Archive

What would a candidate change?

  • O-Trap
    I saw a picture posted on Facebook this morning that was rather annoying.

    At the risk of something potentially against AdSense, I'll merely link to it instead of posting it.
    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602347_288209227947758_398922420_n.jpg

    Now, whether or not you think this is a good or bad thing, does anyone even believe that to be true? Does anyone think Romney would actually do something significant about the welfare system? Does anyone think he'd be the first president to spend less than his predecessor since Eisenhower?

    What about President Obama and all that change he was promising? What is it that he, if allowed four more years, will actually change this time?
  • BoatShoes
    O-Trap;1296423 wrote:I saw a picture posted on Facebook this morning that was rather annoying.

    At the risk of something potentially against AdSense, I'll merely link to it instead of posting it.
    https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/602347_288209227947758_398922420_n.jpg

    Now, whether or not you think this is a good or bad thing, does anyone even believe that to be true? Does anyone think Romney would actually do something significant about the welfare system? Does anyone think he'd be the first president to spend less than his predecessor since Eisenhower?

    What about President Obama and all that change he was promising? What is it that he, if allowed four more years, will actually change this time?
    Yes, I fully believe that if Republicans controlled the Senate and the House...they would pass the Ryan budget designed for Budget Reconciliation and decimate Medicare, Medicaid and the progress in cost control under way from Obamacare and what little semblance of a welfare state that we have and Mitt Romney would sign it and that such a result would be disastrous for many, many people with any economic growth accruing to upper income individuals in line with the current trend further exacerbating economic inequality and opportunity that is already worse than than in other OECD states.
  • sleeper
    BoatShoes;1296438 wrote:Yes, I fully believe that if Republicans controlled the Senate and the House...they would pass the Ryan budget designed for Budget Reconciliation and decimate Medicare, Medicaid and the progress in cost control under way from Obamacare and what little semblance of a welfare state that we have and Mitt Romney would sign it and that such a result would be disastrous for many, many people.
    Sounds terrible. You mean people would actually have to get jobs like the rest of us? I feel so sorry for them.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1296438 wrote:Yes, I fully believe that if Republicans controlled the Senate and the House...they would pass the Ryan budget designed for Budget Reconciliation and decimate Medicare, Medicaid and the progress in cost control under way from Obamacare and what little semblance of a welfare state that we have and Mitt Romney would sign it and that such a result would be disastrous for many, many people.
    I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to share your belief pertaining to the topic.
  • BoatShoes
    sleeper;1296440 wrote:Sounds terrible. You mean people would actually have to get jobs like the rest of us? I feel so sorry for them.
    A laissez-faire market does not provide employment for all able bodied individuals who are able and willing to work. A truly, free market, bolstered by a government full employment program would...and it would be better than our current system of getting handouts. Either get on board with that or your complaints about people not having a job are just drivel.

    Take our current economy...it is a capitalist dream...highly profitable enterprises with profits accruing to capital, core inflation hovering at or below 2% and a large reserve army of the unemployed that keeps downward pressure on wages.
  • BoatShoes
    sleeper;1296440 wrote:Sounds terrible. You mean people would actually have to get jobs like the rest of us? I feel so sorry for them.
    Should also mention how it would decimate funding for places like the socialist institution that you went to and got to learn about the virtues of libertarianism on somebody else's dime. :thumbup:
  • sleeper
    BoatShoes;1296459 wrote:Should also mention how it would decimate funding for places like the socialist institution that you went to and got to learn about the virtues of libertarianism on somebody else's dime. :thumbup:
    Oh no. How ever will the free market handle the laws of supply and demand? Seems challenging.
  • sleeper
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:A laissez-faire market does not provide employment for all able bodied individuals who are able and willing to work. A truly, free market, bolstered by a government full employment program would...and it would be better than our current system of getting handouts. Either get on board with that or your complaints about people not having a job are just drivel.

