you got a long way to go



emoticon


WOOT

brianlux

I'm a 9 1/2 D.

Cliffy6745

usamamasan1 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

You're the insulting motherfuckers that act like having a couple extra bucks in your pocket is somehow going to benefit everyone else.

you got a long way to go at just 53%

emoticon


WOOT

I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say. That's not English, right?