Can Someone Shed More Light Here?

[densoo]

That's the best you got? Really? Do you know how much of President Obama's taxpayer "stimulus" money went overseas? Or to companies run by his donor cronies that are now bankrupt and out of business, that produced exactly nothing? Bain Capital, while not infallible, has a proven record of investing private capital and saving dozens of private compainies, and saving literally tens of thousands of private sector American jobs.

And why is it you think that raising taxes on everyone, including small businesses, and slapping on more regulations and layers of government bureauocracy is going to keep companies from outsourcing? It sounds more like incentive to outsource. The government cannot force a private company to not outsource any more than it can dictate how much it pays its officers. Those are the two main problems you guys keep harping on, right? How is raising taxes on individuals and small businesses (not to mention spending taxpayer money like it's going out of style) going to address those issues? That's an honest question, Densoo. Or Dicko, or anyone else, for that matter. How does that help? What is, or for that matter can, President Obama do to fix those particular "ills"? I'll tell you one thing--the way to fix problems with capitalism is NOT to slap socialism on top of it. But that seems to be the current administration's solution to just about everything.

Bubba

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.

No, you're a misguided idealogue with, as I suspected, no answers to legitimate questions.

Have a nice day.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

I guess being a good liberal, you 'believe' that all of us Americans should just give all of our money to the government to dole back out to us (and others) as they see fit to do so, or rather if they see fit.

No, that would be communism. The inability of the right to discern the difference is part of the problem with you claiming that right-wingers aren't all radicals. There used to be common-sense Republicans out there who didn't disbelieve scientific facts and sign idiotic pledges put in front of them by trolls like Grover Norquist. There used to be Republicans who could have policy debates without calling everyone to the left of them communists or socialists. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find such Republicans.

You really don't believe that someone can go along with liberal social causes, but not with liberal economic ideas?

As offensive as right-wing social causes are, it's the economic causes that I find most offensive.

Really? You know, PCL, I have often disagreed with you, but it seems like you used to at least try to be reasonable and civil. I suppose those days are over.

I think I am being civil. I disagree with you. Strongly. Doesn't make me "uncivil."

 

[waveflyer]

I've got plenty of answers- Im just done seriously debating with pilots on politics when they tend not to care about rational arguments.
I'll throw in my two cents- but that's all it is- respond or don't- no obligation-
I do love that you paint me as an ideologue but not yourself- I'd imagine both are baseless- I too have voted republican when I found fiscally conservative, socially liberal pols.
What we saw in the 2000's are those people kicked out of the Rep party with purity tests and hailing rush limbaugh. (ie: John McCain's sad demise of the once respected maverick, selling his soul to be relevant in an increasingly partisan country.)
And I would argue that you would not vehemently defend Romney if you were not an ideologue - conservatives don't like him- R's tried out every possibly viable candidate for the role-
Begging for it to be anyone but Romney-

You can really vote for that-?

Sorry- the white house is D until 2024 at least, bc Hillary will be next with none of the experience issues Obama has.

Btw, We may not work for herb, but we do work for someone who fought like hell through the recession to not furlough and not get paycuts through-
How many airline ceo's did that? I'm proud of that.

 

[waveflyer]

Well said PCL

 

[SWA Bubba]

No, that would be communism. The inability of the right to discern the difference is part of the problem with you claiming that right-wingers aren't all radicals. There used to be common-sense Republicans out there who didn't disbelieve scientific facts and sign idiotic pledges put in front of them by trolls like Grover Norquist. There used to be Republicans who could have policy debates without calling everyone to the left of them communists or socialists. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find such Republicans.

Not only did you miss the sarcasm, but you actually missed the part where I SAID it was sarcasm. I was using sarcasm to point out that what you said is the same thing--equating everyone who votes for a specific party to the most extreme end of that particular political spectrum. It's just as stupid a comparision to make for either the left or the right.


As offensive as right-wing social causes are, it's the economic causes that I find most offensive.