    Take our current economy...it is a capitalist dream...highly profitable enterprises with profits accruing to capital, core inflation hovering at or below 2% and a large reserve army of the unemployed that keeps downward pressure on wages.
    We don't have a free market. If someone cannot find a job, they can create their own. If they cannot do this, then they can move to another country.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:A laissez-faire market does not provide employment for all able bodied individuals who are able and willing to work.
    I don't think that's the design, nor do I think it should be. Laissez-faire promotes competition not much differently than a survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary model, and if a person doesn't bring enough value to the market, able-bodied or not, he does not succeed until. Now, if/when he finds a way to add value, that changes.
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:A truly, free market, bolstered by a government full employment program would...and it would be better than our current system of getting handouts. Either get on board with that or your complaints about people not having a job are just drivel.
    I don't think the complaint is about someone not having a job. I think the complaint is the notion that someone is either owed a job, whether or not it can survive in a free market, or is owed compensatory allowances while they don't currently show value to the market which are funded by those who do.
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:Take our current economy...it is a capitalist dream...
    Ugh ... hardly. Increases in restrictive regulation are not conducive to "free" market.
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:... highly profitable enterprises with profits accruing to capital ...
    Most of the small business owners I know aren't seeing this.
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:... core inflation hovering at or below 2% ...
    Low is better than high, but any inflation is still akin to putting a half-life on the value of the currency, which theoretically makes it less valuable as long as you have it.
    BoatShoes;1296454 wrote:... a large reserve army of the unemployed that keeps downward pressure on wages.
    Eh, wage regulations continue to negate these, and are a contributing factor to business owners with relatively small margins looking at contractors or at overseas labor.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1296459 wrote:Should also mention how it would decimate funding for places like the socialist institution that you went to and got to learn about the virtues of libertarianism on somebody else's dime. :thumbup:
    I attended a private university on my own dime. :cool:
  • BoatShoes
    O-Trap;1296468 wrote:I attended a private university on my own dime. :cool:
    That is fine...My response was to Sleeper who has a noticeable, incoherent affinity for a very large socialist institution.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1296474 wrote:That is fine...My response was to Sleeper who has a noticeable, incoherent affinity for a very large socialist institution.
    I agree with you there. :D
  • sleeper
    BoatShoes;1296474 wrote:That is fine...My response was to Sleeper who has a noticeable, incoherent affinity for a very large socialist institution.
    Which because of its greatness would exist with or without taxpayer support. I simply took advantage of the opportunity at a lower cost. Woe is me, I could have just lived off welfare my entire life and reproduced more kids than I can afford. Anything for more Democrats!
  • BoatShoes
    O-Trap;1296467 wrote:I don't think that's the design, nor do I think it should be. Laissez-faire promotes competition not much differently than a survival-of-the-fittest evolutionary model, and if a person doesn't bring enough value to the market, able-bodied or not, he does not succeed until. Now, if/when he finds a way to add value, that changes.



    I don't think the complaint is about someone not having a job. I think the complaint is the notion that someone is either owed a job, whether or not it can survive in a free market, or is owed compensatory allowances while they don't currently show value to the market which are funded by those who do.



    Ugh ... hardly. Increases in restrictive regulation are not conducive to "free" market.



    Most of the small business owners I know aren't seeing this.



    Low is better than high, but any inflation is still akin to putting a half-life on the value of the currency, which theoretically makes it less valuable as long as you have it.



    Eh, wage regulations continue to negate these, and are a contributing factor to business owners with relatively small margins looking at contractors or at overseas labor.
    1. There is too much to respond to in here now but I will go with a few things.

    There are people who are not talented and who do not add much value and it is my inclination, given the limits of epistemology that it might be a little ok to sacrifice a little sink or swim and still have an economy that grows rapidly with those who create little value nonetheless contributing to economic growth with government rectifying coordination failure so that they can live with dignity.

    2. Government intervention can actually cause markets to approach a true free market as opposed to a laissez-faire market which is not equivalent to a free market...Antitrust laws are a good example of this.

    3. The S & P is doing relatively well. Sorry about the small business owners you know.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:1. There is too much to respond to in here now but I will go with a few things.

    There are people who are not talented and who do not add much value and it is my inclination, given the limits of epistemology that it might be a little ok to sacrifice a little sink or swim and still have an economy that grows rapidly with those who create little value nonetheless contributing to economic growth with government rectifying coordination failure so that they can live with dignity.
    Honestly, I can't think of anyone I know who deserves dignity and doesn't have the ability to contribute value. Hell, I even know some who DON'T deserve much dignity, but who are capable of adding value.

    Sacrificing a little sink-or-swim by giving of ourselves, voluntarily, and not at the behest of a governing body is precisely what I think is the right thing to do. In fact, I think it is my obligation as a human being, but I do not think it is, or should be, my obligation as a citizen.

    Many of us know people who deserve such dignity, but are temporarily incapable of providing for their and their family's expenses. We are the "friends and family" of such a person, and it is our duty as humans, I think, to ensure that people are taken care of.

    Any Christian should certainly believe this, and while I know you aren't one (unless something has changed recently), I find many portions of the Bible, both Old and New Testament, where God is crystal clear that it is the obligation of the people to defend, protect, and not to abuse or harm the poor.

    Jeremiah 22:15-16
    "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the Lord.

    Rest assured, I do think that there should be such help. I merely think that it should be left to the people giving and administering it, as each individual has different needs and pulls on his finances. I don't think it at all adequate for a governing body, largely detached from the day-to-day of its constituency, to exercise that judgment, particularly using sweeping rules like they currently do.
    BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:2. Government intervention can actually cause markets to approach a true free market as opposed to a laissez-faire market which is not equivalent to a free market...Antitrust laws are a good example of this.
    Technically, anti-trust laws force businesses to only grow to a certain extent. I tend to disagree with them in principle, because capping someone's success is hardly indicative of something I'd consider free.
    BoatShoes;1296484 wrote:3. The S & P is doing relatively well. Sorry about the small business owners you know.
    When they group "business" in general, it always seems to include the large mega-businesses of the country, which will certainly skew results, particularly if they seem to be working with governing bodies (Goldman-Sachs, anyone?). The problem is, the more regulation you put on larger businesses, the more seems to end up distributed to the smaller ones.

