Blacks and using the race card when is convinient!!

[Pidgey]

I'm not sure that as a Conservative you'll be able to fully embrace an Obama administration's policies but I can tell you this. I fully believe the country will do better than it has in the previous 8 years. That's my goal for the future.

It can't. In order to grow the economy, the sum total of all products and services must increase. In order to do that, you'd have to have more net energy to apply towards the production of said products and services. Yes, we can certainly put everyone to work doing "make-work" jobs but the ultimate outcome will still be as unwelcome: less available per capita energy to consume. No president can change the laws of physics. About all we could possibly do now is to manage the descent but people really aren't going to like how. It's just a damn shame that Congress is so loaded with lawyers. It'd be a helluva' lot better if they employed lawyers but barred them from the jobs.

 

[top gun]

It can't. In order to grow the economy, the sum total of all products and services must increase. In order to do that, you'd have to have more net energy to apply towards the production of said products and services. Yes, we can certainly put everyone to work doing "make-work" jobs but the ultimate outcome will still be as unwelcome: less available per capita energy to consume. No president can change the laws of physics. About all we could possibly do now is to manage the descent but people really aren't going to like how. It's just a damn shame that Congress is so loaded with lawyers. It'd be a helluva' lot better if they employed lawyers but barred them from the jobs.

I think the goal here is to put people to work as in the Great Depression.
This accomplishes quite a few very good things.

One, it takes people off unemployment, welfare etc.

Two, the jobs projects are all truly needed and will have to be done anyway.

Three, These people put back to work are then paying taxes back into the system and they a buying many products with their new paychecks.

And four, it gives the country a serious psychological boost... consumer confidence is very important.

You are correct in that in the long run the overall business dynamic must improve because "Works Programs" can't just go on forever.

But this may well give us the breathing room we need to actually do that.

 

[BigRob]

I think the goal here is to put people to work as in the Great Depression.
This accomplishes quite a few very good things.

One, it takes people off unemployment, welfare etc.

Two, the jobs projects are all truly needed and will have to be done anyway.

Three, These people put back to work are then paying taxes back into the system and they a buying many products with their new paychecks.

And four, it gives the country a serious psychological boost... consumer confidence is very important.

You are correct in that in the long run the overall business dynamic must improve because "Works Programs" can't just go on forever.

But this may well give us the breathing room we need to actually do that.

If the government puts everyone to work, then they are not "off the welfare."

Further, it was not the New Deal that ended the Great Depression, many economists will tell you the New Deal extended it.

 

[Pidgey]

It could even be argued that the reduction in the young male population due to the casualties of WWII coupled with the increase in heavy industry capacity launched our economy out of the pit. That was, as a country, we still produced physical product for world consumption. Now, of course, we consume more of the world's product than we provide. If this were to ultimately kill the hegemony of the dollar in world energy markets, then you can kiss your lifestyle goodbye. With feeling.

 

[top gun]

If the government puts everyone to work, then they are not "off the welfare."

Further, it was not the New Deal that ended the Great Depression, many economists will tell you the New Deal extended it.

Let's try you on math.

Is it better to have hundreds of thousands more people sitting at home drawing unemployment or a welfare check paying no taxes and buying almost nothing (some sealing & robbing to survive)...

OR

Is it better to have those same people working on real & terribly needed improvements to our nations infrastructure paying something back into the system in taxes and buying as anyone with a decent job does?

I'm sure we all wish nothing was necessary and the economy was as great as it was when President Clinton left office. But it's not. George Bush & the Republicans dug the biggest hole for us that they possibly could.

We've done the doing nothing "Republican" thing for 7 of the last 8 years. And we can imagine that FDR did nothing but hurt America and it was just a coincidence things got better under his watch.

But I'm fine with trying... remember I'm a YES WE CAN GUY... not a Republicant.

 

[BigRob]

Let's try you on math.

Is it better to have hundreds of thousands more people sitting at home drawing unemployment or a welfare check paying no taxes and buying almost nothing (some sealing & robbing to survive)...

OR

Is it better to have those same people working on real & terribly needed improvements to our nations infrastructure paying something back into the system in taxes and buying as anyone with a decent job does?

I'm sure we all wish nothing was necessary and the economy was as great as it was when President Clinton left office. But it's not. George Bush & the Republicans dug the biggest hole for us that they possibly could.

We've done the doing nothing "Republican" thing for 7 of the last 8 years. And we can imagine that FDR did nothing but hurt America and it was just a coincidence things got better under his watch.

