So What Changes if Romney is Elected?

• I Wear Pants

  O-Trap;1210697 wrote:You won't hear a disagreement from me. EACH of the last several presidents have spent more than their predecessors, at varying increments. That includes the Republicans as well as the Democrats.
  
  As such, do you think Romney is going to bring down the spending, when all he seems to do in light of the party is what his predecessors have done?
  
  Yeah, I don't either. He's not even a bandaid. He's just a different-shaped splinter to plug into the same wound.

  Splinter that wastes money on shitty social programs is better to me than splinter that wastes money on more military, corporate handouts (via tax cuts, etc), and tries to deny rights to people based on reasoning from ancient beliefs(gay rights, etc).
  
  Both are shitty. I wish both would stop but I can't in good conscience vote for someone who thinks it's okay to discriminate against a class of people based on their personal religious beliefs.
• Footwedge

  pmoney25;1210610 wrote:The fact that the govt has had as much involvement in the economy as it has over that time frame debunks your whole total free market system you claim has been in effect this whole time.

  Please address.
  
  1. Is outsourcing not unbridled free market venturing?
  2. Is price monopoly not free market venturing?
  3. Is circumventing worker rights not free market venturing? (re China)
  4. Is deregulation of laws that police oligopolies, such as the investment banking system, not free market venturing?
  
  All 4 of these have been implemented since the mid 80's. I never laid claim that there wasn't big government in complicity. Because they are. But the complicity in big government with big business has never been more rampant than it has been over the past 35 years. The corporatists regulate the Congress....not the other way around. And as such, what is good for Americans has gone to the dogs.
  
  I am not against business at all. But when big business creates an equity free fall of 39% across the board for mainly the middle class, it is time to look at what deregulation really entails. I am a college graduate with a BS in Business. I minored in Economics. I started my own company and made a small fortune as a business owner. I have no interest at all in changing our supposed meritocracy. I am strongly pro meritocracy. In order to retain a fair system so that Americans can merit a good living, people need to internalize how agregious huge business has become, and the deleterious effects it has wrought.
• I Wear Pants

  "The corporatists regulate the Congress....not the other way around."
  
  Well said, reps.
• sleeper

  

  Apparently Footwedge would like to see America compete in a global economy with extremely expensive labor inputs. Good luck. America would be toast.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1210829 wrote:Apparently Footwedge would like to see America compete in a global economy with extremely expensive labor inputs. Good luck. America would be toast.

  Apparently you'd like to see most people's real wages continue to fall while a very few's wages rise disproportionately (and these few control the government via lobbying and literally own the media). That's your vision of America.
• O-Trap

  

  Footwedge;1210796 wrote:The corporatists regulate the Congress....not the other way around. And as such, what is good for Americans has gone to the dogs.

  I don't disagree ... well, not mostly. The corporatists regulate the Congress ... who then regulate corporation. How better to ensure that your competitors don't get an upper hand than by controlling the body that regulates it?
  
  However, the blame is not exclusively among the privates. Those in Congress cannot be strong-armed unless they either have dirty laundry for blackmail or are easy to bribe.
  

  Footwedge;1210796 wrote:I am not against business at all. But when big business creates an equity free fall of 39% across the board for mainly the middle class, it is time to look at what deregulation really entails.

  Naturally, but we have to look at it across the board. If we determine that regulation prevents big business from hurting the middle class, but the REGULATION itself also hurts the middle class (particularly the small and medium business owners), what do we accomplish through the regulation?
  

  Footwedge;1210796 wrote:I am a college graduate with a BS in Business. I minored in Economics. I started my own company and made a small fortune as a business owner.

  As have I, and it has shaped how I deal with this subject.
  

  Footwedge;1210796 wrote:I have no interest at all in changing our supposed meritocracy. I am strongly pro meritocracy. In order to retain a fair system so that Americans can merit a good living, people need to internalize how egregious huge business has become, and the deleterious effects it has wrought.

  I don't think that "big business" is the problem. I'd suggest that the corporatism you mentioned before is the problem. A company most would deem "big business" can just be seen as the perpetuation of smart decisions of a small business ... a small business many years in the future, so to speak.
  
  It's those who try to cheat using non-meritorious alternatives to leverage their position.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1210838 wrote:Apparently you'd like to see most people's real wages continue to fall while a very few's wages rise disproportionately (and these few control the government via lobbying and literally own the media). That's your vision of America.

