Obama is off the deep end. "Business owners can thank government for their success."

[soonercruiser]

I'll reference your full body of work on this board as extremism. Construing anything he has done as a liberal agenda is far from the truth. Letting health care go as it was wasn't going to do any of us any good. Poorer results at higher costs and the very real chance of an emergency completely bankrupting the individual even with insurance. That does none of us any good. Not that it will do any good debating with you.

Yup! Poorer results and greatly higher costs are what Obama has already gotten us with the ACA!
And, it isn't even fully implemented.
Many, MANY business owners have testified that is what is keeping them from hiring new employees!
Fact!
Are you a healthcare expert?

Obama and his LW ilk had no intention to "fix" the healthcare system for anyone!
Their intent was to have a single-payer system from the very beginning. To not even recognize that is absurd!
The ACA is the first step to putting private heathcare out of business.
Then, no one will have good healthcare.
I know!

You can debate all you want.
But, that doesn't change the facts!

[OU_Sooners75]

Dumb hick you say.....never been called that before. You're not being very creative with your insults, though. I expected more.

Not an insult when true kiddo.

pretty sure you'll report this one too.

damn cry babies!

[marfacowboy]

Not an insult when true kiddo.

pretty sure you'll report this one too.

damn cry babies!

Wow. Another personal attack, and again, not every original. So, I guess when I called a previous post by you "racist," it wasn't an insult since it was true.
Seems to me like I was the first person to be reported, and probably by you, since it was a response to you that was reported.
But this is where it always ends up when people discover they don't have the intellectual mettle for debating the finer points of complex subjects. The final denouement is always the same. It devolves into a playground-like bullying. Puerile stuff third graders enjoy. Pedantic and pitiful. Basically a step ahead of a knuckle-dragging lout.

[olevetonahill]

Wow. Another personal attack, and again, not every original. So, I guess when I called a previous post by you "rracist," it wasn't an insult since it was true.
Seems to me like I was the first person to be reported, and probably by you, since it was a response to you that was reported.
But this is where it always ends up when people discover they don't have the intellectual mettle for debating the finer points of complex subjects. The final denouement is always the same. It devolves into a playground-like bullying. Puerile stuff third graders enjoy. Pedantic and pitiful. Basically a step ahead of a knuckle-dragging lout.

Iffen you got paid by the word Ya would be rich :couple_inlove:

[OU_Sooners75]

We have the greatest military the world has ever seen. You can mail a letter from LA to Jacksonville for less than .50 cents and it will get there in two days. The government saved the country in the 1930's, particularly Oklahoma. My father, a Vet, loves the VA. He needs it and appreciates it. The government saved GM.
It's all about balance. We wouldn't be the country we are today without the government and free enterprise. I'm beginning to think you anti-government people are becoming seditious. Why do you hate America so much?

Come on Einstein...no one is saying they are anti-government or hating America.

This is one thing that separates the US from any other country on the planet. We can have this discussions about our government without fear of reprisal.

Now then...

Lets see if we can get you back on topic.

Name any and all private (or publicly traded) companies that the Government has made successful? And please keep in mind, loaning money or giving big corporations handouts is not running any business. It is purely giving money to businesses as loans or grants to help pay their bills.

Ill be waiting for a list of yours for businesses that became successful solely because of the government.

[OU_Sooners75]

Wow. Another personal attack, and again, not every original. So, I guess when I called a previous post by you "racist," it wasn't an insult since it was true.
Seems to me like I was the first person to be reported, and probably by you, since it was a response to you that was reported.
But this is where it always ends up when people discover they don't have the intellectual mettle for debating the finer points of complex subjects. The final denouement is always the same. It devolves into a playground-like bullying. Puerile stuff third graders enjoy. Pedantic and pitiful. Basically a step ahead of a knuckle-dragging lout.

Go cry to someone that cares... really.

I think you are funny because when someone "attacks you personally" you go running to the "report" button...all the while you make the same attacks while trying to be coy about it.

If you are going to attack someone's character, then be prepared for it to bounce right back at you, son!

Grow a pair and stop acting like a child!

[OU_Sooners75]

But this is where it always ends up when people discover they don't have the intellectual mettle for debating the finer points of complex subjects. The final denouement is always the same. It devolves into a playground-like bullying. Puerile stuff third graders enjoy. Pedantic and pitiful. Basically a step ahead of a knuckle-dragging lout.

oh and a few other things...

1. I don't, nor have I ever, reported a single person here. No need for me to since Dean and Phil read this board almost daily.

2. I have found out in my lifetime when people make a comment such as the one I am quoting here, they are usually the ones lacking in intellect and knowledge.


Oh, and can you please tell me what successful telecommunications company you started?

[olevetonahill]

One can hope.
http://www.it-diy.com/report-this-post.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BXCjk-IDqgs/SayC0s5a32I/AAAAAAAAAkM/Gwkd9t3udsQ/s320/flip-the-bird.jpg

[marfacowboy]

Go cry to someone that cares... really.

I think you are funny because when someone "attacks you personally" you go running to the "report" button...all the while you make the same attacks while trying to be coy about it.

If you are going to attack someone's character, then be prepared for it to bounce right back at you, son!

Grow a pair and stop acting like a child!

I never reported anyone until someone reported me today. And only just to see how the scales of justice balance around this place.

[olevetonahill]

I never reported anyone until someone reported me today.Cause Im a big baby and If Im get in trouble the whole class is gonna get in trouble.

So you are acting like a lil crybaby. :couple_inlove: :loyal:

[marfacowboy]

oh and a few other things...


Oh, and can you please tell me what successful telecommunications company you started?

None of your business. But I started it in 2003 with $2mil in VC dollars. A cloud computing company with Broadsoft in the core, Cisco switching and routing, CLEC licenses in three states. We sold with thousands of subscribers and a very healthy MRR with long term contracts.

You guys can have this place. It's not worth the time,because no one here is really interested in debating points. Gawd forbid anyone change their mind after some research. Why bother.

I'll invite you fellas over at the K-State game.

[okie52]

Guess I better be careful here since the forum owners have cited me for an "infraction of the rules" (I stated a post was racist)....lest I be suspended (oh my oh my, what on earth would I do if I couldn't post here!?)
So, are you saying that when the drilling methods are obviously flawed and don't have adequate safeguards, they should be allowed to continue to operate as usual? Even if it means endangering entire coastlines and the livelihoods of others? Fisherman, restaurant owners, etc.? Just business as usual, although we know business as usual puts the nation's resources at risk?

Drilling methods are flawed ehh? There are thousands of wells in the gulf coast and one major spill in 60 years and offshore drilling should be stopped? Please point out the other countries that stopped offshore drilling after the BP spill. Did it stop Mexico from drilling in the Gulf? Evidently a federal judge didn't share obama's view as it twice ordered him to reopen the gulf or be held in contempt.

Over half of the gulfs economy is tied to oil and gas and BP is going to pay the costs for their spill. How's business in the gulf coast now?

So every plane crash or train derailment has you ready to shut down those industries.

There are risks regarding any energy sources as there to most industries. Pragmatic approaches in most things are the better way rather than some blind adherence to a failed political policy.

[olevetonahill]

None of your business. But I started it in 2003 with $2mil in VC dollars. A cloud computing company with Broadsoft in the core, Cisco switching and routing, CLEC licenses in three states. We sold with thousands of subscribers and a very healthy MRR with long term contracts.

You guys can have this place. It's not worth the time,because no one here is really interested in debating points. Gawd forbid anyone change their mind after some research. Why bother.

I'll invite you fellas over at the K-State game.

Invite us over where?When? Im Busy that day

[OU_Sooners75]

None of your business. But I started it in 2003 with $2mil in VC dollars. A cloud computing company with Broadsoft in the core, Cisco switching and routing, CLEC licenses in three states. We sold with thousands of subscribers and a very healthy MRR with long term contracts.

You guys can have this place. It's not worth the time,because no one here is really interested in debating points. Gawd forbid anyone change their mind after some research. Why bother.

I'll invite you fellas over at the K-State game.

Shoot dude, I am interested in debate...but the problem is, there seems to be people on the other side of my argument that fails to actually understand that the government does not, nor have ever, made successful businesses.


And why not tell the name of the business? I know if I have ever started a successful business I would plaster the name all over the place.

[marfacowboy]

Invite us over where?When? Im Busy that day

I'll do a big tailgate that day. Or, maybe you guys can come over to my place outside of Kenton and ride some horses, do a poetry reading or two and watch some Chomsky videos. Hill, we'll save a side of ribs for you and a cupcake.

[marfacowboy]

And why not tell the name of the business? I know if I have ever started a successful business I would plaster the name all over the place.

I wouldn't dare tell anyone on this forum what my name is. I've seen how treacherous Internet unknowns can be.

I've never said the government made a successful business. I've always stated it's been a partnership between private and public, and when it works well, there's a balance.

[olevetonahill]

I'll do a big tailgate that day. Or, maybe you guys can come over to my place outside of Kenton and ride some horses, do a poetry reading or two and watch some Chomsky videos. Hill, we'll save a side of ribs for you and a cupcake.
I knew you loved me ,

[pphilfran]

Damn...Okie...offshore drilling is very risky business...so risky we loaned a couple bill (US Import/Export Bank)to Brazil...the land of ethanol... so they could develop their coasts...

Who is going to benefit from the new source of crude?

China...though they did trump us with over 10 billion in loans to Petrobras from their China Development Bank...

[okie52]

The discussion is about government regulation and whether it is needed or not. The case is applicable.




So, we therefore don't need any regulation, correct? Everything is fine if you just let private industry go its own way, right?



What part about "balance" don't you understand?



We've had more drilling under Obama than under Bush. That's a fact. You do the math.

The discussion was about private industry harvesting US natural resources therefore the Valdez has nothing to do with offshore drilling.

I never said industry never needed to be regulated but it sure doesn't need to be so restricted that it harms the nation as banning exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is doing.

I'm not sure you have a clue about reality or balance. Using your logic we should give Obama credit for oil production being up even though he has done his best to hamper it (see cap and trade, coasts shut down, trying to remove manufacturing write offs, slow permitting the gulf coast, reduced offshore lease sales to under a one hundredth of what they were in 2008)...he11, while you're at it, let's give Hitler credit for the creation of Israel.

[pphilfran]

Hitler did have a vision that each and every Jew should have their own small plot of land....

[okie52]

Damn...Okie...offshore drilling is very risky business...so risky we loaned a couple bill (US Import/Export Bank)to Brazil...the land of ethanol... so they could develop their coasts...

Who is going to benefit from the new source of crude?

China...though they did trump us with over 10 billion in loans to Petrobras from their China Development Bank...

I'm amazed any country would ever jeopardize it's shoreline with offshore drilling...the risks are just too great. I can only guess that all countries will abandon these imprudent ventures in favor of all of those other "green energy" sources.

[okie52]

Hitler did have a vision that each and every Jew should have their own small plot of land....

LOL...where was that, New York City?

[Skysooner]

Yup! Poorer results and greatly higher costs are what Obama has already gotten us with the ACA!
And, it isn't even fully implemented.
Many, MANY business owners have testified that is what is keeping them from hiring new employees!
Fact!
Are you a healthcare expert?

Obama and his LW ilk had no intention to "fix" the healthcare system for anyone!
Their intent was to have a single-payer system from the very beginning. To not even recognize that is absurd!
The ACA is the first step to putting private heathcare out of business.
Then, no one will have good healthcare.
I know!

You can debate all you want.
But, that doesn't change the facts!

No, I never claimed to be one. The ACA has not "fully been implemented" and yet "Many, Many business owners" have said it would cause them not to hire employees? Ridiculous statements. You can only judge the effects once it has gone in. Single payer or at least government control of costs are what is needed to stop the bleeding. If you don't realize it, this country is in trouble. We have uncontrollable defense and health care costs and runaway spending. Drop the spending and fix what we need to fix. Stop your pontificating and posting right wing rhetoric. It just ticks off the people that actually understand how the world works and aren't tied to a world view that doesn't include any sort of reconciliation. I'm a centrist if you haven't figured it out yet, and we are the majority. Too bad that we don't have a party to represent us. There is NOTHING you can say I will ever take as truth since you have gone on and on posting to every single thread on here to breed your particular brand of hate. There are plenty of people on here that I don't agree with (but respect) like C&C and Olevton, yet I respect the hell of what they say. You unfortunately are not one of those people.

[marfacowboy]

The discussion was about private industry harvesting US natural resources therefore the Valdez has nothing to do with offshore drilling.

I never said industry never needed to be regulated but it sure doesn't need to be so restricted that it harms the nation as banning exploration off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is doing.

I'm not sure you have a clue about reality or balance. Using your logic we should give Obama credit for oil production being up even though he has done his best to hamper it (see cap and trade, coasts shut down, trying to remove manufacturing write offs, slow permitting the gulf coast, reduced offshore lease sales to under a one hundredth of what they were in 2008)...he11, while you're at it, let's give Hitler credit for the creation of Israel.

I'm not giving Obama credit for oil production. I'm very opposed to what he's done. In fact, I'm opposed to a lot of what Obama has done.
Look, we're not ever going to agree on regulation, the role of government, etc. We just have different views on things. And frankly, I'm not sure what we think or want makes any difference anyway.
Most of us just want a decent life for our families, a little vacation, a chance to retire and not be found slumped over our desks. And while we hope and dream of an reasonable, respectable life, politicos on both sides are hell bent on making sure their selfish agendas rule the day, regardless of how much it interferes with the hopes and dreams of thousands upon thousands of ordinary American families.
Good luck, okie.

