Obamney 2012 - Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate

ax1 said:
If people get screwed illegally at a corporation then they should get together and sue, but Goverment can't pay people's morgages and benefits.

Suck it up as in, its not so bad to lose your home. Life goes on look forward. At least you dont have bombs from Obama drones falling on your house killing your baby.
Click to expand...

Major edit...its can't, not can, lol
 
ax1 said:
If people get screwed illegally at a corporation then they should get together and sue, but Goverment can pay people's morgages and benefits.

Suck it up as in, its not so bad to lose your home. Life goes on look forward. At least you dont have bombs from Obama drones falling on your house killing your baby.
Click to expand...

You must set the bar really low. Is getting up in the morning the pinnacle of your day? You also suck it up and stop blaming the government for all of your woes. It may not be the government's job to pay for peoples' mortgages/benefits, but it's also not their job to offer corporate protection for companies that outsource labor and mismanage publicly traded companies, yet they do it anyway regardless of the party in charge. And because some people consider themselves corporatists, they defend that position. If that is to be the case, then extend protections for all or NONE. But you'll never see that because ultimately it will be viewed as an anti-business approach.
 
ax1 said:
Also drive down by how much? For how long? How does it correlate to inflation?

What happens when things cost more than they are initially reported as usually is the case?
Click to expand...

What happens if bigfoot really exists? Is that really a unicorn in my back yard? Why I haven't seen the Chupacabra yet? Is the Easter Bunny living in my closet? I know you love "what if" scenarios, but let's meet back here when actual reality offers back the answers. Then we can have a reasonable debate. It's an idea, we'll see it put into practice and only time will tell. If it turns out to be a failure, ultimately it will be repealed. If it turns out to be successful, then ultimately you'll come back here and ask the important questions, like..."what if we're invaded by Count Dooku.What then?"
 
southpaw23 said:
So company due to mismanagement, lays off thousands of workers, no severance payments with many losing their pensions in the process. Now they are forced to look for work, but no one is hiring, eventually they are unable to keep up with their mortgage payments and end up losing their homes. What do you say to these people? Sorry...you played by the rules but you're on your own. Meanwhile the company can sell off its debt and restructure, once again receiving benefits, while management walks away with massive bonuses. That's your idea of a plan? That's fair? Or are you simply marrying yourself to a philosophy, an ideal and opting to remain inflexible?
Click to expand...

But really.. why are there no jobs? The economy blows because of government, not capitalism. Not only has the government gotten us into the problem we are in, but now we are looking at the same people to bail us out? Unemployment has become a revenue source income now rather than a life line.

I am a person that believe the Gov. shouldn't even be the ones to look to for "Getting the people back to work". That should be the free market. The same free market we brutalize with the globes highest corporate tax.

The last couple generations have an ego about them that they are better than labor, one of the effects for education for all. The illegal work force is thriving in our country for the sheer fact an American feels manual labor is below them, angling for that high paying office job. Not everyone is made to be an academic, yet we keep touting that like it is true. Someone has to flip the burgers, someone has to frame the houses, someone has to pour the concrete.

Let's be clear here, I don't believe I ever said i believe in tax breaks for outsourcing. But yet, the tax breaks for offshore labor is a myth anyway perpetuated by putting spin on the existing tax law for allowing WAY to many deductions. Offshore labor is deducted as a business expense. That's it, they can use that as a deduction. There isn't some hidden tax incentive for going offshore, it is just cheaper. Change our tax laws in the US to benefit AMERICAN workers, and jobs will return as long as people are willing to take a call center job that is "Below them" when they can make more off their unemployment.
 
southpaw23 said:
You must set the bar really low. Is getting up in the morning the pinnacle of your day? You also suck it up and stop blaming the government for all of your woes. It may not be the government's job to pay for peoples' mortgages/benefits, but it's also not their job to offer corporate protection for companies that outsource labor and mismanage publicly traded companies, yet they do it anyway regardless of the party in charge. And because some people consider themselves corporatists, they defend that position. If that is to be the case, then extend protections for all or NONE. But you'll never see that because ultimately it will be viewed as an anti-business approach.
Click to expand...