But I'm fine with trying... remember I'm a YES WE CAN GUY... not a Republicant.

Ok, I will bite on the "math." Is it better to have people collecting small amounts of unemployment benefits or handing them a job that pays 5 times as much that is still financed by the government?

Use this for an example:

Bob gets $500 a month sitting at home watching TV in unemployment. That money is paid for by you and me.

The government tells Bob they have a job for him and will pay him $2000 a month. That money is paid for by you and me.

If we are going to be handing out free money, I would prefer handing out less of it.

The economy was not great when Clinton left office, but that is neither here nor there, it was in a slowdown when he left. If the Republicans actually practiced free market policies (which they have not) then the problems we are facing would be much less in my view.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Calidem, I hear you bud!!!

Who cares one flip about HOW MANY of any "group" we have in politics??? Not me. I DO CARE however, when a person gets the position BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE!!!

This is insane. If a "white" guy made such a statement, they would be boiled alive! Why is it okay for anyone to make such an outrageous demand???

 

[Pidgey]

Ok, I will bite on the "math." Is it better to have people collecting small amounts of unemployment benefits or handing them a job that pays 5 times as much that is still financed by the government?

Use this for an example:

Bob gets $500 a month sitting at home watching TV in unemployment. That money is paid for by you and me.

The government tells Bob they have a job for him and will pay him $2000 a month. That money is paid for by you and me.

If we are going to be handing out free money, I would prefer handing out less of it.

The economy was not great when Clinton left office, but that is neither here nor there, it was in a slowdown when he left. If the Republicans actually practiced free market policies (which they have not) then the problems we are facing would be much less in my view.

I suppose there should be some consideration for whether or not you'd get a return on your investment and how much it'd be. For instance, if it's something that you were going to have to do anyway... but then that also means that there'd have to have been budget money and contractors...

Dang.

Complex world, ain't it?

 

[top gun]

Ok, I will bite on the "math." Is it better to have people collecting small amounts of unemployment benefits or handing them a job that pays 5 times as much that is still financed by the government?

Use this for an example:

Bob gets $500 a month sitting at home watching TV in unemployment. That money is paid for by you and me.

The government tells Bob they have a job for him and will pay him $2000 a month. That money is paid for by you and me.

If we are going to be handing out free money, I would prefer handing out less of it.

WOW! Talk about bad analogy!

The Bob that sits home is not benefiting anyone or anything and is not helping the economy in anyway. He is 100% dead weight.

The Bob that works the "Public Works" job is not ONLY doing the direct opposite of the above example but also has the self respect of being able to work to support himself and his family and not just sit around on the dole.
Plus he's recirculating that income and it's corresponding taxes all through the economy.

Plus this Bob is doing something THAT MUST be done and paid for anyway.

This is not a case of dig a hole/fill it up. This is let's not have another bridge collapse like the one in Minnesota recently did.

The economy was not great when Clinton left office, but that is neither here nor there, it was in a slowdown when he left. If the Republicans actually practiced free market policies (which they have not) then the problems we are facing would be much less in my view.

Under President Bill Clinton we had a great economy for 8 years. The fact that the last wasn't the highest of all the 8 and trying to call it what... bad... is disingenuous to say the least.

Let me give ya the honest Republican test. NOW DON'T FAIL THIS OR SIDE STEP IT (or make me pull up the graph)... you'll loose all credibility!

Of the following Presidents which one by far had the best overall economy & economic standing from the end of his first year in office until he left office.

4 years... Bush #41
8 years... President Bill Clinton
8 years... Bush #43

 

[Mr.Dysfunctional]

Quote by Top Gun "That may well be the case in some isolated instances. But I'm not arguing individual actions. I'm saying "overall" there is a credible reason at times to allow a previously discriminated against group (in law we call that the damaged party) to receive an adjustment in terms."

So are you saying that some how Blacks are a damaged party ? That some how under due law they deserve... reperations ?!?!?! Well .. why stop at simply handing them jobs thru Affirmative action,.. why don't we do it monetarily and simply add more debt to the mounting trillions?!?! Then maybe we could all be on the same level ?!?!?!

Wait wait.. why not simply follow eye for an eye since we seemingly just can NOT get OVER our divisions by race and population. How about we just enslave whites for a few hundred years under black rule?!?! Maybe that will even out the chances and cool racial divides?!

What ?!?! not a good idea ethier ? right.. get over your rasict ways and simply except the fact that what is best for the country is who-ever is most qualified for the position or by popular vote. Period..

if your a minority... work harder.. have more babies... do it the AMERICAN way instead of whining like a spoon fed child.
Love to see that because I am born white I am immeditally grouped into a different class then following the more logical grouping simply based upon my ablities or intelligence and/or education level.

Really.. cut the crap... Its not like this guy had a choice in mind.. he was simply screaming over the fact that he wanted to see a black man. ANY BLACK MAN in the seat to replace Obama! He could have been a bum off the street if we followed his logic.

My choice for Senator for Illionois goes to the crack dealer outside your house!!! Probably would do better then any other senator we currently have in office (( Still got love for yeah R.P.!!! ))

 

[BigRob]

WOW! Talk about bad analogy!

I disagree.

The Bob that sits home is not benefiting anyone or anything and is not helping the economy in anyway. He is 100% dead weight.

Costs me less than forcing me to pay him to do something.

The Bob that works the "Public Works" job is not ONLY doing the direct opposite of the above example but also has the self respect of being able to work to support himself and his family and not just sit around on the dole.
Plus he's recirculating that income and it's corresponding taxes all through the economy.

He is recirculating the money that he took from me you mean. I am capable of "circulating" it myself.

Plus this Bob is doing something THAT MUST be done and paid for anyway.

I agree infrastructure will need to be addressed at some point, I think now is the worst time to do it however.

This is not a case of dig a hole/fill it up. This is let's not have another bridge collapse like the one in Minnesota recently did.

I want to see the price tag.

Under President Bill Clinton we had a great economy for 8 years. The fact that the last wasn't the highest of all the 8 and trying to call it what... bad... is disingenuous to say the least.

It is not disingenuous, the internet bubble exploded, obviously it slowed down. Same as the housing bubble.

Let me give ya the honest Republican test. NOW DON'T FAIL THIS OR SIDE STEP IT (or make me pull up the graph)... you'll loose all credibility!

Of the following Presidents which one by far had the best overall economy & economic standing from the end of his first year in office until he left office.

4 years... Bush #41
8 years... President Bill Clinton
8 years... Bush #43

I think the economy in 1992-2000 was the better than the other times you listed. That said, I think without the tech boom that existed at that time, it would have looked more like what we have seen the last 8 years. It was hard not to make money in the tech boom, but Clinton did not cause the boom.

 

[BigRob]

I suppose there should be some consideration for whether or not you'd get a return on your investment and how much it'd be. For instance, if it's something that you were going to have to do anyway... but then that also means that there'd have to have been budget money and contractors...

Dang.

Complex world, ain't it?

I agree perhaps long term the government can turn a profit, perhaps. However none of that money will find its way back to me, it will just be dumped into some new spending program. So, on a personal level, it is a net loss.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, I think that most politicians are currently having a terrible problem: they can't find ways of funding their deficits anywhere near close enough to be able to skim anything, no matter what card they're using.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

My CPA told me that Clinton artificially increased his numbers by messing with the bond markets.

It's amazing the games that politicians will play to make themselves look good.

 

[top gun]

So are you saying that some how Blacks are a damaged party ? That some how under due law they deserve... reperations ?!?!?! Well .. why stop at simply handing them jobs thru Affirmative action,.. why don't we do it monetarily and simply add more debt to the mounting trillions?!?! Then maybe we could all be on the same level ?!?!?!

Wait wait.. why not simply follow eye for an eye since we seemingly just can NOT get OVER our divisions by race and population. How about we just enslave whites for a few hundred years under black rule?!?! Maybe that will even out the chances and cool racial divides?!

I sense over reacting may be your forte. You don't do any of those things for the same reason you don't give someone life imprisonment for stealing your car. But that doesn't mean the guy that stole the car isn't liable.

What ?!?! not a good idea ethier ? right.. get over your rasict ways and simply except the fact that what is best for the country is who-ever is most qualified for the position or by popular vote. Period..

I don't believe that someone saying they would like to see a minority fill a position is the same as someone making someone fill a position. It's someones opinion. This is America... land to be free to give an opinion.

My guess is there will be (as often are) several equally qualified candidates for the position of various racial backgrounds.

Really.. cut the crap... Its not like this guy had a choice in mind.. he was simply screaming over the fact that he wanted to see a black man. ANY BLACK MAN in the seat to replace Obama! He could have been a bum off the street if we followed his logic.

My choice for Senator for Illionois goes to the crack dealer outside your house!!! Probably would do better then any other senator we currently have in office (( Still got love for yeah R.P.!!! ))

I hate to see you so bitter and hopeless. Things aren't that bad... and they're about to get a whole lot better.