[olevetonahill]

I'm not giving Obama credit for oil production. I'm very opposed to what he's done. In fact, I'm opposed to a lot of what Obama has done.
Look, we're not ever going to agree on regulation, the role of government, etc. We just have different views on things. And frankly, I'm not sure what we think or want makes any difference anyway.
Most of us just want a decent life for our families, a little vacation, a chance to retire and not be found slumped over our desks. And while we hope and dream of an reasonable, respectable life, politicos on both sides are hell bent on making sure their selfish agendas rule the day, regardless of how much it interferes with the hopes and dreams of thousands upon thousands of ordinary American families.
Good luck, okie.

Now you go and make a Post that I can completely agree with, Who did you let have your password?

[okie52]

I'm not giving Obama credit for oil production. I'm very opposed to what he's done. In fact, I'm opposed to a lot of what Obama has done.
Look, we're not ever going to agree on regulation, the role of government, etc. We just have different views on things. And frankly, I'm not sure what we think or want makes any difference anyway.
Most of us just want a decent life for our families, a little vacation, a chance to retire and not be found slumped over our desks. And while we hope and dream of an reasonable, respectable life, politicos on both sides are hell bent on making sure their selfish agendas rule the day, regardless of how much it interferes with the hopes and dreams of thousands upon thousands of ordinary American families.
Good luck, okie.

I'll drink to that!

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

We have the greatest military the world has ever seen. You can mail a letter from LA to Jacksonville for less than .50 cents and it will get there in two days. The government saved the country in the 1930's, particularly Oklahoma. My father, a Vet, loves the VA. He needs it and appreciates it. The government saved GM.
It's all about balance. We wouldn't be the country we are today without the government and free enterprise. I'm beginning to think you anti-government people are becoming seditious. Why do you hate America so much?
The government (at least New Deal programs) didn't save the country, sure there was a bit of a safety net established but intervention was far left of what Obama has done today. Price controls, wage controls, NIRA was a piece of legislation with unprecedented interference in the industrial sector. Just look at all the numbers, and you'll see the economy **** itself again in '36-'37, nosediving until war mobilization around 1940.

And nobody here hates America. There are just much better things here than government, thankya very much.

[soonercruiser]

No, I never claimed to be one. The ACA has not "fully been implemented" and yet "Many, Many business owners" have said it would cause them not to hire employees? Ridiculous statements. You can only judge the effects once it has gone in. Single payer or at least government control of costs are what is needed to stop the bleeding. If you don't realize it, this country is in trouble. We have uncontrollable defense and health care costs and runaway spending. Drop the spending and fix what we need to fix. Stop your pontificating and posting right wing rhetoric. It just ticks off the people that actually understand how the world works and aren't tied to a world view that doesn't include any sort of reconciliation. I'm a centrist if you haven't figured it out yet, and we are the majority. Too bad that we don't have a party to represent us. There is NOTHING you can say I will ever take as truth since you have gone on and on posting to every single thread on here to breed your particular brand of hate. There are plenty of people on here that I don't agree with (but respect) like C&C and Olevton, yet I respect the hell of what they say. You unfortunately are not one of those people.

So you have a problem with the facts???
Too Bad!
Many cable shows that I have watched group interviews with them.... and seen business owners testify to this. Seen and heard it with my own eyes & ears. Heatlhcare and the big looming tax increases are what they fear! Get into the rael world yourself!
If you are watching the Democratic Party Media, you won't see the truth!
They avoid it! They don't want you to know the truth!

Government contolled healthcare and a single-payer system are simply against everything that the Founding Fathers intended! Un-American!
That's the Constitution, by the way.
Oh! It's a penalty! Errrrr...... NO! It's a tax!
(Whatever it is at this moment for Obama..)

Your HATE is apparently saved for the truth!
Hate on, until the country is no longer!

Maybe you could try-on some facts for as change.
But, they probably wouldn't fit anyway.


February 15, 2012
Health Costs, Gov't Regulations Curb Small Business Hiring
Nearly half of small-business owners name these issues
by Dennis Jacobe, Chief EconomistPRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. small-business owners who aren't hiring -- 85% of those surveyed -- are most likely to say the reasons they are not doing so include not needing additional employees; worries about weak business conditions, including revenues; cash flow; and the overall U.S. economy. Additionally, nearly half of small-business owners point to potential healthcare costs (48%) and government regulations (46%) as reasons. One in four are not hiring because they worry they may not be in business in 12 months.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/health-costs-gov-regulations-curb-small-business-hiring.aspx

A few more sources...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152654/health-costs-gov-regulations-curb-small-business-hiring.aspx
http://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-obamacare-taxation-keep-small-businesses-from-hiring-67635/

[marfacowboy]

The government (at least New Deal programs) didn't save the country, sure there was a bit of a safety net established but intervention was far left of what Obama has done today. Price controls, wage controls, NIRA was a piece of legislation with unprecedented interference in the industrial sector. Just look at all the numbers, and you'll see the economy **** itself again in '36-'37, nosediving until war mobilization around 1940.

And nobody here hates America. There are just much better things here than government, thankya very much.

Oh, I know they don't "hate America." It's a long standing joke in leftist circles...Anyway....
No, the New Deal by itself didn't save America, but it helped. Of course a lot of Sooner politicians didn't want to take the money, but it was too popular to refuse.
I think Obama essentially became a centrist politician, at least to the real left. Way too hawkish for old time liberals and too cozy with Wall Street money. He's a disappointment.
Maybe one day our government will truly be a democratic representation of the people, but I doubt I'll live to see it.
Noticed you have Schweini as your avatar. Long time Bayern fan here, and obviously a disappointed one.

[Skysooner]

Gallup and Chriatiampost huh. Chill out dude and stop being so effing intense. These are all polls and opinions. Nothing substantive has taken effect. Stop being so right wing and come into the real world (not rael...)

[marfacowboy]

[B]

Government contolled healthcare and a single-payer system are simply against everything that the Founding Fathers intended! Un-American!


I reckon the only thing really "American" about this whole deal is the fact we can all argue about it and not worry about ending up in a camp.

My daughter just got back from a week in Spain. She had a great time and spoke highly of their wine and architecture, but in an e-mail sent before leaving Madrid, she said she "couldn't wait until her feet touched the soil of the good old USofA again."

I guess the point is, even though we fight and do our share of finger pointing and bitching, and even as ****ed up as things are in Washington, this truly is the best place to live on the planet. We're so blessed here. I hope we can all find a way to work together and fix all of this ****, for the sake of our children and grand-children. Surely there's enough common ground for us to do better than this.

Remember how we all felt after 9-11? How everyone kinda came together? We held doors open for people. Let people merge in traffic. Lol. It changed our demeanor. I hope to hell it doesn't take another major disaster or gawd forbid a damn world war for us to be more civil.

[BigTip]

Gallup and Chriatiampost huh. Chill out dude and stop being so effing intense. These are all polls and opinions. Nothing substantive has taken effect. Stop being so right wing and come into the real world (not rael...)

Polls are what real people are saying about what they are doing and why. To you this is "intense?" Interesting.
I think it calmly proves a point with facts.

[BigTip]

No, the New Deal by itself didn't save America, but it helped.

I have read more than one discourse how the New Deal programs postponed the recovery. Business kept back from investing waiting to see what the government would do. When make work programs and such stopped, than business started to invest again. They said this had as much to do with the recovery as cranking up for the war, which obviously helped the recovery.

[marfacowboy]

I have read more than one discourse how the New Deal programs postponed the recovery. Business kept back from investing waiting to see what the government would do. When make work programs and such stopped, than business started to invest again. They said this had as much to do with the recovery as cranking up for the war, which obviously helped the recovery.

I'm not sure businesses stopped investing because they were waiting on the government. It's a classic low demand, low income situation. History is pretty clear on how government intervention (spending) works during periods of economic decline. There are a few anomalies here and there, but overall, austerity drives you further down the tubes. You implement austerity programs post recovery.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. The other camp maintains that such programs do little but undermine and delay recoveries. Unfortunately, the historical record is on Krugman's side, and no one has produced a serious counter argument to him that's been taken seriously. Forbes hoists up a few commentators and so do a few third rate blogs, but nary a one has ever produced a peer reviewed paper in a prestigious economic journal. That I know of at least. I guess their best spokesperson is Nancy Pfotenhauer, a professional politician that's never produced a PhD level paper on anything.


The thousands of hungry, desperate Okies during those days were happy to get the help, and most will tell you they wouldn't have made it without it.

[REDREX]

You guys just can't stand it when you're proven wrong. I'm sick and tired of the far right demonizing our government and always painting with a broad brush, slinging ridiculous, politicized generalizations around like a monkey flinging **** in a cage.
Government isn't the boogeyman. Neither is free enterprise. There are problems in both, but for the nation to function properly, you need both.---You have proven nothing----All you do is state your " Opinion" and believe that it is a fact----Many times in areas that you are clueless

[C&CDean]

---You have proven nothing----All you do is state your " Opinion" and believe that it is a fact----Many times in areas that you are clueless

Let's be honest here. 99.9% of the posters here do exactly this.

[C&CDean]

---You have proven nothing----All you do is state your " Opinion" and believe that it is a fact----Many times in areas that you are clueless

Let's be honest here. 99.9% of the posters here do exactly this.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I'm not sure businesses stopped investing because they were waiting on the government. It's a classic low demand, low income situation. History is pretty clear on how government intervention (spending) works during periods of economic decline. There are a few anomalies here and there, but overall, austerity drives you further down the tubes. You implement austerity programs post recovery.

Of course, not everyone agrees with this. The other camp maintains that such programs do little but undermine and delay recoveries. Unfortunately, the historical record is on Krugman's side, and no one has produced a serious counter argument to him that's been taken seriously. Forbes hoists up a few commentators and so do a few third rate blogs, but nary a one has ever produced a peer reviewed paper in a prestigious economic journal. That I know of at least. I guess their best spokesperson is Nancy Pfotenhauer, a professional politician that's never produced a PhD level paper on anything.


The thousands of hungry, desperate Okies during those days were happy to get the help, and most will tell you they wouldn't have made it without it.
Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard both have some great stuff countering the Keynesians on the Great Depression, though I'll admit its mostly over my head.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

[marfacowboy]

Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard both have some great stuff countering the Keynesians on the Great Depression, though I'll admit its mostly over my head.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

It's an ongoing debate within academia. But that's the case in most fields of study. I tend to agree with Krugman, but the finer points are beyond me, as well.

[marfacowboy]

---You have proven nothing----All you do is state your " Opinion" and believe that it is a fact----Many times in areas that you are clueless

I've supported my views. Please provide specifics for areas you feel I'm "clueless" about. With evidence to support your point....

[soonercruiser]

I reckon the only thing really "American" about this whole deal is the fact we can all argue about it and not worry about ending up in a camp.

My daughter just got back from a week in Spain. She had a great time and spoke highly of their wine and architecture, but in an e-mail sent before leaving Madrid, she said she "couldn't wait until her feet touched the soil of the good old USofA again."

I guess the point is, even though we fight and do our share of finger pointing and bitching, and even as ****ed up as things are in Washington, this truly is the best place to live on the planet. We're so blessed here. I hope we can all find a way to work together and fix all of this ****, for the sake of our children and grand-children. Surely there's enough common ground for us to do better than this.

Remember how we all felt after 9-11? How everyone kinda came together? We held doors open for people. Let people merge in traffic. Lol. It changed our demeanor. I hope to hell it doesn't take another major disaster or gawd forbid a damn world war for us to be more civil.

Wow! The "time-out" musta worked!
A very good general perspective post!
:drunk:

[soonercruiser]

Let's be honest here. 99.9% of the posters here do exactly this.

Some even post it a second time....just so you get the point!
:boxing:

[soonercruiser]

Gallup and Chriatiampost huh. Chill out dude and stop being so effing intense. These are all polls and opinions. Nothing substantive has taken effect. Stop being so right wing and come into the real world (not rael...)

You chill out "DUDE"!
We were having a discussionabout the ACA. I provided proof to counter the charge that I made "ridiculous statements" about business owners opinions on the ACA!
The poll results were a recording of the sampled opinions.

[Skysooner]

That isn't proof dude. That is only right wing opinion. The majority of the law doesn't take effect until 2014, so any 'proof' you have is merely speculation.

[Curly Bill]

I've supported my views. Please provide specifics for areas you feel I'm "clueless" about. With evidence to support your point....

LOL...You know this is just a message board right?

[olevetonahill]

LOL...You know this is just a message board right?

Duh , Ima possed to explain what ima sayin Plus provide proof ?
Ima get durnk **** this

[marfacowboy]

LOL...You know this is just a message board right?

No way. I thought this was a serious political forum for academics. Thanks for letting me know. Curly, I don't know what I would do without you.
And thanks again for all those negative reps. I guess that's about twenty now. That line is going to be a nice deep Sooner crimson by the time the season starts. Thanks to you, of course.
Since you like yours green, I'll keep giving you positive reps.

[marfacowboy]

Duh , Ima possed to explain what ima sayin Plus provide proof ?
Ima get durnk **** this
No, your word by itself is sufficient. At almost 50,000 posts, you're grandfathered in.