Because the wars are my priority, thats who I am. You say you care about people, but then you want the same goverment thats slaughtering people consistently day in day out in meaningless wars to help people.

My life is very good so stop saying Im blaming goverment for my own woes.

How about you stop depending on goverment to take care of everything and everybody.

The government's job is to enforce the constitution which they take oath too.

Im not a corporatist, you are. I assume you support all those bailouts right? When I support that all those companies should be left alone to crash.
 
southpaw23 said:
And all those who oppose it are equally unmatched in facts. There are numerous studies the convey quite the opposite of what is being posted here, saying that when it kicks in fully, it will drive down premiums for most.
Click to expand...

Please provide these. As the Congressional Budget Office themselves believe otherwise in their release in August.
 
southpaw23 said:
What happens if bigfoot really exists? Is that really a unicorn in my back yard? Why I haven't seen the Chupacabra yet? Is the Easter Bunny living in my closet? I know you love "what if" scenarios, but let's meet back here when actual reality offers back the answers. Then we can have a reasonable debate. It's an idea, we'll see it put into practice and only time will tell. If it turns out to be a failure, ultimately it will be repealed. If it turns out to be successful, then ultimately you'll come back here and ask the important questions, like..."what if we're invaded by Count Dooku.What then?"
Click to expand...

You totally dodged important questions that I bought up to validate my point. When I ask how much you dont know, you refer to Unicorns.

This is the problem, people who support the mandate are clueless to costs.
 
ax1 said:
Because the wars are my priority, thats who I am. You say you care about people, but then you want the same goverment thats slaughtering people consistently day in day out in meaningless wars to help people.

My life is very good so stop saying Im blaming goverment for my own woes.

How about you stop depending on goverment to take care of everything and everybody.

The government's job is to enforce the constitution which they take oath too.

Im not a corporatist, you are. I assume you support all those bailouts right? When I support that all those companies should be left alone to crash.
Click to expand...

Look at Ford. That is what happens when there are people who actually work hard and change as the times need.

Ford was in the same position GM was, only difference is GM took the bailout and Ford is strong as ever.

Now GM cant even get rid of the Feds from their operations.
 
DAdams91982 said:
Look at Ford. That is what happens when there are people who actually work hard and change as the times need.

Ford was in the same position GM was, only difference is GM took the bailout and Ford is strong as ever.

Now GM cant even get rid of the Feds from their operations.
Click to expand...

Yep. GM taking that bailout is what put me off of GM. I've always been a Ford guy anyway.
 
southpaw23 said:
If every budget you present has tax cuts in it for the top earners, and you draw a line in the sand refusing to step away from that position, then the issue becomes inflexible. I agree cuts must be made, but done so in reasonable fashion, not slash and burn.
Click to expand...

honestly, the top 5% of earnings pay the highest % of total US tax revenue since too long ago for me to find it. Its a story line that the democrats use "the rich getting away with tax cuts" but they have year by year been forced to cover more of the burden, not less as the story line goes. If I have to, i'll go through the IRS tables to show you the actual data, but its there. Nobody is asking for more tax cuts for the high income earners. I personally am a fan of letting all the Bush tax cuts expire. Letting them expire for over 250k only generates 50 billion in revenue, letting them all expire generates close to 170 billion. I think letting it expire over 1 million was something like 34 billion, can't recall it exactly. With a 1 trillion deficit, 50 billion isn't even noticeable, but 170 is.
 
ax1 said:
Because the wars are my priority, thats who I am. You say you care about people, but then you want the same goverment thats slaughtering people consistently day in day out in meaningless wars to help people.

My life is very good so stop saying Im blaming goverment for my own woes.

How about you stop depending on goverment to take care of everything and everybody.

The government's job is to enforce the constitution which they take oath too.

Im not a corporatist, you are. I assume you support all those bailouts right? When I support that all those companies should be left alone to crash.
Click to expand...