  Gosh a ruddies, all those hard working rich people, shame on them! Their money should be redistributed to the poor people who do nothing all day! :rolleyes:
  
  Please, if American companies could compete with China on manufacturing, they would. If they choose not to, Americans will still buy Chinese products because its cheaper. When Americans want to pay $50 for a shirt rather than $10, then you'll get the change you seek based on the free market and nothing else. Any BS regulation you come up will cripple the US economy; its already in bad enough shape.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1210841 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, all those hard working rich people, shame on them! Their money should be redistributed to the poor people who do nothing all day! :rolleyes:
  
  Please, if American companies could compete with China on manufacturing, they would. If they choose not to, Americans will still buy Chinese products because its cheaper. When Americans want to pay $50 for a shirt rather than $10, then you'll get the change you seek based on the free market and nothing else. Any BS regulation you come up will cripple the US economy; its already in bad enough shape.

  I didn't say anything about redistributing wealth. Also don't mention people working hard but rather people doing what most would call using unfair leverage. Paying the dealer to stack the deck if you will.
• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;1210842 wrote:I didn't say anything about redistributing wealth. Also don't mention people working hard but rather people doing what most would call using unfair leverage. Paying the dealer to stack the deck if you will.

  Bingo, and in your example, the player and dealer are BOTH guilty.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;1210846 wrote:Bingo, and in your example, the player and dealer are BOTH guilty.

  Without a doubt.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1210838 wrote:Apparently you'd like to see most people's real wages continue to fall while a very few's wages rise disproportionately (and these few control the government via lobbying and literally own the media). That's your vision of America.

  
  That's not a vision. That is America. I don't see it changing if we are to compete globally.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1210842 wrote:I didn't say anything about redistributing wealth. Also don't mention people working hard but rather people doing what most would call using unfair leverage. Paying the dealer to stack the deck if you will.

  Yeah, I think we should have the average American have a say in energy regulations. :rolleyes:
  
  Sorry, but big business is also the "big expert" when it comes to their field. I don't want joe shmooo off the street asking for more handouts regardless of who it hurts. It works both ways. Either you are going to get screwed by the experts in the field or you're going to get screwed by the average joe. I'll take the former all day every day.
• Sage

  

  sleeper;1210841 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, all those hard working rich people, shame on them! Their money should be redistributed to the poor people who do nothing all day! :rolleyes:
  
  Please, if American companies could compete with China on manufacturing, they would. If they choose not to, Americans will still buy Chinese products because its cheaper. When Americans want to pay $50 for a shirt rather than $10, then you'll get the change you seek based on the free market and nothing else. Any BS regulation you come up will cripple the US economy; its already in bad enough shape.

  1. Rich people, the ones who have been targeted for tax increases -- the richest 1% of Americans don't work hard. When you reach a certain point of wealth in this country, your money works for you, not the other way around. For example, take the new franchised Waffle House on High Street. Is it any managers or workers (the wealth creators) taking the big slices of cake home with them? No, it's whatever suited dipshit bought the restaurant in the first place.
  
  2. If companies want to move their companies overseas to exploit foreign labor sources, that's fine, but it's no longer as cheap as it used to be. (For example, look at the manufacturing leaving China and coming back to America, or moving to Indonesia.) America is the richest society in the world, where else would these people peddle their fucking junk?
  
  3. I think this goes into a bigger problem, namely that perhaps Americans aren't entitled to cheap shit in the name of other people in the world being exploited. Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy $700 iPads or fifty pairs of fucking sneakers. The materialism in this country is obscene already -- but hey, let's not protect any American workers because how else would we be able to buy cheap shit from Wal-Mart?
  
  4. I know this thought exercise is hard for conservatives because it requires them to think outside of their privileged white bubbles.
• sleeper

  

  Sage;1210939 wrote:1. Rich people, the ones who have been targeted for tax increases -- the richest 1% of Americans don't work hard. When you reach a certain point of wealth in this country, your money works for you, not the other way around. For example, take the new franchised Waffle House on High Street. Is it any managers or workers (the wealth creators) taking the big slices of cake home with them? No, it's whatever suited dipshit bought the restaurant in the first place.
  
  2. If companies want to move their companies overseas to exploit foreign labor sources, that's fine, but it's no longer as cheap as it used to be. (For example, look at the manufacturing leaving China and coming back to America, or moving to Indonesia.) America is the richest society in the world, where else would these people peddle their fucking junk?
  