[rock on sooner]

No, your word by itself is sufficient. At almost 50,000 posts, you're grandfathered in.

Don call Vet a grandfather cause then he might haveta prove something:glee:

[champions77]

It's an ongoing debate within academia. But that's the case in most fields of study. I tend to agree with Krugman, but the finer points are beyond me, as well.

I would think any allegience to Krugman would be in doubt after Obama's stimulus program with trillions spent did not come close to the desired effects. Hope the GOP runs a commercial with Obama touting the "shovel ready" projects when selling the stimulus programs to the American people, and then a couple of years later when asked about the lack of desired results of the stimulus, Obama replied "I guess the projects weren't so "shovel ready" after all, and laughed.

I could be the stimulus mmight have worked a lot better if our President did not create so much uncertainty for the private sector. With the promise of higher taxes on the job creators, more regulations, Cap and trade, which would be another huge tax increase for most busineses and finally Obamacare, is there any surprise that most businesses are "hunkered down" waiting for some sign of certainty?

There will never be another one quite like our current President. Knowing his background, is any of this a surprise?

[marfacowboy]

I would think any allegience to Krugman would be in doubt after Obama's stimulus program with trillions spent did not come close to the desired effects. Hope the GOP runs a commercial with Obama touting the "shovel ready" projects when selling the stimulus programs to the American people, and then a couple of years later when asked about the lack of desired results of the stimulus, Obama replied "I guess the projects weren't so "shovel ready" after all, and laughed.

I could be the stimulus mmight have worked a lot better if our President did not create so much uncertainty for the private sector. With the promise of higher taxes on the job creators, more regulations, Cap and trade, which would be another huge tax increase for most busineses and finally Obamacare, is there any surprise that most businesses are "hunkered down" waiting for some sign of certainty?

There will never be another one quite like our current President. Knowing his background, is any of this a surprise?

Obama's really made some mistakes, not the least of which applying the stimulus in the right places. The stimulus was inadequate. He tried to close a production gap of more than $2 trillion or more, and yet he offered, what, a $775 billion plan? As I recall, his plan called for around 60 percent of the plan to be in public spending. The rest consisted of tax cuts that didn't do anything to stimulate the economy.
In his defense, he was handed a terrible economy and had to deal with historic levels of obstructionism. I also think spending is very unpopular and the Democrats are afraid to do it.

[SCOUT]

Obama's really made some mistakes, not the least of which applying the stimulus in the right places. The stimulus was inadequate. He tried to close a production gap of more than $2 trillion or more, and yet he offered, what, a $775 billion plan? As I recall, his plan called for around 60 percent of the plan to be in public spending. The rest consisted of tax cuts that didn't do anything to stimulate the economy.
In his defense, he was handed a terrible economy and had to deal with historic levels of obstructionism. I also think spending is very unpopular and the Democrats are afraid to do it.
By the Democratically controlled Congress?

[REDREX]

Obama's really made some mistakes, not the least of which applying the stimulus in the right places. The stimulus was inadequate. He tried to close a production gap of more than $2 trillion or more, and yet he offered, what, a $775 billion plan? As I recall, his plan called for around 60 percent of the plan to be in public spending. The rest consisted of tax cuts that didn't do anything to stimulate the economy.
In his defense, he was handed a terrible economy and had to deal with historic levels of obstructionism. I also think spending is very unpopular and the Democrats are afraid to do it.Gee----As I recall Barack had the House and 60 votes in the Senate-----He could pass anything he wanted----- P.S. Keynesian theory does not work

[rock on sooner]

By the Democratically controlled Congress?

Nope, by a remarkable number of parliamentarian stunts by the minority
and THEN by the lockstep Tea Partiers that Boehner couldn't control...all
driven by "let's block everything Obama tries so he'll fail and be just a one
term prez, which was the stated top priority of the Pubs.

[TitoMorelli]

Obama's really made some mistakes, not the least of which applying the stimulus in the right places. The stimulus was inadequate. He tried to close a production gap of more than $2 trillion or more, and yet he offered, what, a $775 billion plan? As I recall, his plan called for around 60 percent of the plan to be in public spending. The rest consisted of tax cuts that didn't do anything to stimulate the economy.
In his defense, he was handed a terrible economy and had to deal with historic levels of obstructionism. I also think spending is very unpopular and the Democrats are afraid to do it.

Yep, he was handed a terrible economy and then proceeded to squander whatever opportunities he had to boost the recovery.

[marfacowboy]

Gee----As I recall Barack had the House and 60 votes in the Senate-----He could pass anything he wanted----- P.S. Keynesian theory does not work

I don't expect you to respond, since you didn't respond to the last challenge I issued, but here's another. I want you to provide a list of countries in the current economic crisis that have adopted austerity programs and those that have not, compare the results, and support your argument based on those contemporary case studies.

[cleller]

Reading this makes me see that some are incapable of holding Obama to any degree of ownership or responsibility for anything. No "buck stops here" for this administration.

[rock on sooner]

Reading this makes me see that some are incapable of holding Obama to any degree of ownership or responsibility for anything. No "buck stops here" for this administration.

Gotta take issue with ya here, pard. Obama has said repeatedly that while some
things have been accomplished, WE have a lot more to do. We being the operative
word here. Best I can recall, he and the Dems have reached out repeatedly since
2010 to try to do a LOT of stuff and the answer has been, not no but HELL NO,
we want the gov't to be a stalemate and Obama to fail. We have to have him be
a one term prez, no ifs and or buts about it.

I can certainly say I'm disappointed in the prez but, gotta say, he tried, maybe
with the wrong stuff but he TRIED....can't say that about Boehner, McConnell
and the rest...

[TitoMorelli]

Yeah, after jamming whatever they wanted up this country's sphincter from 2008-2010, O'Bummer and the Dems got their own azzes handed to them in the 2010 elections. So now they just make a lot of noise about the other side not cooperating while they refuse to budge an inch themselves. But then why should they, when the Commissar-in-Chief now is continually bypassing every long-established procedure in order to get his way?

Of course, both sides have agreed on some things. Consider the voting every time Dear Leader has submitted a budget proposal.

[okie52]

Gotta take issue with ya here, pard. Obama has said repeatedly that while some
things have been accomplished, WE have a lot more to do. We being the operative
word here. Best I can recall, he and the Dems have reached out repeatedly since
2010 to try to do a LOT of stuff and the answer has been, not no but HELL NO,
we want the gov't to be a stalemate and Obama to fail. We have to have him be
a one term prez, no ifs and or buts about it.

I can certainly say I'm disappointed in the prez but, gotta say, he tried, maybe
with the wrong stuff but he TRIED....can't say that about Boehner, McConnell
and the rest...

Reached out eh....how are those budget approvals doing?

Both parties are out to make the other party's prez a one termer....nothing new about that.

So you acknowledge that before 2010 the dems didn't try to compromise?

[okie52]

Tito beat me to it.

[TitoMorelli]

There's a first time for everything.:P

[Curly Bill]

No way. I thought this was a serious political forum for academics. Thanks for letting me know. Curly, I don't know what I would do without you.
And thanks again for all those negative reps. I guess that's about twenty now. That line is going to be a nice deep Sooner crimson by the time the season starts. Thanks to you, of course.
Since you like yours green, I'll keep giving you positive reps.

You ain't got no rep power so you ain't giving me nothing dumas! ;)

[cleller]

Gotta take issue with ya here, pard. Obama has said repeatedly that while some
things have been accomplished, WE have a lot more to do. We being the operative
word here. Best I can recall, he and the Dems have reached out repeatedly since
2010 to try to do a LOT of stuff and the answer has been, not no but HELL NO,
we want the gov't to be a stalemate and Obama to fail. We have to have him be
a one term prez, no ifs and or buts about it.

I can certainly say I'm disappointed in the prez but, gotta say, he tried, maybe
with the wrong stuff but he TRIED....can't say that about Boehner, McConnell
and the rest...

Gotta give you some credit for that one. The Republicans and their tax vow thing have disappointed me. The administration has been equally unwilling to give an inch, too. No one wants to be the first to break.

[champions77]

Gotta take issue with ya here, pard. Obama has said repeatedly that while some
things have been accomplished, WE have a lot more to do. We being the operative
word here. Best I can recall, he and the Dems have reached out repeatedly since
2010 to try to do a LOT of stuff and the answer has been, not no but HELL NO,
we want the gov't to be a stalemate and Obama to fail. We have to have him be
a one term prez, no ifs and or buts about it.

I can certainly say I'm disappointed in the prez but, gotta say, he tried, maybe
with the wrong stuff but he TRIED....can't say that about Boehner, McConnell
and the rest...

It's called "Leadership" and unfortunately, BHO has very little of it. When the dems had control of it all, I saw very little of Obama "reaching out" to the other side. The truth of the matter is that this President has very few good ideas. His core, his compass, is very much different that the vast majority of Americans. Don't forget, he said he was going to "fundamentally change" this country. Those are pretty strong words, but he was at least honest, he does want to fundamentally change this country, in ways that most find very objectionable. He is at odds with a lot about this country, that's no secret.

His attacks on the private sector are apparent to anyone, and his quest to increase those in "dependency" are alarming. One might say that he cares about these people, but I would say that he cares more about their votes. The number of folks dependent in one way or another on the Federal government has been increasing as a percent for years, but never has it increased as fast as under BHO. So now the ones in the wagon are about the same as those producers, and with this President, there is no hope that those numbers will start going the other way or even slow down.

Hope and Change? 3 1/2 years later, how about just change?

[XingTheRubicon]

It's pretty funny, the gloating that went on when the dems shoved that POS health care bill down America's throat...

now, basically, the R's have sunk to that level


Enjoy your last 6 months in office, Barack.

[olevetonahill]

You ain't got no rep power so you ain't giving me nothing dumas! ;)

Hey CB, Dont ya know ya cant call a Dumas a Dumas? Why I bet the cry baby reports ya and ****

[cleller]

In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith wrote:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

[Midtowner]

P.S. Keynesian theory does not work

WWII calling... it disagrees.

[champions77]

In The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith wrote:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

+1 The "left" probably looks at Adam Smith like we look at Saul Alinsky or Karl Marx.

Someone asked J.C. Watts one time why he switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, and J.C.'s response;

The Democrats were always bragging about how many folks were on welfare, and the Republicans were always bragging about how many folks were not on welfare"

True freedom is achieved when someone is dependent upon only themselves, and not dependent upon others for their existence.

Why is that hard for so many to understand in this country?

[Position Limit]

i have a question for the republican braintrust of this board concerning obamas failed economic policies and our imminent foray into socialism if we dont get romney and his magic underwear elected. the purest indicator of the health of capitalism and future speculator of economic activity and the sum of all decisions financially is fully quantifable and on full display in both the s&p 500 and the dow jones industrial average. wall street. captial. numbers. data. undeniable facts. strange things to most on the wrong side of this trade. why have these indexes doubled under obama's watch with such a threat to capitalism as we know it? please spare me the bernanke print. p/e ratios will not only disagree with you, they will **** in your mouth. besides your hyperbolic senerio would surely trump it. follow up question for the true spinners. with deficits that are 100 percent the fault of obama and our near collaspe of society as a result of them, explain to me why treasurie yields are at all time lows? why is default risk not showing up? what rate would you smart business republicans access debt markets for financing? could these questions and answers finally put an end to your fear and loathing? your guns will be safe...

[pphilfran]

The market looks out about 6 months....when Obama took over the market was at the bottom of a severe bear market...now way in hell was it going to go down to depression level drops after spending trillions propping up the banks and manufacturing...

I have said that the last one spending is going to get screwed...and Europe is in such dire straights that an overextended dollar and treasuries still looks good...

Other than the stimulus and bailouts he really hasn't done anything...the fed has done a lot with the QE's and other financial magic...we won't see the impact of the ACA for another few years...and no one really knows the true costs will be...lot's of conjecture from both sides...

[Position Limit]

The market looks out about 6 months....when Obama took over the market was at the bottom of a severe bear market...now way in hell was it going to go down to depression level drops after spending trillions propping up the banks and manufacturing...

I have said that the last one spending is going to get screwed...and Europe is in such dire straights that an overextended dollar and treasuries still looks good...

Other than the stimulus and bailouts he really hasn't done anything...the fed has done a lot with the QE's and other financial magic...we won't see the impact of the ACA for another few years...and no one really knows the true costs will be...lot's of conjecture from both sides...

this is a reasonable answer and alot of that is baked in. the hyperbolic fear of socialism and crashing of debt markets would trump all of this. easily trump all of this logic. for some though, debt and equities not only dont support these clowns ideas, they are to the extreme opposite. THE MARKETS DISAGREE WITH THEM. shocker i know. we know treasuries are safe play right now, or are they? risk markets are jamming too.

[cleller]

To be accurate, the markets have not doubled under Obama. At his inauguration the S&P was 840. Yesterday's close was 1338. However, after the economic implosion caused by the idea that everyone should own a home, the markets oversold, creating an opportunity for a big rebound. Traders still want to make money, and are willing to trade up the markets until they tip again.

Some people just don't believe the government should be responsible for all their needs. How about the rise in food stamp usage under Obama? The food stamp outlay under Obama has risen at a pretty similar rate to the markets. Can you brag about one and not another.