Because I work at a corporation, that makes me a corporatist? I value employee protections, not just my sole protection. Many of these companies that you wanted to let crash, held subsidiaries which were tied into the credit market. If you let one fall, they all fall. The fallout from that is catastrophic for the credit markets/investors. There is a domino effect at hand, pensions, holdings, 401ks that were at stake. Once again, your response is to let people lose everything they've worked for?
 
southpaw23 said:
Because I work at a corporation, that makes me a corporatist? I value employee protections, not just my sole protection. Many of these companies that you wanted to let crash, held subsidiaries which were tied into the credit market. If you let one fall, they all fall. The fallout from that is catastrophic for the credit markets/investors. There is a domino effect at hand, pensions, holdings, 401ks that were at stake. Once again, your response is to let people lose everything they've worked for?
Click to expand...

realistically, propping those companies up primarily delays people losing everything they worked for, doesn't stop it. And again, taking a different perspective, given how you talk about the wealthy isn't it true that it would damage them disproportionately more as they have more in investments/net worth?
 
southpaw23 said:
Because I work at a corporation, that makes me a corporatist? I value employee protections, not just my sole protection. Many of these companies that you wanted to let crash, held subsidiaries which were tied into the credit market. If you let one fall, they all fall. The fallout from that is catastrophic for the credit markets/investors. There is a domino effect at hand, pensions, holdings, 401ks that were at stake. Once again, your response is to let people lose everything they've worked for?
Click to expand...

The burden shouldn't be taken on others that had nothing to do with it.
 
southpaw23 said:
I don't view people who have played by the rules as being burdens.
Click to expand...

why should my earnings go to support a bank that was failing because of bad choices? As you can see by the fine job done with it, it did absolutely 0 for the people who played by the rules, but did get bank execs big bonuses. Had the banks been allowed to fail instead, it would have created a lot more caution within the financial industry. Instead it let them know that so long as they find a way to take the risky choices or pad books in ways that don't break the law, they can go ahead and do it with assurance that taxpayer dollars will cover it.

And yes, I know it was a Bush agenda item, I was against many bush agenda pieces including Medicare part D.
 
southpaw23 said:
I don't view people who have played by the rules as being burdens.
Click to expand...

Why not? They should have known that doomsday was coming when they did nothing about the quality of the cars.

They put a lot of energy being activists for their union but not their product.
 
EasyEJL said:
why should my earnings go to support a bank that was failing because of bad choices? As you can see by the fine job done with it, it did absolutely 0 for the people who played by the rules, but did get bank execs big bonuses. Had the banks been allowed to fail instead, it would have created a lot more caution within the financial industry. Instead it let them know that so long as they find a way to take the risky choices or pad books in ways that don't break the law, they can go ahead and do it with assurance that taxpayer dollars will cover it.

And yes, I know it was a Bush agenda item, I was against many bush agenda pieces including Medicare part D.
Click to expand...

I understand the core principal of your argument and in many ways I agree with you. I'm NOT for bailing out banks either. However, it's not that simple when you take into account what is involved. The holdings these banks had, investments, pension management, a lot of innocent people stood to lose EVERYTHING, at the very least they were able to transfer their investments and walk away with what they had, while some even lost a substantial amount of their earnings. I agree the banks did not play by the rules, but those that did shouldn't have to risk their futures as punishment for that. So again, I understand your point. But my point is, it's not as simple as just letting them crash and walk away. There ramifications are far reaching. I'd say f*ck big banks too, if innocent people weren't harmed as a result. They deserve protections too.
 
southpaw23 said:
I understand the core principal of your argument and in many ways I agree with you. I'm NOT for bailing out banks either. However, it's not that simple when you take into account what is involved. The holdings these banks had, investments, pension management, a lot of innocent people stood to lose EVERYTHING, at the very least they were able to transfer their investments and walk away with what they had, while some even lost a substantial amount of their earnings. I agree the banks did not play by the rules, but those that did shouldn't have to risk their futures as punishment for that. So again, I understand your point. But my point is, it's not as simple as just letting them crash and walk away. There ramifications are far reaching. I'd say f*ck big banks too, if innocent people weren't harmed as a result. They deserve protections too.
Click to expand...

but the bailouts didn't particularly protect them. The bailouts kept the banks open, but the markets crashed, and people lost 40% of their investments anyhow.
 
ax1 said:
Why not? They should have known that doomsday was coming when they did nothing about the quality of the cars.