  3. I think this goes into a bigger problem, namely that perhaps Americans aren't entitled to cheap shit in the name of other people in the world being exploited. Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy $700 iPads or fifty pairs of fucking sneakers. The materialism in this country is obscene already -- but hey, let's not protect any American workers because how else would we be able to buy cheap shit from Wal-Mart?
  
  4. I know this thought exercise is hard for conservatives because it requires them to think outside of their privileged white bubbles.

  You do realize that those being targeted for tax increases are those in the top 5-8% of the country. And I'd love you to tell my CEO that he doesn't work hard(or hell any of the analysts here that make $200k a year easily). Most of them work 80+ hours a week on a slow week and 100+ hours(yes including weekends) on a busy week. I think the poor people who work their 8 hour shift at McDonald's are absolutely clueless of what hard work is. There's a reason Wall Street pays what it pays; no one would work there if it wasn't for the chance at vast amounts of wealth.
  
  The people working at Waffle House don't have to deal with any of the risk associated with opening a new restaurant. If the restaurant goes bankrupt, who's money is lost? If the restaurant fails FDA inspections, who's money is lost?
  
  Also, your insistence that we need to protect American workers is a joke. Protect them from what? Failing industries? The 1900's are over. The US is just not a manufacturing country any more. This would be akin to Americans still building 8-tracks just so we can have jobs rather than face the reality that people don't buy 8-tracks, they want $1 MP3s off iTunes(or free).
• sleeper

  

  Basically, reality sucks. Your ideal world doesn't exist and can't exist unless you want to face the unintended consequences of your actions.
  
  There's no good way to protect American workers. There's no good way to control wealth in this country(which is already insane that we would want to control wealth). Every action has a reaction; its not as cut and dry as everyone thinks it is.
• Sage

  

  Ah yes, reality sucks, so why should we change it? I'm the white, college educated male who was given vast resources in order to succeed in this world... so why isn't everybody else on my level? Those people working 8 hours for slave wages at McDonald's have NO CLUE what hard work is. Those people working in factories have no clue what hard work is... if only they could gamble on speculative derivatives on Wall Street! If only they could buy politicians to rig the system in their favor. Ah yes, REALITY SUCKS, but I'M WINNING, so WHY SHOULD WE WORK TO CHANGE ANYTHING? I love this line of thought, it's one of my favorites.
  
  Do you see how hard it is for conservatives to step outside their bubble of white privilege? And sorry if I don't feel like protecting people like Mitt Romney, he of CAR ELEVATORS IN HIS SEASIDE VACATION MANSE IN SAN DIEGO, in the name of fucking people with absolutely zero material wealth in this country. Some of the thinking in this thread is so devoid of knowledge on poverty, it's fucking laughable. Enjoy your coddled lives on your nerf-lined streets of your shitty, cracker-ass suburbs.
  
  You know, it'd be a lot easier to let falling industries fall if America was still a beacon of education in this world. Maybe if the baby boomers didn't allow education to be commodified and exploited by loan-sharks and government grants over the last 30 years, our populace would be in a better position to handle the changing economic times. However, aren't conservatives the ones who refuse to tax people like Mitt Romney while our nation's public education system has crumbled?
  
  "Why would we want to control wealth?" That's a statement made with such lack of historical understanding, it's hilarious. I would point you to an era in our country's history which should have multiple chapters covering it in textbooks (if our schools could afford any): the Gilded Age. That's where we'll be before 2025 if this shit keeps up.
  
  But hey, don't let ethics and morality keep you from cheap chinese sneakers to line your closets with.
• Con_Alma

  Sage;1210970 wrote:...3. I think this goes into a bigger problem, namely that perhaps Americans aren't entitled to cheap **** in the name of other people in the world being exploited. Maybe people shouldn't be able to buy $700 iPads or fifty pairs of ****ing sneakers. The materialism in this country is obscene already -- but hey, let's not protect any American workers because how else would we be able to buy cheap **** from Wal-Mart? ...

  
  People are not currently entitles to cheap anything. However, when a market demands value over higher costs, a business will provide it.
  
  
  

  Sage;1210970 wrote:...
  
  But hey, don't let ethics and morality keep you from cheap chinese sneakers to line your closets with.