The really odd thing that no one looks at is that with the deficits we are running, we are actually borrowing money from China, where people really are hungry to add to these increases in our food stamp programs. Obviously, we are also borrowing to fund the military, Solyndra, build roads, all that.

[Position Limit]

To be accurate, the markets have not doubled under Obama. At his inauguration the S&P was 840. Yesterday's close was 1338. However, after the economic implosion caused by the idea that everyone should own a home, the markets oversold, creating an opportunity for a big rebound. Traders still want to make money, and are willing to trade up the markets until they tip again.

Some people just don't believe the government should be responsible for all their needs. How about the rise in food stamp usage under Obama? The food stamp outlay under Obama has risen at a pretty similar rate to the markets. Can you brag about one and not another.

The really odd thing that no one looks at is that with the deficits we are running, we are actually borrowing money from China, where people really are hungry to add to these increases in our food stamp programs. Obviously, we are also borrowing to fund the military, Solyndra, build roads, all that.

once again, the markets totally disagree with your talking points and boogeymen. are you really pissed that food stamp usage has gone up on his watch? seriously? maybe he should con his way into a war in the middle east or some more altruistic.

also, traders want to make money? really? that's your answer to the doubling of the market. brilliant!!!!!! what's next? buy low and sell high?

[Position Limit]

heck i'll just extrapolate this awesomness ever further. looks to me like markets were implying the end of capitalism as we know it toward the end of the last administration. hmmmmmmm.... but please pay no attention to that. it wont fit the narrative.

[cleller]

once again, the markets totally disagree with your talking points and boogeymen. are you really pissed that food stamp usage has gone up on his watch? seriously? maybe he should con his way into a war in the middle east or some more altruistic.

also, traders want to make money? really? that's your answer to the doubling of the market. brilliant!!!!!! what's next? buy low and sell high?

Simply pointing out the inaccuracies of your "thesis". You seem to think because equity markets jumped, Obama is to be praised on the one hand. Then on the other, the fact that more people are living in assumed poverty since he took office, he should be forgiven.

You latest snit about talking points and boogeymen is a little incoherent, but yes I am pissed off that so many are on food stamps. We don't have the money to back them up, yet we issue them.

[Position Limit]

Simply pointing out the inaccuracies of your "thesis". You seem to think because equity markets jumped, Obama is to be praised on the one hand. Then on the other, the fact that more people are living in assumed poverty since he took office, he should be forgiven.

You latest snit about talking points and boogeymen is a little incoherent, but yes I am pissed off that so many are on food stamps. We don't have the money to back them up, yet we issue them.

you seem more confused than usual today. must be the data. nowhere in my post have i asked or implied praise for these awesome markets under obama's watch. and i'm not only pointing to equity markets but debt and risk markets as well. these markets, which are the sum of all decisions capital, disagree with the talking points trotted out daily by republicans. now you keep bringing up food stamps. what in hades does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

[olevetonahill]

you seem more confused than usual today. must be the data. nowhere in my post have i asked or implied praise for these awesome markets under obama's watch. and i'm not only pointing to equity markets but debt and risk markets as well. these markets, which are the sum of all decisions capital, disagree with the talking points trotted out daily by republicans. now you keep bringing up food stamps. what in hades does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Now I can answer that one, Aint got a thing to do with it Cause them Chinks dont accept Food stamps, What I win?

[cleller]

you seem more confused than usual today. must be the data. nowhere in my post have i asked or implied praise for these awesome markets under obama's watch.

This is a quote from a post you made today at 2:12pm, about 45 minutes ago:

"i have a question for the republican braintrust of this board concerning obamas failed economic policies and our imminent foray into socialism if we dont get romney and his magic underwear elected. the purest indicator of the health of capitalism and future speculator of economic activity and the sum of all decisions financially is fully quantifable and on full display in both the s&p 500 and the dow jones industrial average. wall street. captial. numbers. data. undeniable facts. strange things to most on the wrong side of this trade. why have these indexes doubled under obama's watch with such a threat to capitalism as we know it?"

Now that is a very incoherent, poorly constructed run-on sentence, yet I tried to make sense of it. To me, it seems as if you are implying that the markets doubled under Obama (which they have not) and that it should be viewed in a positive light. If that is not what you meant, then I cannot decipher your intent.

Next you would like to know why I brought up the subject of food stamps. Is that correct? I explained why at the time I brought the subject up, if you care to re-read it.

Have to go now, you can type at someone else awhile.

[champions77]

this is a reasonable answer and alot of that is baked in. the hyperbolic fear of socialism and crashing of debt markets would trump all of this. easily trump all of this logic. for some though, debt and equities not only dont support these clowns ideas, they are to the extreme opposite. THE MARKETS DISAGREE WITH THEM. shocker i know. we know treasuries are safe play right now, or are they? risk markets are jamming too.

Wow, it does not take much in the way of overrall economic performance for you libs to be content. 1.6% GNP year to date along with an 8.2% unemployment rate and the highest number of Americans on food stamps in the history of this country and you are satisfied? These are pathetic results and in most any year, the incumbent President would be defeated ( SEE Jimmy Carter) but with Obama and his Chicago politics background?

This is the weakest post recession recovery in history. Conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country.

I don't how much you have to read or hear from BHO to determine that he despises the Private sector and that Capitalism is not his favorite economic system, by any stretch of the imigination.

[Position Limit]

Wow, it does not take much in the way of overrall economic performance for you libs to be content. 1.6% GNP year to date along with an 8.2% unemployment rate and the highest number of Americans on food stamps in the history of this country and you are satisfied? These are pathetic results and in most any year, the incumbent President would be defeated ( SEE Jimmy Carter) but with Obama and his Chicago politics background?

This is the weakest post recession recovery in history. Conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country.

I don't how much you have to read or hear from BHO to determine that he despises the Private sector and that Capitalism is not his favorite economic system, by any stretch of the imigination.

lets see here. does this mouthbreather have his talking points in hand. food stamp refrence? check. jimmy carter? check? chicago politics? check? conservative good, liberal bad? check. complete inability to see beyond his ignorance? check.

and now again pay attention. BHO hates america, freedom, captialsim, and the private sector (run on public dollars). he's about to be reelected for another 4 years (your head is gonna explode), but all risk markets disagree with your talking points. why is that? are you right and they are wrong? if so, please convince me. i like money.

[Position Limit]

[QUOTE=champions77;3491817] Conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country. QUOTE]

did conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country (world) from 2000-2008? are you employed mr. lebowski?

[champions77]

[QUOTE=champions77;3491817] Conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country. QUOTE]

did conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country (world) from 2000-2008? are you employed mr. lebowski?

Now, now, show me some of that "tolerance" you lefties are always extolling.

[marfacowboy]

Thank you, Position Limit, for your cogent, interesting additions to this thread.

[Position Limit]

Thank you, Position Limit, for your cogent, interesting additions to this thread.

you're welcome. and i'm not trying to be a smartazz. i want one of these righties to eat this pudding. these are numbers that are traded. i want somebody with their talking points to deny the cheap borrowing cost (implying zero risk=borrow more now) and screaming equities in the face of all of the bulls**t. these guys are the weakest hands in the game. so far one guy boiled it down to food stamp agnst. its been lost on everybody else. i ask again, if we are on the brink of socialism and the economy is the worst ever (except for the jimmy carter talking point to gloss over both bush adimistration debachles) then way does every risk market disagree with them. if these guys were traders they would be sweeping the gutters of wall street 3 years ago. we know bernanke loves the print (bush appointee), and we are all aware of the carry trade (i hope), but these clowns paint a very dire fantasy. okie 53 and the rest of the economist on this site should have an explanation for this crazy phenom. please help me take a flying leap into your world. im just looking to make a buck.

[Skysooner]

Wow, it does not take much in the way of overrall economic performance for you libs to be content. 1.6% GNP year to date along with an 8.2% unemployment rate and the highest number of Americans on food stamps in the history of this country and you are satisfied? These are pathetic results and in most any year, the incumbent President would be defeated ( SEE Jimmy Carter) but with Obama and his Chicago politics background?

This is the weakest post recession recovery in history. Conservatives have more ambitious goals for this country.

I don't how much you have to read or hear from BHO to determine that he despises the Private sector and that Capitalism is not his favorite economic system, by any stretch of the imigination.

lets see here. does this mouthbreather have his talking points in hand. food stamp refrence? check. jimmy carter? check? chicago politics? check? conservative good, liberal bad? check. complete inability to see beyond his ignorance? check.

and now again pay attention. BHO hates america, freedom, captialsim, and the private sector (run on public dollars). he's about to be reelected for another 4 years (your head is gonna explode), but all risk markets disagree with your talking points. why is that? are you right and they are wrong? if so, please convince me. i like money.

You also forgot he hates Jesus and puppies and is coming for your guns....LOL. For many people on this board center right, libertarian, centrist or center right makes you a Mao loving communist. Robert Heinlein once said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the public".

[marfacowboy]

You also forgot he hates Jesus and puppies and is coming for your guns....LOL. For many people on this board center right, libertarian, centrist or center right makes you a Mao loving communist. Robert Heinlein once said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the public".

I was beginning to think Midtowner and I were all alone out here.

[cleller]

Thank you, Position Limit, for your cogent, interesting additions to this thread.


co·gent
1.
convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2.
to the point; relevant; pertinent.


i have a question for the republican braintrust of this board concerning obamas failed economic policies and our imminent foray into socialism if we dont get romney and his magic underwear elected. the purest indicator of the health of capitalism and future speculator of economic activity and the sum of all decisions financially is fully quantifable and on full display in both the s&p 500 and the dow jones industrial average. wall street. captial. numbers. data. undeniable facts. strange things to most on the wrong side of this trade. why have these indexes doubled under obama's watch with such a threat to capitalism as we know it? please spare me the bernanke print. p/e ratios will not only disagree with you, they will **** in your mouth. besides your hyperbolic senerio would surely trump it. follow up question for the true spinners. with deficits that are 100 percent the fault of obama and our near collaspe of society as a result of them, explain to me why treasurie yields are at all time lows? why is default risk not showing up? what rate would you smart business republicans access debt markets for financing? could these questions and answers finally put an end to your fear and loathing? your guns will be safe...

[Skysooner]

You also forgot he hates Jesus and puppies and is coming for your guns....LOL. For many people on this board center right, libertarian, centrist or center right makes you a Mao loving communist. Robert Heinlein once said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the public".

I was beginning to think Midtowner and I were all alone out here.

Nope. Been here all along but usually I use this part of the board as laughing material. I am om vacation so have time to reply.

[TitoMorelli]

co·gent
1.
convincing or believable by virtue of forcible, clear, or incisive presentation; telling.
2.
to the point; relevant; pertinent.

ig·no·rant

1.
calling POS co·gent

[okie52]

you're welcome. and i'm not trying to be a smartazz. i want one of these righties to eat this pudding. these are numbers that are traded. i want somebody with their talking points to deny the cheap borrowing cost (implying zero risk=borrow more now) and screaming equities in the face of all of the bulls**t. these guys are the weakest hands in the game. so far one guy boiled it down to food stamp agnst. its been lost on everybody else. i ask again, if we are on the brink of socialism and the economy is the worst ever (except for the jimmy carter talking point to gloss over both bush adimistration debachles) then way does every risk market disagree with them. if these guys were traders they would be sweeping the gutters of wall street 3 years ago. we know bernanke loves the print (bush appointee), and we are all aware of the carry trade (i hope), but these clowns paint a very dire fantasy. okie 53 and the rest of the economist on this site should have an explanation for this crazy phenom. please help me take a flying leap into your world. im just looking to make a buck.

Did You charge up your Volt, polish up your Obama/Biden 2012 sticker, fly your gay pride flag, update your PC manual, join the illegals on Cinco de Mayo, boycott chick Fil A, applaud the mayors that banned soft drinks, go protest in AZ, help ACORN sign up all of the disenfranchised in the ghettos of Tulsa, yell at a cop, show your indignation about tax breaks for the rich, volunteer for a soup line or just sit in your cubicle hoping that some capitalist might have the charity to give you a call to help you escape poverty level?

Unlike you, I applaud pragmatic approaches to government. I don't blame Obama for our economy beyond his idiotic immigration and imbecilic energy policies. But those two issues alone are enough to condemn this moron from ever having a second term.

Now, please don't disappoint me, throw out the socialist escape clause so that your drive by will afford you some dignity as you slink to Axelrod's groin.

[Skysooner]

you're welcome. and i'm not trying to be a smartazz. i want one of these righties to eat this pudding. these are numbers that are traded. i want somebody with their talking points to deny the cheap borrowing cost (implying zero risk=borrow more now) and screaming equities in the face of all of the bulls**t. these guys are the weakest hands in the game. so far one guy boiled it down to food stamp agnst. its been lost on everybody else. i ask again, if we are on the brink of socialism and the economy is the worst ever (except for the jimmy carter talking point to gloss over both bush adimistration debachles) then way does every risk market disagree with them. if these guys were traders they would be sweeping the gutters of wall street 3 years ago. we know bernanke loves the print (bush appointee), and we are all aware of the carry trade (i hope), but these clowns paint a very dire fantasy. okie 53 and the rest of the economist on this site should have an explanation for this crazy phenom. please help me take a flying leap into your world. im just looking to make a buck.