They put a lot of energy being activists for their union but not their product.
Click to expand...

I wasn't just referring to one sector, the auto-industry. :/
 
southpaw23 said:
I wasn't just referring to one sector, the auto-industry. :/
Click to expand...

The industry as a whole failed. Also you cant just blame those on top. Those on top get bugged for higher pay, benefit after benefit, etc....lose incentive to make quality products due to rising cost demands from Unions. Unions ime cause a socialistic state with the workers and they loose all their incentive to do better.

Its not the job of the tax payer to save these jobs.

What you have to do is let it crash, liquidate the company and hope someone else picks the company back up. If not then people should have been prepared because there is no such thing as security, only self reliance.
 
southpaw23 said:
a lot of innocent people stood to lose EVERYTHING, at the very least they were able to transfer their investments and walk away with what they had, while some even lost a substantial amount of their earnings. I agree the banks did not play by the rules, but those that did shouldn't have to risk their futures as punishment for that. So again, I understand your point. But my point is, it's not as simple as just letting them crash and walk away. There ramifications are far reaching. I'd say f*ck big banks too, if innocent people weren't harmed as a result. They deserve protections too.
Click to expand...

Alot of innocent people are going to be punished that had nothing to do with people making wrong decisions on who to trust with their finances. People have been warned for years not to involve themselves in these ponzi scheme investments, but they get blamed for being a "conspiracy theorist"

I dont invest my money in these crappy banking institutions. I as well as others shouldnt be responsible for other peoples irresponsible risks trusting some blood thirsty bank to gamble their money.

The fed is infinitely pumping 80 billion a month in bailout money infinitely. Money is printed out of thin air and currency is devalued and in greater danger of being collapsed globally.

You cant save everybody, whats important is not letting the system collapse and so far the solutions have amounted to just about nothing other than more debt and having the country closer to collapse.
 
EasyEJL said:
but the bailouts didn't particularly protect them. The bailouts kept the banks open, but the markets crashed, and people lost 40% of their investments anyhow.
Click to expand...

The numbers ranged anywhere between 20% to 60% on losses, depending how much you had tied up in the market. The point is it allowed them to walk away with something they'd earned, rather than losing it all. I didn't want to see my parents lose anything, much less everything. They lost over a lifetime's worth of savings. I've seen the impact that its had on my parents. When I look at my father, I can see the pain of that inside him, even though he never talks about it. That he came here with a dream, worked his a$$ off (no entitlements) and took us from sleeping on a wooden floor, to an apt, to eventually our own home. I can't and won't accept that. Here you have two people who did everything right so that their kids could live a better life, and here they are struggling in the years where they are supposed to be enjoying the fruits of their labor. No, can't do it. Won't do it. AX claims his passion is raging against wars, mine is consumer/employee protections.It's why I took advantage of the market and created a compliance firm, not allowing the market to take advantage of me.
 
southpaw23 said:
AX claims his passion is raging against wars, mine is consumer/employee protections.It's why I took advantage of the market and created a compliance firm, not allowing the market to take advantage of me.
Click to expand...

Consumers should be protected, and if they are abused you have to take it to court, its a constitutional right.

Taking other peoples money to fix the problems and issues of others by force is immoral. Your screwing other consumers which is hypocritical to only think of the failing group.

You are protected $100,000 in your bank, but any investment is a risk someone chooses to take.
 
ax1 said:
Consumers should be protected, and if they are abused you have to take it to court, its a constitutional right.

Taking other peoples money to fix the problems and issues of others by force is immoral.

You are protected $100,000 in your bank, but any investment is a risk someone chooses to take.
Click to expand...