Hey, I agree that some right-wing social causes are offensive; I've already said that. However, this is a capitalistic country. Are there problems? Sure, but changing to more and more socialist policies isn't the answer (here you may notice that I didn't say that President Obama is a socialist, but rather that he's implementing socialist economic policies). You guys keep harping on the evils of capitalism and CEOs taking too much money. Okay, what has the administration done about it? Three-and-a-half years of the Obama adminstration, and so far all we've got is: MORE taxes, MORE unemployment, MORE crushing debt, and MORE government control. How is that helping your described problem?! CEOs still can take whatever they can get away with. Until the government actually nationalizes these companies (uh, THAT would be pure socialism), they can't stop that. So you'll forgive me, and hopefully not call me a radical, if I disagree, and say that President Obama's economic course is the wrong one, in my opinion. The administration seems hell-bent on turning our country into Europe, because THATs worked out so well economically. (BTW, that's more sarcasm--I don't want you to miss it this time).


I think I am being civil. I disagree with you. Strongly. Doesn't make me "uncivil."

Certainly one can disagree with someone civilly. However you essentially said that all pilots who vote for conservative candidates are exacly as radical as the far right end of the spectrum. Hence my sarcasm in equating the left the same way. That's not especially civil in my mind. They disagree with you so they must be radical wackos, right? Do you really not get that you implied that the first time? Then you pretty much said the exact same thing again above, in response to my sarcasm: that they can't tell the difference between communism, socialism, and liberalism, because they're all [right wing] radicals. Do you really not even listen to what you say? If I don't vote for who you want me to, I'm a radical? That doesn't sound too civil to me.

Bubba

 

[SWA Bubba]

I've got plenty of answers- Im just done seriously debating with pilots on politics when they tend not to care about rational arguments.

Actually, I've yet to see anyone on this forum offer answers on how to stop outsourcing and exorbitant CEO compensation. Those seem to be the chief complaints of the liberals these days, and nothing the Obama administration has done has even BEGUN to address this. And I'd argue that some of his tax policies are actually an incentive for companies TO outsource.

I'll throw in my two cents- but that's all it is- respond or don't- no obligation-
I do love that you paint me as an ideologue but not yourself- I'd imagine both are baseless- I too have voted republican when I found fiscally conservative, socially liberal pols.

To be fair, I didn't call you specifically an idealogue, because you actually usually try to explain your positions and have backing material. I was referring to the people who blindly say 'vote Democratic' JUST because we're in a union. And be careful admitting you've voted Republican, so you don't have PCL lumping you in with the rest of us "right-wing radical nutjobs."

What we saw in the 2000's are those people kicked out of the Rep party with purity tests and hailing rush limbaugh. (ie: John McCain's sad demise of the once respected maverick, selling his soul to be relevant in an increasingly partisan country.)

It's the same on both sides of the aisle, Wave. More and more partisanship and appeal to the far ends to get the nomination. And yes, I agree with you that it sucks. Here's a coupla' examples for you from the left: 1. Joe Lieberman, lost his primary because he wasn't blindly toeing the liberal line; he wasn't FAR enough left. He is a moderate, something sorely needed on both sides. He ran as an independent and won, clearly because the people of CT wanted something other than the good party man the Democrats put up. 2. The Affordable Health Care Act, i.e. Obama-care. All the Democrats voted for it, despite the fact that nobody actually read the damn thing, because that was the party line. That's not good or responsible government.

As far as McCain goes, he too is a moderate, and I suspect that a lot of what he said during the primary was what he felt he had to, to actually GET the support of the far right, in order to BE in the election. Had he been elected, I suspect his true, more moderate stances would have prevailed. I guess we'll never know for sure.