Did You charge up your Volt, polish up your Obama/Biden 2012 sticker, fly your gay pride flag, update your PC manual, join the illegals on Cinco de Mayo, boycott chick Fil A, applaud the mayors that banned soft drinks, go protest in AZ, help ACORN sign up all of the disenfranchised in the ghettos of Tulsa, yell at a cop, show your indignation about tax breaks for the rich, volunteer for a soup line or just sit in your cubicle hoping that some capitalist might have the charity to give you a call to help you escape poverty level?

Unlike you, I applaud pragmatic approaches to government. I don't blame Obama for our economy beyond his idiotic immigration and imbecilic energy policies. But those two issues alone are enough to condemn this moron from ever having a second term.

Now, please don't disappoint me, throw out the socialist escape clause so that your drive by will afford you some dignity as you slink to Axelrod's groin.

Well said. Energy would be the main reason to vote Romney (at least for me). On the local level I will be voting against my incumbent R as he was one of the most vocal obsteuctionists on the debt ceiling raise that caused me to have to stop loss my positions and enter back in.

[okie52]

Well said. Energy would be the main reason to vote Romney (at least for me). On the local level I will be voting against my incumbent R as he was one of the most vocal obsteuctionists on the debt ceiling raise that caused me to have to stop loss my positions and enter back in.

The pubs, for me, have their problems on the social issues which shouldn't be prioritized as major issues. But they haven't asked my opinion about it either.

I really think Coburn is pragmatic...I just wish we had a lot more like him

[diverdog]

Now I can answer that one, Aint got a thing to do with it Cause them Chinks dont accept Food stamps, What I win?

Actually you would be wrong about that. They accept them for pennies on the dollar.

[olevetonahill]

Actually you would be wrong about that. They accept them for pennies on the dollar.
Well Last time I was in China They wouldnt let me use em.

[Skysooner]

Well said. Energy would be the main reason to vote Romney (at least for me). On the local level I will be voting against my incumbent R as he was one of the most vocal obsteuctionists on the debt ceiling raise that caused me to have to stop loss my positions and enter back in.

The pubs, for me, have their problems on the social issues which shouldn't be prioritized as major issues. But they haven't asked my opinion about it either.

I really think Coburn is pragmatic...I just wish we had a lot more like him

If I had a Coburn, that would be an easy decision. Instead I have an obstructionist.

[KantoSooner]

I gotta tell you, it was a relief to learn that the guy who staked his life savings on a business venture, lost his ***, got divorced as one consequence and ended up missing out on his daughter's last two years at home wasn't me.
I'm so glad to learn that all that was somebody else and I'm checking the mailbox daily for that big ole reimbursement check from 'society' and the time machine to give me back those seven years of my life.
Yep, I'm feeling pretty chuffed to know that was all on somebody else.

[Position Limit]

Did You charge up your Volt, polish up your Obama/Biden 2012 sticker, fly your gay pride flag, update your PC manual, join the illegals on Cinco de Mayo, boycott chick Fil A, applaud the mayors that banned soft drinks, go protest in AZ, help ACORN sign up all of the disenfranchised in the ghettos of Tulsa, yell at a cop, show your indignation about tax breaks for the rich, volunteer for a soup line or just sit in your cubicle hoping that some capitalist might have the charity to give you a call to help you escape poverty level?

Unlike you, I applaud pragmatic approaches to government. I don't blame Obama for our economy beyond his idiotic immigration and imbecilic energy policies. But those two issues alone are enough to condemn this moron from ever having a second term.

Now, please don't disappoint me, throw out the socialist escape clause so that your drive by will afford you some dignity as you slink to Axelrod's groin.

so in other words, you got nothing. par.

p.s. why would i have indignation about tax breaks for the rich?

[okie52]

so in other words, you got nothing. par.

p.s. why would i have indignation about tax breaks for the rich?

So in other words I didn't blame Obama for the economy...were you blaming him?

I did blame him for horrendous energy and immigration policies but you really don't want to go there, do you?

In prior posts haven't you advocated raising taxes on the rich?

[champions77]

I gotta tell you, it was a relief to learn that the guy who staked his life savings on a business venture, lost his ***, got divorced as one consequence and ended up missing out on his daughter's last two years at home wasn't me.
I'm so glad to learn that all that was somebody else and I'm checking the mailbox daily for that big ole reimbursement check from 'society' and the time machine to give me back those seven years of my life.
Yep, I'm feeling pretty chuffed to know that was all on somebody else.

BHO makes these statements, that are all consistent with his policy decisions, because he has an acute lack of respect for the Private sector. He has never worked in the Private sector, much less owned a business in the private sector, so his attitudes toward it should not be surprising. To him, as is most leftists, the central government is the place where all decisions affecting our lives should emanate.

The "uncertainty" he has gone out of his way to create affects the private sector in major ways. And he doesn't seem to understand why. And some here can't see it either.

[olevetonahill]

So in other words I didn't blame Obama for the economy...were you blaming him?

I did blame him for horrendous energy and immigration policies but you really don't want to go there, do you?

In prior posts haven't you advocated raising taxes on the rich?

Think about it Bro who in hell else is there to raise Taxes on.
Say ya tax a rich man 50% on a Million that gets ya 500,000 in Tax revenue from just One payer
Now ya raise the Tax to 50% on a Poor person and ya get an increase in tax revenue of Maybe 50 cents and an empty food stamp card from One payer, so Ya need a Million Poor ****ers to be able to get what ya can from One rich dude :single_eye:

This carps a No brainer

[okie52]

Think about it Bro who in hell else is there to raise Taxes on.
Say ya tax a rich man 50% on a Million that gets ya 500,000 in Tax revenue from just One payer
Now ya raise the Tax to 50% on a Poor person and ya get an increase in tax revenue of Maybe 50 cents and an empty food stamp card from One payer, so Ya need a Million Poor ****ers to be able to get what ya can from One rich dude :single_eye:

This carps a No brainer

True.

But a lot of dems like to remember the glory days of Clinton when the economy for 6 years was good. They also like to harken back to the tax rates of the rich during that period but somehow forget that everyone was getting a tax break from the Bush tax cuts. The problem is that the CBO estimated that the tax breaks for everyone else amounted to 4 times the tax revenues of those for the rich and, of course, continues to greatly add to our deficit.

Many economists think that the tax breaks help the economy which is why both W and Obama have used them. But now Obama only wants to hit that 2% to help alleviate debt but is willing to overlook 4 times that amount in tax breaks for others. If debt reduction would really be achieved by letting the Bush tax cuts expire then I'd be all for them but I'm not sure that is what would happen. There's a good chance you could see tax revenues go down if the economy took a dive because of the tax increases.

[Position Limit]

So in other words I didn't blame Obama for the economy...were you blaming him?

I did blame him for horrendous energy and immigration policies but you really don't want to go there, do you?

In prior posts haven't you advocated raising taxes on the rich?

goddamn youre dense. is everybody in that wasteland of city called edmond the same way? i'm neither giving credit to or blaming anybody for the fu*king economy. i'm putting to bed the retards that carry on about socialism, and the worst economy ever and how deficits are bringing the end of the world because of obama. ENGLISH MOTHERF**ER!!!! DO YOU SPEAK IT??? the dow jones is cracking 13k as i type this nonsense.

energy? ok big guy lecture me on how obama has wrecked the energy industry. tell me how oil as skyrocketed to $88 a barrel. lecture me on how my good old oil buddy pals have so bad. had drinks with one last night. he was grinning ear to ear. let me hear all your fear and loathing.

sure i've advocated raising taxes. in bonus years i make a crapton of money. stupid bonues. and by the time my accountant is finished with his magic, i'm appauled. yes i would still feed my family if taxes we raised. spare this dead horse.

your move.

[pphilfran]

Are you such an ******* in real life or only an internet *******?

[olevetonahill]

Are you such an ******* in real life or only an internet *******?
I think its a 50-50 type deal.

[rock on sooner]

I think its a 50-50 type deal.

Only when hes asleep er awake and in groups of one er more...:congratulatory:

[champions77]

Are you such an ******* in real life or only an internet *******?

Wow it must be his time of the month. But in fairness to him, having to defend Obama again and again, despite the fact that for most anyone else, it is apparent that not only is Obama in over his head, but his ideas suck to the nth degree, has to be terribly frustrating.

Thank God the Repubs in Congress are obstructing Obama, and the further destruction of this country that would result otherwise.

[soonercruiser]

I think its a 50-50 type deal.

No!
That would be 100-100!
:bull_head:

[okie52]

goddamn youre dense. is everybody in that wasteland of city called edmond the same way? i'm neither giving credit to or blaming anybody for the fu*king economy. i'm putting to bed the retards that carry on about socialism, and the worst economy ever and how deficits are bringing the end of the world because of obama. ENGLISH MOTHERF**ER!!!! DO YOU SPEAK IT??? the dow jones is cracking 13k as i type this nonsense.

energy? ok big guy lecture me on how obama has wrecked the energy industry. tell me how oil as skyrocketed to $88 a barrel. lecture me on how my good old oil buddy pals have so bad. had drinks with one last night. he was grinning ear to ear. let me hear all your fear and loathing.

sure i've advocated raising taxes. in bonus years i make a crapton of money. stupid bonues. and by the time my accountant is finished with his magic, i'm appauled. yes i would still feed my family if taxes we raised. spare this dead horse.

your move.

U mad PL? Did you have another altercation with a cop? Your keyboard actually has capital letters...who knew?

Socialist is a dirty word? I don't think Obama is a socialist primarily because he knows he wouldn't be politically viable if he declared he was. He did, however, campaign for the socialist Bernie Sanders so its not like he has an aversion to socialists.

Einstein, surely you are aware that imported oil accounts for over 2/3 of our trade deficit. Got that? That's a pretty hefty chunk of change. We're on pace to pay out over $300,000,000,000 for imported oil. Now what does your anointed one do? He totally shuts down exploration in the Atlantic and the Pacific. So all of those high paying jobs and the royalties, lease bonuses, tax revenues that the federal government could receive are lost not to mention the money leaving the country. Energy independence mean anything to you?

I'm sure you are aware that Obama got a unilateral cap and trade bill passed by the house in 2009. Fortunately even a dem senate wasn't so insane as to pass this bill that would have punished ng while rewarding ethanol and placed US industries at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. Ironically the same sponsor of the bill, Ed Markey, was now trying to block the export of NG as he stated "NG gives the US a competitive advantage"...the same energy source that he was wanting to place a 22% cap and trade tax on. Getting the picture yet?

So you do advocate raising taxes on the rich but you aren't against their tax breaks....very confusing logic there PL.

[C&CDean]

PL is in timeout. I hate it when people blow a bunch of horse****, think they actually made a point, then go "your move."

[olevetonahill]

PL is in timeout. I hate it when people blow a bunch of horse****, think they actually made a point, then go "your move."

Well it was YOUR Move :congratulatory:

[okie52]

Well it was YOUR Move :congratulatory:

LOL

[okie52]

PL is in timeout. I hate it when people blow a bunch of horse****, think they actually made a point, then go "your move."

Heh, it's his M O.

[8timechamps]

Not sure if this fits exactly with the topic(s) in this thread, but thought it was pretty good:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1YQDjpuY_U&feature=share

[rock on sooner]

I think he just took his meds and laid down fer a while....

[soonercruiser]

It's all about "CONTEXT"......how much the government DOESN'T help businesses.
:jaded:

[champions77]

It's all about "CONTEXT"......how much the government DOESN'T help businesses.
:jaded:

Government creates a highly regulated, highly taxed business environment, creating the perception that the liklihood of succeeding and the rewards you seek are diminished, resulting in fewer business startups, and the ones that are in business hunker down, choosing to not expand in building, equipment or employees...... and the nation ends up having a high unemployment rate. Imagine that?

The uncertainty this President has generated would end up being a disaster even if he had inherited a good economy. He is doing about everything wrong that is possible. But then, does anyone really believe that he does NOT expect to garner most of the votes for folks on some type of government assistance? Bad times, creates more voters?

[cleller]

PL is in timeout. I hate it when people blow a bunch of horse****, think they actually made a point, then go "your move."

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?169334-Why-all-the-liberal-hatred-violence-and-incivility-these-days

[BigTip]

Government creates a highly regulated, highly taxed business environment, creating the perception that the likelihood of succeeding and the rewards you seek are diminished, resulting in fewer business start-ups, and the ones that are in business hunker down, choosing to not expand in building, equipment or employees...... and the nation ends up having a high unemployment rate. Imagine that?

Exactly.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for people?

[LiveLaughLove]

Exactly.
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp for people?

It's not a hard concept. It just doesn't fit the agenda. The agenda is not to aid people in to self reliance. It is to push people in to government dependence.

The admin has been running ads trying to GET people to get on food stamps. They don't run ads trying to GET people to start small businesses.

[marfacowboy]

Government creates a highly regulated, highly taxed business environment, creating the perception that the liklihood of succeeding and the rewards you seek are diminished, resulting in fewer business startups, and the ones that are in business hunker down, choosing to not expand in building, equipment or employees...... and the nation ends up having a high unemployment rate. Imagine that?

Do you really think people sit around and think up ways to make people dependent on the government or to discourage businesses? That's preposterous. Businesses, even in this climate, expand as much as they can in order to increase revenue. What holds them back is capital and demand.
I've been in technology for nearly 30 years and involved as an officer in four companies. We never once decided (or even discussed) in a board meeting or an officers meeting that we wouldn't expand "because the government was killing us" or because "taxes were too high."Businesses may discuss how to get tax breaks, and if they don't get the breaks they want, they'll go to markets where they can get the breaks.