    Think of it like a race. Regulation can be represented by a hurdle. The more hurdles in the race, the slower a person's time will be. Now, if you've got two racers who are trying to hit a certain time, the effect of those hurdles will be felt by all. Some might be fast enough to still make the targeted time, but others might not be. Even if the average race time with the hurdles is still below the target, that doesn't mean some don't make the cut, though they would have if the race track had not been manipulated to keep them from making the time as well.
  • BGFalcons82
    In the past week, I've seen the following signs for employment:

    Trucking firms are hiring drivers.
    Central Readymix was openly adverstising for drivers with free training.
    The ski shop next to the Chinese food restaurant I frequent had a sign in the window for help.
    My wife's employer, a national restaurant chain, is openly advertising for help in several areas.

    So what you ask? Firms are hiring, but they aren't exactly $100K jobs. People are receiving "assistance" from you and me to NOT work as these jobs only match what they're already receiving. In other words, if people are paid to not work, why would they?
  • HitsRus
    ^^^^ The owner of the IT company redoing our computers tells me the same thing....trying to hire people but people are unwilling to work for a starting wage. He gets lots of out of state applications from people who have no intention of taking the job.
  • HitsRus
    Now, whether or not you think this is a good or bad thing, does anyone even believe that to be true? Does anyone think Romney would actually do something significant about the welfare system? Does anyone think he'd be the first president to spend less than his predecessor since Eisenhower?

    What about President Obama and all that change he was promising? What is it that he, if allowed four more years, will actually change this time?

    Does anyone really believe that a politician can/will deliver on many of their promises? Really ?

    Campaign promises are more to be viewed as positions on a given subject....if we actually held them strictly, Obama would be a one term president by his own hand.
  • O-Trap
    HitsRus;1296603 wrote:^^^^ The owner of the IT company redoing our computers tells me the same thing....trying to hire people but people are unwilling to work for a starting wage. He gets lots of out of state applications from people who have no intention of taking the job.
    Fulfills unemployment requirements. You have to apply for two jobs per week, as I recall. Doesn't say they have to be viable options.

    Where is this guy? What is "starting wage?"
  • O-Trap
    HitsRus;1296610 wrote:Campaign promises are more to be viewed as positions on a given subject....
    What purpose does this even serve, then? "Hey, I like 'X', but I'm never going to try to do anything about it."

    A position without any inclination to act on it isn't a true position ... or as a professor of mine once put it:

    "You can tell me what you profess, but you'll show me what you believe."

    To me, all the platforms don't matter if the administration tries to change little or nothing.
  • FatHobbit
    O-Trap;1296611 wrote:What is "starting wage?"
    This is key for me. I'm currently passively looking for another job. I find jobs where they want to pay someone $15-$20/hour. If I didn't have a job I might be interested but who the hell wants to do IT work for $15/hour? (One of the places even bragged about hiring people without degrees. I bet they churn out some quality code there...)
  • O-Trap
    FatHobbit;1296620 wrote:This is key for me. I'm currently passively looking for another job. I find jobs where they want to pay someone $15-$20/hour. If I didn't have a job I might be interested but who the hell wants to do IT work for $15/hour? (One of the places even bragged about hiring people without degrees. I bet they churn out some quality code there...)
    Hell, my current job is on the low end of that range ($16ish). I'd do it for $20 per hour.
  • FatHobbit
    O-Trap;1296624 wrote:Hell, my current job is on the low end of that range ($16ish). I'd do it for $20 per hour.
    I just want to work with competent people. Right now the people we have hired are the cheapest people they could find.
  • O-Trap
    FatHobbit;1296657 wrote:I just want to work with competent people. Right now the people we have hired are the cheapest people they could find.
    Oh boy. Yeah, my last company seemed to have a knack for looking for people straight out of college. People out of college usually don't have families or mortgages yet, and if it's their first full-time salary job, a $27,000 salary might sound like a lot.

    Reality is, though, that when people realize it isn't, that's a pretty easy way to get disenfranchised.
  • FatHobbit
    O-Trap;1296662 wrote:Oh boy. Yeah, my last company seemed to have a knack for looking for people straight out of college. People out of college usually don't have families or mortgages yet, and if it's their first full-time salary job, a $27,000 salary might sound like a lot.

    Reality is, though, that when people realize it isn't, that's a pretty easy way to get disenfranchised.
    I'm not even sure if they all have degrees. (Not that degrees are the be all end all.) But we've had quite a few new people. Not all of them are doing good work and we have a lot of turnover because the ones who don't suck move on to something better. And when things don't work it just gets passed onto someone new who f's it up a little more. The place feels like a big house of cards right now. (and it does not appear that it's going to get any better)