  You are not implying we should legislate ethins and morality are you? Thank could be a very interesting discussion.
• sleeper

  

  I'd love to hear your proposal for helping the poor people in this country. Raise minimum wage? Prices go up for everything. Regulate Wall Street? The cost of risk gets dumped even more on your average consumer; prices go up. Raise taxes on the rich? Remove the profit incentive at the margin; there goes the American entrepreneurial spirit since why work hard when there is no payoff? Tariffs to protect American industries? You guessed it, prices will go up and not just on the things with a tariff but everything from the inevitable trade war.
  
  You want to help the poor? Take away their welfare checks.
  
  I do agree that our education system is getting too expensive and out of touch; but why is that? Because you have the government pumping trillions of dollars in federal aid and since the laws of supply and demand aren't fiction, prices have to go up. Get the government out of education and you'll see prices plummet since no one could afford it otherwise.
• sleeper

  

  Also Mitt Romney does pay taxes; significantly more than your average Joe. Guess what? Obama is a millionaire too and part of the 1%! I don't see you bitching about that.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1210986 wrote:...
  
  I do agree that our education system is getting too expensive and out of touch; but why is that? ...

  I think we rely too much on the public education system. We are trying to transfer the responsibility of educating kids to the system itself and then fund it as such. You can't do it. It won't work. The responsibility to educate exists with the parents and the students. If they don't own such responsibility they won't become educated.
  
  Public education is a tool to become educated. It isn't the only tool and yet we treat it as such culturally.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1210884 wrote:Yeah, I think we should have the average American have a say in energy regulations. :rolleyes:
  
  Sorry, but big business is also the "big expert" when it comes to their field. I don't want joe shmooo off the street asking for more handouts regardless of who it hurts. It works both ways. Either you are going to get screwed by the experts in the field or you're going to get screwed by the average joe. I'll take the former all day every day.

  You really think that the energy companies who have a vested interest in absolutely nothing but profit can be trusted to honestly report/recommend regulations when those might be very expensive to them? I don't. Do I think they need to be ignored entirely in the conversation? No, because you are right that a lot of very smart people work for them obviously.
  
  But I never said anything about having random douchebags of the street "asking for more handouts" or proposing regulations.
  
  You would just rather have it that corporations can do whatever they want with no limitations because in your mind "might makes right".
• gut

  It's proven time and again, for all types and circumstances, that when people are spending someone else's money they spend it much more recklessly. And so, seeing this, the solution liberals want to force on us for the increasing wealth gap is more handouts. Flushing hundreds of billions down the toilet, now let's raise taxes so we can flush even more money even faster.
  
  And shame on those evil, greedy rich for not falling over themselves to help the govt flush their money down the toilet.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1210999 wrote:I think we rely too much on the public education system. We are trying to transfer the responsibility of educating kids to the system itself and then fund it as such. You can't do it. It won't work. The responsibility to educate exists with the parents and the students. If they don't own such responsibility they won't become educated.
  
  Public education is a tool to become educated. It isn't the only tool and yet we treat it as such culturally.

  Public education at least through high school should absolutely be a right.
  
  I'll agree more that the current situation with college loans and stuff is not working though I think it's not only due to federal loans. There are other factors that need fixing as well there. If we stopped the loans prices still wouldn't drop. There needs to be a lot of reform in the college funding area.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1210999 wrote:I think we rely too much on the public education system. We are trying to transfer the responsibility of educating kids to the system itself and then fund it as such. You can't do it. It won't work. The responsibility to educate exists with the parents and the students. If they don't own such responsibility they won't become educated.
  
  Public education is a tool to become educated. It isn't the only tool and yet we treat it as such culturally.

  This small post in such a large topic bears a second read. I would rep it more than once if I could.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1211004 wrote:It's proven time and again, for all types and circumstances, that when people are spending someone else's money they spend it much more recklessly. And so, seeing this, the solution liberals want to force on us for the increasing wealth gap is more handouts. Flushing hundreds of billions down the toilet, now let's raise taxes so we can flush even more money even faster.
  
  And shame on those evil, greedy rich for not falling over themselves to help the govt flush their money down the toilet.

  Who in the fuck in this thread asked for more "handouts"?
  
  Not thinking that the rich and massive corporation are perfect gods on earth who can do no wrong and should get whatever they want/can buy from our government doesn't mean I want "handouts".
  
  Edit: O-Trap, I repped him a second time for you.