[LiveLaughLove]

Do you really think people sit around and think up ways to make people dependent on the government or to discourage businesses? That's preposterous. Businesses, even in this climate, expand as much as they can in order to increase revenue. What holds them back is capital and demand.
I've been in technology for nearly 30 years and involved as an officer in four companies. We never once decided (or even discussed) in a board meeting or an officers meeting that we wouldn't expand "because the government was killing us" or because "taxes were too high."Businesses may discuss how to get tax breaks, and if they don't get the breaks they want, they'll go to markets where they can get the breaks.

No offense, but probably not very well ran companies if you aren't taking EVERYTHING in to consideration when making those decisions. (Cue the "we are great companies, blah blah blah response")

As for the government thinking up ways to keep people dependent, there is zero doubt of that. Absolutely the Dem party does not want people to leave the dependence fold. Dependence equals votes.

Why else would they be encouraging people to get on public assistance in TV ads?

It's just like abortion. Neither side actually wants a resolution to abortion. Both sides get votes and money from it. If it ever went away, so would that passion.

I have no doubt Jesse Jackson/ Al Sharpton would never allow racial issues to just die off and us actually live in harmony. No racial issues, no need for them. They go away.

So yeah, there is no doubt that people sit around and think of ways to keep people dependent on government.

[pphilfran]

Do you really think people sit around and think up ways to make people dependent on the government or to discourage businesses? That's preposterous. Businesses, even in this climate, expand as much as they can in order to increase revenue. What holds them back is capital and demand.
I've been in technology for nearly 30 years and involved as an officer in four companies. We never once decided (or even discussed) in a board meeting or an officers meeting that we wouldn't expand "because the government was killing us" or because "taxes were too high."Businesses may discuss how to get tax breaks, and if they don't get the breaks they want, they'll go to markets where they can get the breaks.

You never discussed the impact of future legislation on your business costs?

Never slowed or expedited expansion because future costs might be increasing?

[soonercruiser]

Would that really stick on the wall?
:emptiness:

[marfacowboy]

You never discussed the impact of future legislation on your business costs?

Never slowed or expedited expansion because future costs might be increasing?

Legislation hasn't or won't affect us much. Fortunately, we've been in a growth industry. The biggest issue affecting our ability to expand has been finding qualified people. The people we've hired are highly available in California and perhaps in Texas, but not so much everywhere else.

[marfacowboy]

As for the government thinking up ways to keep people dependent, there is zero doubt of that. Absolutely the Dem party does not want people to leave the dependence fold. Dependence equals votes.


I don't believe that one bit. The Democrats get those votes because those groups realize the Democrats are the only ones that give a damn about them.

[olevetonahill]

I don't believe that one bit. The Democrats get those votes because those groups realize the Democrats are the only ones that give a damn about them.
Including themselves
Try to hire one of em.

[rock on sooner]

I don't believe that one bit. The Democrats get those votes because those groups realize the Democrats are the only ones that give a damn about them.

Your response to Triple L's post and his post is a perfect
summary of Pubs versus Dems.:glee:

[LiveLaughLove]

I don't believe that one bit. The Democrats get those votes because those groups realize the Democrats are the only ones that give a damn about them.

What pollyanna crud that is. You think the Kennedys lay awake at night fretting over the poor?

You think John Kerry sits in his mansion wondering how the homeless are getting along down the street?

Boy you've bought it hook line and sinker haven't ya?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

What pollyanna crud that is. You think the Kennedys lay awake at night fretting over the poor?

You think John Kerry sits in his mansion wondering how the homeless are getting along down the street?

Boy you've bought it hook line and sinker haven't ya?
I'm sure JFK had many a sleepless night with a poor lady

[olevetonahill]

I'm sure JFK had many a sleepless night with a poor lady

He said Frettin NOT sweatin

[BigTip]

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I thought of another argument, for those that need to explain to people why this train of thought by Obama is so wrong.

I could not have a successful business without:
Government
Employees
Suppliers
Lawyers

But none of them are partners in my success. I PAY THEM for their services. That's why if you pay them too much, you go out of business. If you are able to work hard enough and smart enough to pay them all less than what your sales are, you survive.

Of course any one of them can get full of themselves and take credit for my success though. "Without me, you would fail". This is what Obama did. This is why he is sooooooo off base.

[soonercruiser]

THIS ^^^^
:barbershop_quartet_

[yermom]

you said it right there. you owe them something. it's not like they are just a hindrance for your business.

[cleller]

To boil it down:
If you were taking a portrait of your business, who would be in front? You, or The Govt?(Barack)

[StoopTroup]

THIS ^^^^
:barbershop_quartet_

If its THIS.....shouldn't he be out of business and on da Welfare?

[Midtowner]

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I thought of another argument, for those that need to explain to people why this train of thought by Obama is so wrong.

I could not have a successful business without:
Government
Employees
Suppliers
Lawyers

But none of them are partners in my success. I PAY THEM for their services. That's why if you pay them too much, you go out of business. If you are able to work hard enough and smart enough to pay them all less than what your sales are, you survive.

Of course any one of them can get full of themselves and take credit for my success though. "Without me, you would fail". This is what Obama did. This is why he is sooooooo off base.

None of those things exist without taxpayer funded infrastructure and public education.

No, you do not pay what it actually costs to build and keep up the roads. Neither do you pay what it actually costs to deliver your business many of the utilities it receives, i.e., water is provided by municipalities at a loss. Someone else did that. Someone else paid for that. Businesses pay taxes because the government creates an environment which businesses can flourish in. Without government, businesses would have to provide for their own infrastructure needs (imagine no central authority to build roads). They'd also have to maintain their own security needs, fire dept, etc. Government is a MUCH more efficient means to deliver those services.

[StoopTroup]

Yep. Badger and I agree on this.

Government isn't always paying for everything. Most times they are supporting infrastructure so that many investors and businesses are given enough incentive to take the risks involved in doing business. Without some of what Predident Obama was explaining to folks before they lost their minds doesn't always happen for all businesses. That usually when you hear someone who owns a business suddenly post about how none of what he said was true.

It's true, it just might not effect every business. If it did... That would be Socialism. :D

[BigTip]

No, you do not pay what it actually costs to build and keep up the roads. Neither do you pay what it actually costs to deliver your business many of the utilities it receives, i.e., water is provided by municipalities at a loss. Someone else did that. Someone else paid for that. Businesses pay taxes because the government creates an environment which businesses can flourish in. Without government, businesses would have to provide for their own infrastructure needs (imagine no central authority to build roads). They'd also have to maintain their own security needs, fire dept, etc. Government is a MUCH more efficient means to deliver those services.

This is why there is such a problem in this country. People like you think that "government" is paying for things. Where does government get their money? US!!!!! We pay!!!
I DO pay what it actually costs to build that road, at least my little share of it. Who the heck do you think pays for it?
That's my point. Government provides a service, just like the utility companies. I HAVE paid to build that electric plant, I HAVE paid for that gas pipeline, I HAVE paid for the schools that educate my employees. I HAVE paid for the building my lawyer works out of. I HAVE paid for the truck my supplier delivers in.

[BigTip]

I'll make it more simple.

Government says, "We are going to build this road. It is going to cost $20 million dollars. Two million people will be using this road. Your share is $10. Please enclose check by April 15th. Thank you."


I paid for that road.

[KantoSooner]

Midtowner,
When you say that businesses have not paid for the roads, ports, etc., you are, formally, corrrect. I did not pay for the Houston ship channel or the Coast Guard to patrol it. If, however, we take into consideration that something like 50% of all individuals in the US pay no taxes and then factor in that most, if not all, businesses are paying at least annual fees on top of taxes, it would appear that the folks bearing the costs of running our fine nation are not, in point of fact, 'The People' at large, but the business community.
Contrary to Obama, business people really DID 'build it'.

[BigTip]

Another example:
The neighborhood home owner's association charges a fee to keep the neighborhood common areas in shape.
I don't actually pay the entire cost of the mower's fee, but do I do pay a small portion of what the actual cost is.
That is a microcosm of what government is. An entity that takes our money to provide services.

[StoopTroup]

I'll make it more simple.

Government says, "We are going to build this road. It is going to cost $20 million dollars. Two million people will be using this road. Your share is $10. Please enclose check by April 15th. Thank you."


I paid for that road.

I believe it has been that simple. Example: the intersection of the 194th exit and I-44 in Tulsa. The Hard Rock Casino and The Cherokee Tribe gave 10 Million to help with the repairs to local and interstate roadways. That not only benefited the Casino but also the folks who live in Red Fork and Catoosa as well as all the other businesses who are in that area.

So...believe it or not what you are asking has actually happened and it's even made the news.

[Midtowner]

This is why there is such a problem in this country. People like you think that "government" is paying for things. Where does government get their money? US!!!!! We pay!!!

Bull. Sure, local governments pay, but that money comes from a combination of sales and ad valorem taxes for the most part. Also, many roads are constructed with borrowed money and even more are paid for by the federal government with bond money sold to foreign governments. So no, your business isn't paying for it. Someone has paid for it to exist now. Someone in the future is paying for what happened today. It might be said that you're paying for improvements starting last year through about 9 or 10 years into the past as debt service. You're also paying nothing for the billions in outstanding federal bond dollars. That's free money for you. Thank your grandkids.


I DO pay what it actually costs to build that road, at least my little share of it. Who the heck do you think pays for it?

Now that also depends. Do you run heavy trucks which do way more than their fair share of damage to the roads? How about overloaded trucks? Ever run those? 18-wheeler operators and anyone running overloaded trucks definitely do not pay their fair share. The rest of us receive a lot of help from people in the future because the tax rate we pay today doesn't reflect the level of government services we actually use.


That's my point. Government provides a service, just like the utility companies. I HAVE paid to build that electric plant, I HAVE paid for that gas pipeline, I HAVE paid for the schools that educate my employees. I HAVE paid for the building my lawyer works out of. I HAVE paid for the truck my supplier delivers in.

Schools? No. You paid a little bit. That's mostly ad valorem money. Thank all of the childless folks and empty nesters for subsidizing that education system which wasn't directly presently benefiting them. Utilities? Yes and no. They are kept afloat because they're able to be monopolies while having a Corporation Commission which basically bends over backwards, in which commissioners lately have not been serving their terms out due to nice job offers from agencies appearing before the Commission. Also, utilities are blessed with the power of eminent domain, which is a manner of subsidization which occurs not by your company, but the poor sod whose land gets torn all to hell and invaded by workers who want to bury cables and pipelines and such.

You didn't do what you do in a vacuum. You pay your taxes as a means of paying it forward so the next guy has a shot. Unfortunately, with tax cuts, we're borrowing more and more and really screwing that next guy pretty bad.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner,
When you say that businesses have not paid for the roads, ports, etc., you are, formally, corrrect. I did not pay for the Houston ship channel or the Coast Guard to patrol it. If, however, we take into consideration that something like 50% of all individuals in the US pay no taxes and then factor in that most, if not all, businesses are paying at least annual fees on top of taxes, it would appear that the folks bearing the costs of running our fine nation are not, in point of fact, 'The People' at large, but the business community.
Contrary to Obama, business people really DID 'build it'.

They all paid for it together. Without the central government authority, how does the Houston ship channel work? Would it be as functional as it is today without government intervention? Would it be more efficient to have Coast Guard or a private security firm?

[KantoSooner]

All valid questions. I tend toward thinking that the CG and a public authority are probably the best way to go on items like harbor building, maintenance and operations; but I could be wrong.
None of that addresses the fact that those who pay taxes paid for this, past, present and future. Not some magic money genie operated by bureaucrats in DC. And those who pay taxes, in this country, tend to be the top 50% of earners...who tend to be 'business people'. So, once again, yes, the business guy? He really DID build it. Calvin Coolege was absolutely correct: "The business of America is business."

[Midtowner]

All valid questions. I tend toward thinking that the CG and a public authority are probably the best way to go on items like harbor building, maintenance and operations; but I could be wrong.
None of that addresses the fact that those who pay taxes paid for this, past, present and future. Not some magic money genie operated by bureaucrats in DC. And those who pay taxes, in this country, tend to be the top 50% of earners...who tend to be 'business people'. So, once again, yes, the business guy? He really DID build it. Calvin Coolege was absolutely correct: "The business of America is business."

We're still talking about Obama's statement, right? You may be among those taking it wildly out of context. Even Coolidge's statement agrees--America is in the business of supporting businesses. Or at least it was back then moreso than now. The pendulum swung a little far to the right when we were building coal burning plants which had no sort of filtration requirements and dumping toxic waste at will all while locking women into sewing factories, etc. The pendulum has swung hard in the other direction and in recent years has been tilting back towards the right with two very business-friendly presidents in a row.

[KantoSooner]

I was. I am not really in disagreement with you; but I find the 'collective over the individual' philosophy that Obama finally enunciated clearly to be disgusting and something I consider to be anathema to the entirety of the American Experiment.

It's the beginning of a dark tunnel that takes us back to a dark ages in which the individual is extinguished. Any true American would prefer death than to be told that they are worth nothing and can accomplish nothing on their own.