Which requires money AX and I'm referring to investments, not free checking accounts. And, NO, not all investments are risky, there are different investments pools that carry different risks, at the base end most are negligible. Stick to wars.
 
southpaw23 said:
Which requires money AX and I'm referring to investments, not free checking accounts. And, NO, not all investments are risky, there are different investments pools that carry different risks, at the base end most are negligible. Stick to wars.
Click to expand...

No, my passion is consumer protection too. I stick to whatever I choose to stick.

You can determine whatever investment you want to take, and take whatever level of risk you take. But if you get robbed by the bank take them to court, dont ask Goverment and the tax payer to be your sugar daddy and bail you out.

If someone robs me on the street after I pulled a withdrawal out of an ATM, and the money was most of what I had and I cant pay my rent, should the tax payers feel sorry for me and tell goverment they must be taxed to pay my rent? Or print money out of thin air for me and have their money devalued?
 
ax1 said:
No, my passion is consumer protection too. I stick to whatever I choose to stick.

You can determine whatever investment you want to take, and take whatever level of risk you take. But if you get robbed by the bank take them to court, dont ask Goverment and the tax payer to be your sugar daddy and bail you out.

If someone robs me on the street after I pulled a withdrawal out of an ATM, and the money was most of what I had and I cant pay my rent, should the tax payers feel sorry for me and tell goverment they must be taxed to pay my rent? Or print money out of thin air for me and have their money devalued?
Click to expand...

Then try to make sure that your "opinions" at the very least, are of the informed variety. Comparing getting robbed on the street, to what is involved in a regulated environment, is not just overly simplistic, but silly. You have a 401k? If so, I want you to explain to me how it works?
 
southpaw23 said:
Then try to make sure that your "opinions" at the very least, are of the informed variety. Comparing getting robbed on the street, to what is involved in a regulated environment, is not just overly simplistic, but silly. You have a 401k? If so, I want you to explain to me how it works?
Click to expand...

No I dont have a 401K, and when I had regular jobs I opted out. I have my own thing I do with my money, and I dont spend more than I earn and take out irresponsible mortgages hoping some company is going to sugar daddy me for life and expecting tax payers to bail me out should I screw up.

So whats your point?
 
ax1 said:
No I dont have a 401K, and when I had regular jobs I opted out. I have my own thing I do with my money, and I dont spend more than I earn and take out irresponsible mortgages hoping some company is going to sugar daddy me for life. I take all responsibility for myself, when I was a kid and was homeless I didnt go to goverment for food stamps, I sucked it up and took food out of any garbage I can find.

So whats your point?
Click to expand...

Neither did I, what's your point? You claim to know how the market works, so I'm asking you to explain it to me? Simple enough.

P.S. 401K's have nothing to do with entitlements (as you mentioned above), though I know that's YOUR ONE AND ONLY reflexive response to everything. AX, is it going to rain tomorrow? "I don't know, I don't believe in free rain. I make my own rain. I like to make it rain."
 
southpaw23 said:
Neither did I, what's your point? You claim to know how the market works, so I'm asking you to explain it to me? Simple enough...
Click to expand...

When did I claim I was a markets expert?

All Ive been saying is people need to take personal responsibility for their decisions and suck it up.
 
ax1 said:
When did I claim I was a markets expert?

All Ive been saying is people need to take personal responsibility for their decisions and suck it up.
Click to expand...

Grand idea, AX. People need to stop blaming the government for their problems and SUCK IT UP.
 
southpaw23 said:
Grand idea, AX. People need to stop blaming the government for their problems and SUCK IT UP.
Click to expand...

No, I dont blame the goverment, I blame people who vote based on who will be their sugar daddy just like this past election.
 
ax1 said:
No, I dont blame the goverment, I blame people who vote based on who will be their sugar daddy just like this past election.
Click to expand...

