Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 226

Thread: Presidential Debate #2

  1. #181
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    So you agree clean jobs will be lost under Romney? This isnt a Romney Vs Obama thing. Its a "does it really make sense issue". It does not, thats why if this is the cornerstone of Romney's plan on how to fix the economy it will not help much.

    I dont think Romney has a viable solution to the economic mess we are in and his whole campaign is based on "I can fix the economy because I made a lot of money for myself in the private sector". What works in making profits in the private sector doesnt necessarily work when running a nation of 300 million because there are far more variables that need to be considered when running the country many of which you have little control.

    That being said, I dont think Obama has a viable plan either. Its disappointing that these 2 are our only options
    You are right but knowing what works in the private sector makes him much more qualified to understand what the government is doing to slow or stop those private activities and what it can possibly do to encourage those private activities.

    For some reason most liberals don't understand that just because taxes have been spun into government "revenue" doesn't mean that they are actually making profits. Taxes ie: Government Revenue is forcibly (at risk of jail or penalty for not complying) taking money from citizens. Some taxes are necessary but living this far outside of our means and expecting people to stand by and give more is unrealistic and irresponsible.

  2. #182
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    12,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    You are right but knowing what works in the private sector makes him much more qualified to understand what the government is doing to slow or stop those private activities and what it can possibly do to encourage those private activities.

    For some reason most liberals don't understand that just because taxes have been spun into government "revenue" doesn't mean that they are actually making profits. Taxes ie: Government Revenue is forcibly (at risk of jail or penalty for not complying) taking money from citizens. Some taxes are necessary but living this far outside of our means and expecting people to stand by and give more is unrealistic and irresponsible.
    Well said. Lets all hope that Romney wins and stop the mess Obummer is creating.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Go Jets!

  3. #183
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    You are right but knowing what works in the private sector makes him much more qualified to understand what the government is doing to slow or stop those private activities and what it can possibly do to encourage those private activities.

    For some reason most liberals don't understand that just because taxes have been spun into government "revenue" doesn't mean that they are actually making profits. Taxes ie: Government Revenue is forcibly (at risk of jail or penalty for not complying) taking money from citizens. Some taxes are necessary but living this far outside of our means and expecting people to stand by and give more is unrealistic and irresponsible.
    You are assuming his interest (and hence policy) will not be influenced by his desire to do whats best for those few at the top in private industry.

    For some reason most conservatives still buy into trickle down economics. Doing whats best for the elite in the private sector doesnt always mean doing whats best for the country.

    There needs to be a balance between the private and public sectors and government needs to play a role (not an asphyxiating role) in protecting the public from the private sector going out of control and raping everyone else at their profit.

    Unfortunately, Obama and Romney represent the polar extremes (to some degree the same polar extreme)and i dont think either will be able to form policy that will meet somewhere in the middle.

    Romney is of the mindset that we need less govt. Thats extreme (not extreme if you are running a business whose only interest is profit). Look at the nations on the global competitiveness report put out by the world economic forum. We are ranked 7th. Ahead of us are countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland. They all have more government involvement. The answer to our problems is clearly not less government as Romney is stating.

    Likewise, Obama has an absolute aversion to private business. He should not. Cooperation from the private and public sectors is the way to go to help our economy. Unless he changes his mind frame, there is no way he will be part of the solution.

  4. #184
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Of course i do. But there is no way you can accurately guess the economic impact. When you talk about economic impact, do you consider the potential losses in disasters and the environmental impact as was seen inthe gulf? Or the losses in clean fuel jobs when Romney rolls back the EPA regulations?
    Its easy to estimate the economic impact. Just look at whats happening in Northern Canada. If 1 million oil field workers are hired at 100K per year average thats 1 million people off of food stamps or unemployment. They pay taxes, buy houses and hire contractors to fix their houses. They go to restaurants and purchase vehicles. It creates a boom no different from the economic explosion we have seen in Northern Canada. Your make believe disasters or losses in pretend clean fuel jobs that don't exist to begin with are nothing compared to the potential gains.

  5. #185
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Its easy to estimate the economic impact. Just look at whats happening in Northern Canada. If 1 million oil field workers are hired at 100K per year average thats 1 million people off of food stamps or unemployment. They pay taxes, buy houses and hire contractors to fix their houses. They go to restaurants and purchase vehicles. It creates a boom no different from the economic explosion we have seen in Northern Canada. Your make believe disasters or losses in pretend clean fuel jobs that don't exist to begin with are nothing compared to the potential gains.
    Your make believe 100K salaries will buy make believe houses and make believe cars etc.

    This is a pipe dream. Pun intended

  6. #186
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    You are assuming his interest (and hence policy) will not be influenced by his desire to do whats best for those few at the top in private industry.

    For some reason most conservatives still buy into trickle down economics. Doing whats best for the elite in the private sector doesnt always mean doing whats best for the country.

    There needs to be a balance between the private and public sectors and government needs to play a role (not an asphyxiating role) in protecting the public from the private sector going out of control and raping everyone else at their profit.

    Unfortunately, Obama and Romney represent the polar extremes (to some degree the same polar extreme)and i dont think either will be able to form policy that will meet somewhere in the middle.

    Romney is of the mindset that we need less govt. Thats extreme (not extreme if you are running a business whose only interest is profit). Look at the nations on the global competitiveness report put out by the world economic forum. We are ranked 7th. Ahead of us are countries like Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland. They all have more government involvement. The answer to our problems is clearly not less government as Romney is stating.

    Likewise, Obama has an absolute aversion to private business. He should not. Cooperation from the private and public sectors is the way to go to help our economy. Unless he changes his mind frame, there is no way he will be part of the solution.
    I totally disagree and claiming that the ranking on one scale proves that all big government is good is ridiculous and I honestly almost not worthy of comment. Do you really think the only reason our country is floundering economically is because we are 7th on some scale? We are also way lower than 7th on the freedom poll and there are countries that are doing better than us that are above us there too. I guess that proves we need less government AND more government, right?

    Obama has just as many right guys that he is in the pocket of. If you don't realize that then I let you do some research on George Soros and Warren Buffett. Wall Street donated TONS of money to Obama. Do you think they are against him?

    I don't think there has ever or will ever be a candidate without private interests and leanings so their detractors can always say that those are the reasons they are making their decisions rather than understanding that those friends and supporters along with their experiences are more likely the reason for their decisions.

    The reason you think Republicans believe in trickle down is because conservatives realize that trickle up is impossible. The government needs successful individuals and companies to keep paying in so that they have the money to redistribute. Once that ends no one gets anything so it is always trickle down no matter if it is trickling by people working or after the stream is diverted, divided, wasted and sponged up by the bureaucracy before it gets to the people with their hands out.

  7. #187
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Your make believe 100K salaries will buy make believe houses and make believe cars etc.

    This is a pipe dream. Pun intended
    Check out the oil boom in North Dakota. Not such a fairy tale.

  8. #188
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    So you agree clean jobs will be lost under Romney? This isnt a Romney Vs Obama thing. Its a "does it really make sense issue". It does not, thats why if this is the cornerstone of Romney's plan on how to fix the economy it will not help much.

    I dont think Romney has a viable solution to the economic mess we are in and his whole campaign is based on "I can fix the economy because I made a lot of money for myself in the private sector". What works in making profits in the private sector doesnt necessarily work when running a nation of 300 million because there are far more variables that need to be considered when running the country many of which you have little control.

    That being said, I dont think Obama has a viable plan either. Its disappointing that these 2 are our only options
    My own view on this is Solar power is a great local solution but it isn't a community sollution. If we can keep the price of panels relatively cheap people will put them on their homes and small businesses, use them to heat home and community pools in areas where there is a pay back like the Southwest.

    We still need jobs and one of the advantages we have is we have a ton of energy locked up. This might help us reduce the cost of manufacturing if we can bring the cost down, it will also lesten or dependency on foreign oil which has other problems associated with it.

    There is no question we need to allocate resources more efficiently including water, power and transmission. That said natural gas is preferable to coal and oil and we should be using more of it because we have it. I would like to see the Government focus more on upgrading transmission lines, pipelines and clean water delivery then seeding an industry that is being developed by private companies around the world.

  9. #189
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,171
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Of course i do. But there is no way you can accurately guess the economic impact. When you talk about economic impact, do you consider the potential losses in disasters and the environmental impact as was seen inthe gulf? Or the losses in clean fuel jobs when Romney rolls back the EPA regulations?
    You're right - it's impossible to sufficiently model the economic impact of 7B worth of oil leases. After all, there aren't sufficient data points for anyone to look at, such as the economic impact of already operating oil fields with similar profiles, the likelihood and extent of possible spills, etc. I mean, sure, if that data existed or were discoverable, you could probably model it fairly well - well enough for a reasonable prediction - but since that data is clearly unknowable and unobtainable, you're probably right.