And I would argue that you would not vehemently defend Romney if you were not an ideologue - conservatives don't like him- R's tried out every possibly viable candidate for the role-
Begging for it to be anyone but Romney-

I've never "vehemently" defended Romney, but you have always seemed to defend Obama. So who's the idealogue here? I only made one post concerning Romney to defend against an insult directed at me. And did you ever wonder WHY a lot of Republicans don't like Romney? It's because he's not conservative ENOUGH. In my opinion, that part is a good thing. Like I've always maintained--we need politicians on both sides to be closer to the center. That's where the real people live. I should think that you'd appreciate that.

You can really vote for that-?

Actually, I'm essentially just voting against Obama. Did you read my opinions above about the least harm? That's my theory here. And he'll actually do less social harm the GW Bush, not being quite as religiously influenced, or nearly as far to the right.

Sorry- the white house is D until 2024 at least, bc Hillary will be next with none of the experience issues Obama has.

Btw, We may not work for herb, but we do work for someone who fought like hell through the recession to not furlough and not get paycuts through-
How many airline ceo's did that? I'm proud of that.

I agree with you here--that's why SWA is the only airline I applied to. But the reason is not because they necessarily agree with either party's platform. While Gary is not Herb, I believe that neither would appreciate the (in my opinion!) irresponsible way the President has handled the country's finances. It's not how THEY operate.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

I think it's easy to ignore economic realities- that if we hadnt had the stimulus we'd be in far worse shape. Remember, W got the ball rolling- the people who really know money on the macro level convinced everyone- did anybody like it? No. But it was necessary. Do you honestly think McCain wouldn't have implemented the stimulus?

But I bet fox and rush would have a different slant on it.

Bottom line is we disagree on what is the least harm- democrats are not going to allow the 'starve the beast' strategy of the W admin to work. Not until we tax the hell out of every profiteer during that time.

And it comes down to taxes- do you resent your taxes?
From day 1 on this planet, you've had the security of america to grow up in- from military force, to free education, amazing freedom from corruption compared to the rest of the world, to economic and physical infrastructure-

none of which is actually free.

The stage is set for anyone who wants financial succes to go and achieve it.

The only part of the deal is that if you make more you pay more-

So to me, when pilots making $250k bitch about taxes- it's incredibly ungrateful and short sighted- we have the lowest tax rates of our lifetime right now- and it's still too much and source of anger for most people. What does that say about the complainer?

None of us make our money in a void. The quicker you accept that the better- the rest of the macro issues you don't like will make more sense.

 

[NEDude]

Some facts to consider when deciding Republican vs Democrat (sources - Congressional Budget Office, Department of the Treasury and Department of Labor):

In the last 52 years only one recession began under a Democratic President, six have begun under Republicans. The shortest and mildest recession in the last 52 years was six months and it was the one that began under a Democrat. Republicans average nearly one recession per Presidential term, and the average length per recession is over 12 months in length. Republicans are four times as likely to oversee the start of a recession as a Democrat is.

As for Job creation - Democrats average job creation at a rate of 2.3%, Republicans average job creation at a rate of 1.25%, about half the rate of Democrats. When it comes to Federal Jobs - the big government Democrats have added a whopping 6.4 million jobs, while small government Republicans have added a paltry 7.1 million jobs (sarcasm intended).

Every single Republican administration has set record levels for spending and deficit, EVERY SINGLE ONE!! Not true for the Democrats.

Republicans talk a great game, but their record is pretty poor when compared to their claims.

So I ask all you Republicans out there - why do you think Republican Presidents do a better job at managing the economy? In fact the economy typically has fared FAR worse under Republicans than it has under Democrats. Why do you think a Republican President will reduce spending and deficits? They NEVER have in modern history. At least Democrats have a history of reducing deficits. Why do you think Republicans will shrink the size and scope of the federal government? They do not, they grow it at the same rate as Democrats. So please tell me what is it about Republican practices that lead you all to believe what you do. I am not asking to report what they say on Fox news, I want to know what is it about their actions that make you believe what you do.

 

[yellowfever]

Government fiscal responsibility at its finest:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405640n