Lol. Warren Buffet needed a sugar daddy? Abigail Disney president of the Daphney Foundation,Celine Justice; Whitney Tilson managing partner of T2 Partners L.L.C., Kelli Alires; Frank Jernigan, who retired from Google,Teresa Gardiner; Lawrence Benenson, partner of Benenson Capital, and Carmen Peterson. <----These people needed sugar daddies? Or is that just the uninformed ideologue in you talking again...
 
southpaw23 said:
Lol. Warren Buffet needed a sugar daddy? Abigail Disney president of the Daphney Foundation,Celine Justice; Whitney Tilson managing partner of T2 Partners L.L.C., Kelli Alires; Frank Jernigan, who retired from Google,Teresa Gardiner; Lawrence Benenson, partner of Benenson Capital, and Carmen Peterson. <----These people needed sugar daddies? Or is that just the uninformed ideologue in you talking again...
Click to expand...

People vote based on the notion that government is going to be there to help them and give them things.

Those are the people who expect government to do things for them and blame goverment for all their problems when they arent given anything.
 
southpaw23 said:
Neither did I, what's your point? You claim to know how the market works, so I'm asking you to explain it to me? Simple enough.

P.S. 401K's have nothing to do with entitlements (as you mentioned above), though I know that's YOUR ONE AND ONLY reflexive response to everything. AX, is it going to rain tomorrow? "I don't know, I don't believe in free rain. I make my own rain. I like to make it rain."
Click to expand...

Whats your point with 401K anyways, why did you bring that up?
 
southpaw23 said:
We share a similar back story in terms of how you've described your childhood/economic status. My family immigrated here when I was a child. Three kids sleeping on a wooden floor, and this was the case for many years; as both my mother and father worked to put themselves through school, ALL WITHOUT HANDOUTS or government assistance. I watched my mother shrink down to 90lbs, as she'd pass me her dinner on a nightly basis so her kids could eat, so my perspective on certain issues may be a little different than some others here. I'm not lauding my education, I consider myself lucky. However, for some to trivialize education and tag someone or rather institutions as being "elitist" is the height of ignorance. Education is what took me out of one tax bracket and life path, and put me into another. Do I believe in unlimited handouts? NO. Do I believe that some people are lazy and game the system? Yes. However, do I also believe that some people just want a chance to improve their lives and need assistance in doing so? Yes. So it's a bit more complicated than painting everyone with a broad brush and saying let's get rid of all entitlements. You can't make drastic and immediate cuts to programs that some people utilize as a lifeline.You can't tell a kid, whose parents can't afford to pay for them to go to college that you're cutting or taking away their Pell grants. Investing in higher education is investing in the economy (not referring to lib art majors). Now we do have to make some cuts but it must be done over a prolonged period of time, NOT IMMEDIATE. I also think in order to escape a narrow perspective, people should travel outside of their little bubble, and I'm not referring to taking a trip to Cancun. So many people offer opinions about the rest of the world, when they've never even owned a passport.

This isn't an Obama issue for me, if Mitt Romney the moderate showed up, he might have received my vote. I actually liked him as "governor." The presidential candidate and more importantly his "policies," not so much.
Click to expand...
not disagreeing, as an educated person as well, I think there is a misnomer that being educated makes one "smart" which is does not. There are multiple intelligences that serve people and serve them well.

I dont disagree with your student loan comments, but at the same time we also need to consider limitations.
 
southpaw23 said:
Lol :/ Never mind man. Back to talking about alien invasions.
Click to expand...

No seriously, I was talking about how people shouldnt be bailed out if they get laid off or screw up their investments, and then you went into 401k a couple of times, I dont get it. What is it that you are trying to say about 401k and what did that have to do with this discussion.
 
The fact of the matter is that after Tuesday night's results we have learned one thing...

The United States of America has finally turned the corner.

For years you've heard people say, "This country is changing". Well... this country has finally changed.

After decades of the communist red shirts, in Democrat Progressive disguise, increasing the welfare state, increasing entitlements, leaving the borders wide open to illegal immigration, encouraging illegal immigrants and the poor to take advantage and rip off the system, poisoning the minds of the American youth through the union run public education system as well as the universities, in which the students are tought to hate America, hate capitalism, and become USEFUL IDIOTS falling victim to the class warfare tactics....