[Midtowner]

I was. I am not really in disagreement with you; but I find the 'collective over the individual' philosophy that Obama finally enunciated clearly to be disgusting and something I consider to be anathema to the entirety of the American Experiment.

It's the beginning of a dark tunnel that takes us back to a dark ages in which the individual is extinguished. Any true American would prefer death than to be told that they are worth nothing and can accomplish nothing on their own.

C'mon now, in the Dark Ages, individuals were clearly very important. If your name was Charlemagne or Pepin (i.e., you were in the 1%), you were a billybadass. By that standard, we're there already.

[pphilfran]

It isn't just this one damn statement...it is a combination of many over his term...

He demonizes the rich and successful...tries to minimize their success and hard work...which only further divides the country...

I think he is a snake...and I am being kind when I call him snake...

[olevetonahill]

It isn't just this one damn statement...it is a combination of many over his term...

He demonizes the rich and successful...tries to minimize their success and hard work...which only further divides the country...

I think he is a snake...and I am being kind when I call him snake...

what Kinda Snake? A Black Snake :P

[pphilfran]

Black momba

[pphilfran]

Reminds me of an old song...

C7zJ-rzEOH4&feature

[olevetonahill]

an Egg sucker
http://bluehorizonfarm.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/black-snake-eating-a-chicken-egg.jpg

[pphilfran]

But this is my fav...sorry about the album pops...

OX0-GIe6Juw

[pphilfran]

Yes...I was a sick puppy....

[soonercruiser]

Black momba

That would be "Semi-Black OMomba"!
:P

[diverdog]

It isn't just this one damn statement...it is a combination of many over his term...

He demonizes the rich and successful...tries to minimize their success and hard work...which only further divides the country...

I think he is a snake...and I am being kind when I call him snake...

Phil:

The Republicans demonize the poor and middle class. If God forbid there were any type of major civil unrest who do you think wins?

The problem as I see it is the Republicans have caused this problem with their entire trickle down theory and that stupid Laffer Curve. Not only have we reduced taxes in this country (mostly for the rich) we have (according to the Economist Magazine) created a trillion and a half dollars in tax loopholes. We have stagnant middle class wages and we have inflation eating into those wages. The US does not need jobs it needs demand which will create jobs. Until we get wages and benefits back on track we will not create a lot of jobs because if no one is spending then no one is hiring.

[okie52]

Phil:

The Republicans demonize the poor and middle class. If God forbid there were any type of major civil unrest who do you think wins?

The problem as I see it is the Republicans have caused this problem with their entire trickle down theory and that stupid Laffer Curve. Not only have we reduced taxes in this country (mostly for the rich) we have (according to the Economist Magazine) created a trillion and a half dollars in tax loopholes. We have stagnant middle class wages and we have inflation eating into those wages. The US does not need jobs it needs demand which will create jobs. Until we get wages and benefits back on track we will not create a lot of jobs because if no one is spending then no one is hiring.

Heh...just shows why you are a lib DD.

Now we're to civil unrest and who wins...well I guess in you're world the socialists.

Show the demonization of the poor or the middle class by the pubs.

Who got tax breaks under W? And which group is Obama trying to tax?

Who is denying this country jobs where there is demand?

It's like you swallowed a big DNC pablum and are still regurgitating its effects.

[pphilfran]

Phil:

The Republicans demonize the poor and middle class. If God forbid there were any type of major civil unrest who do you think wins?

The problem as I see it is the Republicans have caused this problem with their entire trickle down theory and that stupid Laffer Curve. Not only have we reduced taxes in this country (mostly for the rich) we have (according to the Economist Magazine) created a trillion and a half dollars in tax loopholes. We have stagnant middle class wages and we have inflation eating into those wages. The US does not need jobs it needs demand which will create jobs. Until we get wages and benefits back on track we will not create a lot of jobs because if no one is spending then no one is hiring.

You don't go bashing the groups that are successful in public and then wonder why they don't come aboard and support your beliefs...

You do that chit behind closed doors...

So you feel it would be fair and right for your bank CEO to go public and tell everyone that half of his employees are scumbags and don't deserve their pay or recognition?

You like group azz eatings in your bank? Are group azz eating effective or do they cause discourse and poor attitudes to those that are busting their butts?

That is what Obama has been doing...

Like I said...he is snake and has no idea how to get people to buy in or compromise on any subject...he has been horrendous in how he has handled our current problems...

He has caused more division that I would have ever imagined...contrary to what he promised...

[pphilfran]

In public Obama should be ragging on both parties...how both parties need to come together in the middle and get some of our problems resolved...

Hell no...it is always the pubs that are standing in the way of compromise..

It is bullchit...

[Midtowner]

Heh...just shows why you are a lib DD.

Now we're to civil unrest and who wins...well I guess in you're world the socialists.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg/225px-Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg

Others have thought as you do. History does tend to be a good thing to consider when considering public policy. You've got to occasionally provide bread and circuses to keep the plebs happy.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

We just need a FedGov like we had before Wilson. One that had just enough money to fund defense. That is all, period, end of story. We can get the states to fund the important stuff. Important stuff does not equal so-called "entitlements".

[okie52]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg/225px-Marie_Antoinette_1767.jpg

Others have thought as you do. History does tend to be a good thing to consider when considering public policy. You've got to occasionally provide bread and circuses to keep the plebs happy.

The poor downtrodden middle class being squashed by the boujoua capitalistic pigs. The middle class and poor have no perks in this country. Rule on oh proletariat!!! Right on!!! Power to the people!!!!

[Midtowner]

The poor downtrodden middle class being squashed by the boujoua capitalistic pigs. The middle class and poor have no perks in this country. Rule on oh proletariat!!! Right on!!! Power to the people!!!!

In your rush to make fun, you discount some facts. The wealth in this country is concentrated at the top more so than even under Marie Antoinette. Yes, we have the welfare state, i.e., bread and circuses, but with the calls to make deep cuts, there will be serious repercussions.

[pphilfran]

In your rush to make fun, you discount some facts. The wealth in this country is concentrated at the top more so than even under Marie Antoinette. Yes, we have the welfare state, i.e., bread and circuses, but with the calls to make deep cuts, there will be serious repercussions.

It damn sure isn't due to people making 250k a year...or even a million a year...

It is the billionaires that make their money investing...

[okie52]

In your rush to make fun, you discount some facts. The wealth in this country is concentrated at the top more so than even under Marie Antoinette. Yes, we have the welfare state, i.e., bread and circuses, but with the calls to make deep cuts, there will be serious repercussions.

There will be serious repercussions if we don't make cuts. We could go back to that "shared sacrifice" of the glory days of the Clinton tax rates but nobody wants to do that.

There is a difference between income and wealth which seems lost on many.

[soonercruiser]

Phil:

The Republicans demonize the poor and middle class. If God forbid there were any type of major civil unrest who do you think wins?

The problem as I see it is the Republicans have caused this problem with their entire trickle down theory and that stupid Laffer Curve. Not only have we reduced taxes in this country (mostly for the rich) we have (according to the Economist Magazine) created a trillion and a half dollars in tax loopholes. We have stagnant middle class wages and we have inflation eating into those wages. The US does not need jobs it needs demand which will create jobs. Until we get wages and benefits back on track we will not create a lot of jobs because if no one is spending then no one is hiring.

OK! "Put up, Diver!
Give me a good solid example of Republicans (even in general....not just one idiot like Harry Reid) deamonizing the poor of middle class.
That makes a nice talking point. But, I'll bet all you can come up with is policies that do not "favor the poor", like Obama socialist, redistributionist policies!

[soonercruiser]

In your rush to make fun, you discount some facts. The wealth in this country is concentrated at the top more so than even under Marie Antoinette. Yes, we have the welfare state, i.e., bread and circuses, but with the calls to make deep cuts, there will be serious repercussions.

Mid,
Has any of this been from the "Little Red Book", or the writings of Carl Marx?

[Skysooner]

Mid,
Has any of this been from the "Little Red Book", or the writings of Carl Marx?

No, this is simply from a study of history that any decently educated high school student should know. When power/wealth gets concentrated into the hands of a few, there are always problems down the line.

[East Coast Bias]

OK! "Put up, Diver!
Give me a good solid example of Republicans (even in general....not just one idiot like Harry Reid) deamonizing the poor of middle class.
That makes a nice talking point. But, I'll bet all you can come up with is policies that do not "favor the poor", like Obama socialist, redistributionist policies!

How about all the food-stamp crap from Newt? His criticism did not try to place blame on the extreme poor? Was he not using a wide brush to make the poor the bad guy?

[East Coast Bias]

OK! "Put up, Diver!
Give me a good solid example of Republicans (even in general....not just one idiot like Harry Reid) deamonizing the poor of middle class.
That makes a nice talking point. But, I'll bet all you can come up with is policies that do not "favor the poor", like Obama socialist, redistributionist policies!

We can't include policies that don't favor the poor? That's like playing football without the ball. Where do the parties line up on these issues and which segment of society is affected?

Eliminating tax loop-holes Raising the minimum wage
Increasing the tax contribution from the wealthy Lowering the capital gains tax
Lowering corporate taxes Ending union benefits for public employees
Ending oil company subsidies Promoting the current medical system
Regulating Banks Reducing medicare benefits
Busting unions

The list goes on and on. There are valid reasons why the Dems have a lock on blacks, hispanics and the under-privileged. It may be a generalization to say the Pubs are becoming the party of old-white men, but it is becoming harder to refute.The larger question is why the middle-class would vote against their own self-interest? The aspiration to become wealthy?There is support for reducing the deficit, smaller government from all levels of society, but who is willing to compromise on any of this?

[yermom]

No, this is simply from a study of history that any decently educated high school student should know. When power/wealth gets concentrated into the hands of a few, there are always problems down the line.

then there is always the work of Sid Meier

[Skysooner]

then there is always the work of Sid Meier

I had to look that one up. I didn't realize he had done Civilization. Good point.

[soonercruiser]

How about all the food-stamp crap from Newt? His criticism did not try to place blame on the extreme poor? Was he not using a wide brush to make the poor the bad guy?

Unfortunately for you guys on the LEFT. it is a fact that a record number of U.S. citizens are on Welfare, and/or getting food stamps.
So, the label of Obama as the "Food Stamp President", fits the facts.

[soonercruiser]

How about all the food-stamp crap from Newt? His criticism did not try to place blame on the extreme poor? Was he not using a wide brush to make the poor the bad guy?

EastCoast,
Newt obviously has higher aspirations for the millions that the Left is trapping on the "New Plantation"!
I hope and pray that the nation can elect public officials that work for individual freedom, a healthy & growing economy, and therefore more jobs to make the American Dream a reality again for everyone.

But, everyone with a brain knows that many Americans will not either be able to participate....or simply choose to be "in the wagon".

[okie52]

We can't include policies that don't favor the poor? That's like playing football without the ball. Where do the parties line up on these issues and which segment of society is affected?

Eliminating tax loop-holes Raising the minimum wage
Increasing the tax contribution from the wealthy Lowering the capital gains tax
Lowering corporate taxes Ending union benefits for public employees
Ending oil company subsidies Promoting the current medical system
Regulating Banks Reducing medicare benefits
Busting unions

The list goes on and on. There are valid reasons why the Dems have a lock on blacks, hispanics and the under-privileged. It may be a generalization to say the Pubs are becoming the party of old-white men, but it is becoming harder to refute.The larger question is why the middle-class would vote against their own self-interest? The aspiration to become wealthy?There is support for reducing the deficit, smaller government from all levels of society, but who is willing to compromise on any of this?

Vote for your own self interest over what is best for the country?

so I should support the candidate that wants to tax everyone but me.

We should be for discriminatory policies like...giving unions $60,000,000,000 tax exemptions while taxing everyone else in the middle class or

Removing a particular manufacturers tax deductions while giving the rest of the industry those same tax deductions.

Increasing the capital gains tax rate even though it will result in less tax revenues...because it is fair.

Windfall profits tax on a particular industry but no others.

Pandering to an ethnic group that supports violating the laws of this country.

Supporting illegal immigration that drives down wages (but hey, we support raising the minimum wage).

[Mississippi Sooner]

I had to look that one up. I didn't realize he had done Civilization. Good point.

One of the most addictive damn games ever.

[KantoSooner]

I once spent the entirety of a flight from New York to Tokyo playing. My eyeballs felt like BBs when I got on the ground. So I went home and played another 10 hours.

[Midtowner]

Mid,
Has any of this been from the "Little Red Book", or the writings of Carl Marx?

Ah yes..

qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

Such an attitude worked out so well for Ms. Antoinette.

Anyone who has an elementary understanding of history has learned that concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite which is unconcerned for the challenges of everyone else is eventually taken by force. The Waltons having more wealth than 50% of the population is not a good thing. It's obscene.

[pphilfran]

Speaking of Wal Mart...though Wal Marts pay scale for most of their jobs that require no skill level is not what I would consider paying their employees low wages...

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/10/how-everyday-low-prices-are-costing-americans-their-jobs/

As consumers, we welcome Walmart's (WMT) low prices.

But here's the thing about these low prices -- they're doing the U.S. more harm than good.

A new research report has found that low prices have actually caused unemployment to rise, and dealt a massive blow to the manufacturing sector.