  10. #190
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    I totally disagree and claiming that the ranking on one scale proves that all big government is good is ridiculous and I honestly almost not worthy of comment. Do you really think the only reason our country is floundering economically is because we are 7th on some scale? We are also way lower than 7th on the freedom poll and there are countries that are doing better than us that are above us there too. I guess that proves we need less government AND more government, right?

    Obama has just as many right guys that he is in the pocket of. If you don't realize that then I let you do some research on George Soros and Warren Buffett. Wall Street donated TONS of money to Obama. Do you think they are against him?

    I don't think there has ever or will ever be a candidate without private interests and leanings so their detractors can always say that those are the reasons they are making their decisions rather than understanding that those friends and supporters along with their experiences are more likely the reason for their decisions.

    The reason you think Republicans believe in trickle down is because conservatives realize that trickle up is impossible. The government needs successful individuals and companies to keep paying in so that they have the money to redistribute. Once that ends no one gets anything so it is always trickle down no matter if it is trickling by people working or after the stream is diverted, divided, wasted and sponged up by the bureaucracy before it gets to the people with their hands out.
    Anyone who DOESN'T believe in "trickle down" obviously has never been in charge of a checkbook or a budget.

    When you make more money, most people end up spending more money on goods/services that they otherwise wouldn't have purchased.

    You can easily recognize this in situations where you income/cash flow has dropped. What do you do ? You start cutting back on things that "aren't essential".

    First thing that gets hit normally is your entertainment budget.

    • You stop going out to movies as often.
    • You reduce the number of times you go out to eat, or you make changes in your choice of restaurants/menu selection.
    • You stay at home and watch games on TV instead of attending them in person.
    • You listen to CDs instead of going to concerts.


    Next, services:
    • You decide to invest in a lawn mower and cut the grass yourself instead of paying someone else to do it.
    • You drop the cleaning service that came and cleaned your house twice per month.
    • You stop having your dress shirts cleaned and pressed at the dry cleaners, and wash and iron them yourself.
    • You have your oil changed every 9-12K instead of every 3-6K, or, you get the DIY kit and do it yourself.
    • Instead of going to to $35 car wash done mostly by hand, you pull into the spray wash place and spray your car for $3, vacuum it for $2, then drive home real fast to try and power dry to reduce spotting.


    This is just a quick partial list of changes that people make when facing a budget crunch, and guess what ? It does have a trickle down effect.

    Conversely, as your income level increases relative to your lifestyle, you start to make changes in your purchasing habits commiserate with the increase.

    Think about it. You get nice hefty promotion at work. What do you do ? You go out and celebrate it. You probably go to some place that you probably couldn't afford to previously, or if you go to a "normal" spot, you spend more than you normally would have. Why ? Because you can now afford to.

  11. #191
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Romney is of the mindset that we need less govt. Thats extreme.
    Liberalism, and Social Welfare Collectivism, in a nutshell.

    All Govt. is sacred, it must never be cut.

    Sorry Ken, the only exteme I see is a side who feels Govt. is teh answer to every question, and every penty the Govt. spends is justified and defendable.

  12. #192
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,945
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    When you make more money, most people end up spending more money on goods/services that they otherwise wouldn't have purchased.
    Then trickle up would work as well, right? More people with more money = more money being spent on stuff...

  13. #193
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Then trickle up would work as well, right? More people with more money = more money being spent on stuff...
    Trickle down means less taxes, leaving money available in private hands to be used by those who rightfully earned/posess it.

    Trickle up means more taxes, free handouts and entitlements, all paid for by "the rich", a group growing day by day and will soon (it seems) include every houshold making at or over $100,000/year.

    Trickle Up, or as it's actually called "stealing from someone who earned it, and giving it to those who did not".

    It may work....who knows.....but that doesn't make it right or rightious. For example, the economy MIGHT be better off if I took half YOUR paycheck each period PK.....does that mean I should?

    Taken to it's logical extreme, a system where Govt. takes 100%, and gives back (equally tio everyone) only as much as they can spend, well, that would be the "best" system, right? Every penny earned is spent, and everyone has the same, right? Regardless of effort or labor that created it.
    Last edited by Warfish; 10-18-2012 at 01:36 PM.

  14. #194
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Liberalism, and Social Welfare Collectivism, in a nutshell.

    All Govt. is sacred, it must never be cut.

    Sorry Ken, the only exteme I see is a side who feels Govt. is teh answer to every question, and every penty the Govt. spends is justified and defendable.
    That also is an extreme position and no one is suggesting that govt is THE answer to EVERY question and EVERY peeny the govt spends is justified.

    You are saying that, no one else is

  15. #195
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,945
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Trickle Up, or as it's actually called "stealing from someone who earned it, and giving it to those who did not".
    Is that what happened during the golden era of American capitalism?

  16. #196
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Then trickle up would work as well, right? More people with more money = more money being spent on stuff...
    Trickle up isn't sustainable and businesses and the market recognize this fact.

  17. #197
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    You're right - it's impossible to sufficiently model the economic impact of 7B worth of oil leases. After all, there aren't sufficient data points for anyone to look at, such as the economic impact of already operating oil fields with similar profiles, the likelihood and extent of possible spills, etc. I mean, sure, if that data existed or were discoverable, you could probably model it fairly well - well enough for a reasonable prediction - but since that data is clearly unknowable and unobtainable, you're probably right.

    Of course its obtainable, to a degree where an educated guess can be made. Lets see the model before we propose that this is the cornerstone to the solution that will fix the economy. The model should include the environmental risks and costs to those directly effected.

  18. #198
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,484
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Protectionist strategies are tough. They make so much sense when you think about it for 2 seconds but when you really delve into it it breaks apart. Cheap overseas labor allows Americans to get products at very low prices. To bring the jobs back here even when you consider offering lower taxes for on shoring and lower transport costs it would force prices up. Add ramp up costs for building a factory with union labor, dealing with local, state and federal regulations, higher component and material costs, Obamacare, etc into the much higher labor costs and you can see why it will never happen unless other factors such as rising fuel costs or increased labor costs from over seas level the playing field. Protectionist tariffs just get passed on to the American consumer and really help no one.

    There is no other way about it. Are you willing to pay $200 for a pair of Nike's you get for $100 now? $1000 for an iPhone? $10k for a Macbook or $5k for a PC? I doubt it,
    If Nike, Apple, etc. thought they could get those prices and maximize profit, those would be the prices - regardless.

  19. #199
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,415
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Then trickle up would work as well, right? More people with more money = more money being spent on stuff...
    The problem with trickle up or "redistribution" is that it discourages productivity. The concept would work in a lab environment or as a paper handed in for your poly sci class but it has been tried and failed. Marxism is a "bad word" around here but the original intention of communism was very much a positive and well intentioned idea. Like most left wing proposals they fail to take real world factors into account. President Sortero once quipped when asked what his major weakness was that he had to fight the urge to be lazy. He went on to say that growing up in Hawaii he had a laid back attitude and he needs to work to suppress the urge to be lazy.

    Well human nature works this way. People that are handed a somewhat comfortable lifestyle can become unmotivated. They will often choose the easy road. This is true across the economic spectrum. People in communist Russia were not motivated to work hard or be productive because there was no reward for such behavior. The challenge for societies is to strike the right balance between a safety net/compassion and going too far as to demotivate large swaths of society effectively rendering them dependent and helpless.

  20. #200
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,743
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    That also is an extreme position and no one is suggesting that govt is THE answer to EVERY question and EVERY peeny the govt spends is justified.

    You are saying that, no one else is
    Really?

    We just had a lengthy thread where almost every JI Poli-Sci left-leaner defended to the death the spending on PBS.

    Try finding a thread or post where liberal JI'ers promote cutting Government spending in any NON-Millitary way where specifics are given (i.e. not "end fraud and abuse platitudes).

    Sorry Ken, the daily in and out of this foum shows rather clearly that left-leaners defend every program, every project, every spending as long as it funds something they like or support. I.e. pretty much everything the Govt. does other than the Millitary.

    By all means, if you have a link to a specific plan (specific, not generalities and platitudes) of a Liberal politician showing what they'd cut other than the Army, please share it.

    Is that what happened during the golden era of American capitalism?
    PM me and I'll send you the address you can send half your paycheck to each week, to help the economy. Thanks.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us