America has finally chosen the path of Marxism/Socialism -lite. Unfortunately, this will only lead to more unemployment... leading to EVEN MORE ENTITLEMENTS, more unemployment and more government assitance... in turn leaving more and more of the voting electorate DEPENDANT on the government. And every 2-4 years when election time comes... the Democommies will be there to offer more and more freebies, while blaming the big mean greedy rich businessmen for laying them off.

This has been their goal for the past few decades, and they have finally brought American to it's knees.

Everyone loves Santa Claus... you can't beat Santa Claus. So this will lock in liberal victories for the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately for the Trotskyites, eventually you will run out of other people's money to spend and redistribute.

But then again, you can always borrow it from China. And eventually pay them back with American land and territory. Maybe even some government control.
 
Funny how everyone thinks they are economists. If you don't like it here you are free to leave. Or better yet thank god you were born in a country where you can debate your political views without getting your head cut off..
 
CincyKiller45 said:
Funny how everyone thinks they are economists. If you don't like it here you are free to leave. Or better yet thank god you were born in a country where you can debate your political views without getting your head cut off..
Click to expand...

While I respect your opinion I am curious what you think you added? Your commentary pertaining to the individuals involved in this thread believing they are economists is foolish and a gross generalization.

The fact is "it's the economy stupid" and quite simple and basic mathematics.

Granted we can leave or we should just love it, but when one sees drastic changes in our society that will have a direct impact on them financially it is more than reasonable to lash out at those who support the changes.
 
AE14 said:
While I respect your opinion I am curious what you think you added? Your commentary pertaining to the individuals involved in this thread believing they are economists is foolish and a gross generalization.

The fact is "it's the economy stupid" and quite simple and basic mathematics.

Granted we can leave or we should just love it, but when one sees drastic changes in our society that will have a direct impact on them financially it is more than reasonable to lash out at those who support the changes.
Click to expand...

The problem is that something like 80% of the population doesn't understand the simple concept of how to balance a checkbook anymore. Math is something you do with a calculator (or google even). So its not like many people do understand much economically given the lack of basic math skills. I blame our education system ;)
 
EasyEJL said:
The problem is that something like 80% of the population doesn't understand the simple concept of how to balance a checkbook anymore. Math is something you do with a calculator (or google even). So its not like many people do understand much economically given the lack of basic math skills. I blame our education system ;)
Click to expand...

Conversely, I attribute it to the lack thereof. :)
 
AE14 said:
While I respect your opinion I am curious what you think you added? Your commentary pertaining to the individuals involved in this thread believing they are economists is foolish and a gross generalization.

The fact is "it's the economy stupid" and quite simple and basic mathematics.

Granted we can leave or we should just love it, but when one sees drastic changes in our society that will have a direct impact on them financially it is more than reasonable to lash out at those who support the changes.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion as well. I also revoke my statement saying that everyone in this thread thinks they are "economists". That was far too broad and unfair.

I would also like to hear what tangible contributions you believe you added. Like the president is going to withdraw any decisions made based on what was said in a thread on anabolic minds?
 
CincyKiller45 said:
I respect your opinion as well. I also revoke my statement saying that everyone in this thread thinks they are "economists". That was far too broad and unfair.

I would also like to hear what tangible contributions you believe you added. Like the president is going to withdraw any decisions made based on what was said in a thread on anabolic minds?
Click to expand...

Lol.
 
CincyKiller45 said:
I respect your opinion as well. I also revoke my statement saying that everyone in this thread thinks they are "economists". That was far too broad and unfair.

I would also like to hear what tangible contributions you believe you added. Like the president is going to withdraw any decisions made based on what was said in a thread on anabolic minds?
Click to expand...

I would like to know why you have such a problem with people voicing their opinions. He is expressing his opinion in the hopes of exposing other members to a different point of view, which is his right.

You came in here, giving nothing of value to the discussion, and just being argumentative. Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top