Look no further than the 7 million manufacturing jobs the U.S. lost from 1980 to 2011, according to a recent research report from Demos. The report acknowledges this happened because of "a variety of complex factors." But Walmart had a bigger hand in this than most of us realize.

Cutting Prices Does Have Its Cost

The problem starts with Walmart's selling point: low prices.

These low prices are possible both because Walmart pays its employees low wages and because the bulk of Walmart's products are sourced from foreign factories, where raw materials and labor are cheaper.

What's more, Walmart can -- and does -- use its massive size to bully American companies whose products it sells to do the same. In fact, Levi's jeans and Master Lock "were pressured to shut their U.S. factories and moved manufacturing abroad to meet Walmart's demand for low prices," Demos said.

What's more, many well-known companies rely on Walmart for more than 20% of their revenue, according to Business Insider's calculations, including:

Helen of Troy (which manufacturers kitchen tools under the OXO name)
Jarden (behind the Mr. Coffee brand).
Hanesbrands (the undergarment company known for Hanes and Wonderbra).

And they're not alone. Because these businesses are so heavily dependent on Walmart, they have no choice but to acquiesce to whatever Walmart asks of them.

So -- like Levi's and Master Lock -- if Walmart tells these companies their products must become even cheaper, they have to cut costs. Doing that requires finding cheaper raw materials (sourcing internationally) or cheaper labor (again, from overseas).

But This Can Only Go So Far

This cost cutting has tangential side effects that cost more jobs than just those folks working at factories.

Four of Walmart's top 10 suppliers in 1994 had filed for bankruptcy protection by 2006, according to Harper's Magazine, meaning disappearing factory jobs as well as the white-collar jobs at their headquarters.

Then consider Walmart's competitors, Target, Kmart, Dollar Tree, etc. To remain competitive with Walmart, they have to do exactly what Walmart does: look for cheap foreign product sources, or squeeze low prices out of their suppliers.

All of which continues to trickle down the economy, sending an increasing number of jobs abroad and allowing Walmart (now the nation's largest employer) to keep their employees' wages low.

So remember this next time you rejoice in finding a low-priced item at your local Walmart: Those "everyday low prices" may have cost you or someone you know their job.

[pphilfran]

He is correct in saying Wal Mart uses it's size to bully suppliers...

[okie52]

Ah yes..


Such an attitude worked out so well for Ms. Antoinette.

Anyone who has an elementary understanding of history has learned that concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite which is unconcerned for the challenges of everyone else is eventually taken by force. The Waltons having more wealth than 50% of the population is not a good thing. It's obscene.

How many Waltons are there? Is this 50% of the population the same group that doesn't pay income taxes?

It certainly doesn't bother me that there are fabulously wealthy people in this country as much as by the people who detest it.

[rock on sooner]

He is correct in saying Wal Mart uses it's size to bully suppliers...

MAJOR understatement! Friend of mine is a regional account mgr
for the Nestle company...had stories of being forced to supply WMT
first with new product to all WMT stores and, then if anything was
left over, he could approach other retailers. He absolutely hated
to call on them or take newbie reps to meet them...force came from
his bosses to keep the account.

I used to be an electronics buyer for, at the time, the leading retailer
in the KC region and could only buy a certain number of a product so
that it could be fairly distributed in the market place. After the demise
of Fair Trade, then all bets were off.

[rock on sooner]

How many Waltons are there? Is this 50% of the population the same group that doesn't pay income taxes?

It certainly doesn't bother me that there are fabulously wealthy people in this country as much as by the people who detest it.

Okie, I think there are four of them...they regularly show up
on Forbes wealthiest list, usually tied in fourth or fifth place.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The larger question is why the middle-class would vote against their own self-interest? The aspiration to become wealthy?There is support for reducing the deficit, smaller government from all levels of society, but who is willing to compromise on any of this?

I wonder this myself. I wonder if most have given up, don't think that they can become "wealthy" and will now rely on someone else to make it easier for them. I think many Americans have become soft in the success of the country since WWII. Most people don't know what it is to have hardship, not have things and money being tight. I mean when most people have 2 cars, a cell phone or two, washing machines and dryers, dishwashers, cable TV, color Tv, the internet, a computer, telephone service, running water, air conditioning and electricity, its easy to see people being lazy and not working hard...

I am a benefitiary of the success, but I haven't forgotten what life was like for my parents. I heard the stories frequently. Mom didn't have indoor plumbing until she was in high school, electricity came just before then, she harvested grain with a steam thresher (not a combine) and slaughtered pigs and boiled fat and made lye for soap. Christmas was one gift, usually shoes or clothes. Dad was better off, but Christmas was a toy maybe two and he had to work for spending money. He didn't have lots of stuff, they had one radio, in the living room.

So yeah, most people have no clue and are fat and lazy.

[okie52]

Okie, I think there are four of them...they regularly show up
on Forbes wealthiest list, usually tied in fourth or fifth place.

Crap...they are still ahead of the wealthiest Okies.

[KantoSooner]

Philfran, Walmart is NOT harming the US economy. We are part of a global economy and not fully by choice. We could not pull out of the global economy if we wanted to without massive dislocation to our own population (as in famine, death, plague, etc.) and, had we erected perfect walls around our country, we still would have been forced by national security concerns, if nothing else, to join. We are part of the world economy and can't not be part of the world economy.
That said, we can not, really, pick and choose how we will participate. Oh, you can put tariffs on goods, you can attempt to have quotas, but none of those last too long and none of them, ultimately, work.
Take for example, dumping. In fact, it doesn't really exist. If someone sells me something below the real cost to make that thing, they will not long stay in business.
So, we're part of the global economy and have no choice in the matter and we likewise participate fully in the global economy, also with little choice in the matter.
All Walmart has done is to do the best job, so far, of any company in procuring the goods they sell at the lowest possible price. They may be very cold blooded about it, but that's ultimtately it. And, really, if someone in India makes a bathtowel of the same or (more than likely) better quality than someone in South Carolina, and can get it to market, through Walmart, at a lower price, why should we penalize the American consumer to support inefficient (or maybe greedy, or lazy or whatever) production in said S. Carolina mill? If we did so, all we would be doing is to support poor manufacturers over their betters.

I'm all for supporting training, helping American business get financing and the like. But we have to accept that we are not going to be the dominant producer of everything. And we shouldn't want to be. We should concentrate on finding employment for those Americans who no longer do robotic-dumbass jobs; jobs that are better than the ones they lost. It might mean they have to start using their brains, but so be it. No one was born with a check-your-brain-at-the-door lifetime job guaranteed.

Walmart just forces efficiency. We should not be afraid of that. Or pillory them for simply doing their job better than the next guy.

[TitoMorelli]

Crap...they are still ahead of the wealthiest Okies.

Of course if the Waltons had to pay your day-rate, they wouldn't be. :)

[okie52]

Of course if the Waltons had to pay your day-rate, they wouldn't be. :)

Heh, that's the problem for the Okies....they are paying thousands of day rates.:joyous:

[pphilfran]

Philfran, Walmart is NOT harming the US economy. We are part of a global economy and not fully by choice. We could not pull out of the global economy if we wanted to without massive dislocation to our own population (as in famine, death, plague, etc.) and, had we erected perfect walls around our country, we still would have been forced by national security concerns, if nothing else, to join. We are part of the world economy and can't not be part of the world economy.
That said, we can not, really, pick and choose how we will participate. Oh, you can put tariffs on goods, you can attempt to have quotas, but none of those last too long and none of them, ultimately, work.
Take for example, dumping. In fact, it doesn't really exist. If someone sells me something below the real cost to make that thing, they will not long stay in business.
So, we're part of the global economy and have no choice in the matter and we likewise participate fully in the global economy, also with little choice in the matter.
All Walmart has done is to do the best job, so far, of any company in procuring the goods they sell at the lowest possible price. They may be very cold blooded about it, but that's ultimtately it. And, really, if someone in India makes a bathtowel of the same or (more than likely) better quality than someone in South Carolina, and can get it to market, through Walmart, at a lower price, why should we penalize the American consumer to support inefficient (or maybe greedy, or lazy or whatever) production in said S. Carolina mill? If we did so, all we would be doing is to support poor manufacturers over their betters.

I'm all for supporting training, helping American business get financing and the like. But we have to accept that we are not going to be the dominant producer of everything. And we shouldn't want to be. We should concentrate on finding employment for those Americans who no longer do robotic-dumbass jobs; jobs that are better than the ones they lost. It might mean they have to start using their brains, but so be it. No one was born with a check-your-brain-at-the-door lifetime job guaranteed.

Walmart just forces efficiency. We should not be afraid of that. Or pillory them for simply doing their job better than the next guy.

I didn't say I agreed with everything in the link...

Wal Mart does for more than force efficiency...

It is a great day when you sign the contract to be a supplier...they require massive amounts of product so you ramp up production...hire employees...build new facilities...and all is good...

Next contract comes around and they hammer you for a 10% cut in cost...even though you gave them the best price initially to get that original contract...

If you buck up and refuse to lower the price they tell you there are others that would love the business...

Once you get in you are between a rock and a hard spot...

They do not give a chit about their suppliers...

[KantoSooner]

Fran, you're absolutely corrrect about the way they treat suppliers. I know of several right over in good old Rogers, AR who refuse to do business with them. And that takes cojones of a major scale. But, over all they are merely taking the business of retailing to its logical (and legal) terminus. Small town retailing is hideously inefficient and, for every story of a kindly shop keeper who went broke extending credit to the poor, you've got 15 or 20 who rip off everyone in sight who can't get to a bigbox store.
I think we need to accept 'Walmart-ism' as the future and get on to adapting. Old fashioned lunch-pail-and-wrench manufacturing jobs are gone forever. The earlier and more convincingly we can make that plain to young people and get them into training for the jobs that will exist, the better.

[pphilfran]

Fran, you're absolutely corrrect about the way they treat suppliers. I know of several right over in good old Rogers, AR who refuse to do business with them. And that takes cojones of a major scale. But, over all they are merely taking the business of retailing to its logical (and legal) terminus. Small town retailing is hideously inefficient and, for every story of a kindly shop keeper who went broke extending credit to the poor, you've got 15 or 20 who rip off everyone in sight who can't get to a bigbox store.
I think we need to accept 'Walmart-ism' as the future and get on to adapting. Old fashioned lunch-pail-and-wrench manufacturing jobs are gone forever. The earlier and more convincingly we can make that plain to young people and get them into training for the jobs that will exist, the better.

They do run a super efficient business...they have one of the biggest computer systems in the world...they know exactly what sells, where it sells, how much it sells, and when it sells...

It is going to be tough for someone to knock them off their perch...

They did really screw up when they got rid of Action Alley for a period of time...they also reduced the number of products and that pizzed off a lot of customers...

They realized the error of their ways and have backed off on some of those practices and gotten back to more of their basic long term philosophies that Sam put in place....

[KantoSooner]

I don't see anyone in 'brick and mortar' knocking them off. It's going to require an Amazon type rethink to outflank them.

[pphilfran]

I don't see anyone in 'brick and mortar' knocking them off. It's going to require an Amazon type rethink to outflank them.

Yep...

[MamaMia]

And conservatives don't?Sure they do, just not to the place where you get free stuff.

[BigTip]

I was with a customer tonight. She is a Hispanic woman that owns a beauty parlor. Hispanic woman, both groups being a majority that vote Democratic. She said something about business, I said that she shouldn't be concerned, because "you didn't build that" anyway.

HOLY COW! She went off like a rocket. She said that was the most stupid thing she had ever heard. She had voted for Obama last election but she is actively telling her friends to change this time around.

So uh......I guess it is going to make a difference with a lot of folks.

Just thought I would share that enjoyable exchange. It was VERY enlightening and encouraging to me.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I was with a customer tonight. She is a Hispanic woman that owns a beauty parlor. Hispanic woman, both groups being a majority that vote Democratic. She said something about business, I said that she shouldn't be concerned, because "you didn't build that" anyway.

HOLY COW! She went off like a rocket. She said that was the most stupid thing she had ever heard. She had voted for Obama last election but she is actively telling her friends to change this time around.

So uh......I guess it is going to make a difference with a lot of folks.

Just thought I would share that enjoyable exchange. It was VERY enlightening and encouraging to me.

Very heartening. I can only hope that this is the case come election day.

[yermom]

very heartening that like most conservatives apparently, she doesn't know the language well enough to not get confused with a statement taken out of context ;)

[XingTheRubicon]

very heartening that like most conservatives apparently, she doesn't know the language well enough to not get confused with a statement taken out of context ;)

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Like most liberals, he'll be unemployed in a few months.

[BigTip]

very heartening that like most conservatives apparently, she doesn't know the language well enough to not get confused with a statement taken out of context ;)

Yes, the statement taken by itself is slightly out of context. Sure the rest of the speech softens it a little. But it doesn't soften the fact that Obama thinks the government is the end all of everything. Only the government can save you. It's an extremely telling thing he said, even if he did steal the idea, he has embraced it.

[soonercruiser]

very heartening that like most conservatives apparently, she doesn't know the language well enough to not get confused with a statement taken out of context ;)

Yah!
Obama meant to say that he built that!

He wants all the credit....and NO BLAME!
He bult $5 Trillion more debt....yes, he built that!..... by not leading the nation and his party in the Senate to pass a budget in 3 years!
To Demoncrats. hiding and blaming someone else is prefferd to taking action!
:confusion: