U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2012, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Charlotte NC
11,715 posts, read 9,338,106 times
Reputation: 5228

Advertisements

One thing I thought was interesting....

when the election results were coming in they noticed that people were voting for McCrorey and they were voting for Obama. I think they said it was an 8% difference at one point.

It's very hard to beat an incumbent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2012, 08:31 AM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,939,788 times
Reputation: 1272
Indeed. In the past 32 years, there has only been one incumbent defeated. Contrast this to the 30 years prior to that where only one President held the office for two terms. That would be Eisenhower first elected in 1953. After that:
  • JFK - 1960, 2 years, 8 months - assassinated in office
  • LBJ - 1963, 5 years, 2 months - refused to run for 2nd term
  • Nixon - 1968, 5 years, 8 months - resigned from office
  • Ford - 1974, 2 years, 5 months - defeated
  • Carter - 1976, 4 years - defeated

So 6 presidents in 20 years, 1960 - 1979
  • Reagan - 1980, 8 years
  • Bush - 1988, 4 years -defeated
  • Clinton - 1992, 8 years
  • Bush - 2000, 8 years
  • Obama - 2008 8 years

Just 5 presidents in 36 years, 1980 - 2016

IMO, the high presidential turnover was good for the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,850 posts, read 27,118,777 times
Reputation: 8920
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Equal pay for equal work (a myth) enforced by the government is a euphemism for affirmative action. If we are going to get into a discussion on what people really mean, let's call this what it is.

The reason that nobody calls it "affirmative action" is because like all government social engineering programs, it ultimately fails and causes more problems than it was supposed to solve.
Look, hon, it's pretty simple. Whether I'm doing a job along side of a man, or in a rotation with a man, that's equal work & I should be paid the same. I'm sorry that the concept eludes you. The thread asked for opinions & I gave mine & did not try to dissect yours, 40 ways from Sunday. I'm a very moderate person. Wanting things to be fair is a reasonable, moderate view. I'm not looking for anything to be given to me that is not earned, which seems to be where you're headed. Drop it. You've shown your hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:06 PM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,939,788 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
Look, hon, it's pretty simple. Whether I'm doing a job along side of a man, or in a rotation with a man, that's equal work & I should be paid the same.
I never said that I disagree with this. You however are refusing to understand what I'm saying.

You keep leaving out the part, "enforced by the government". Equal work = Equal Pay is a myth that is meaningless without this part added in. When that part is added then all of a sudden an employer is forced to treat everyone the same BEFORE the work part is done. This is where this concept fails. Because when this part happens, then work performance is removed from the equation.

When it comes to private business, I fundamentally disagree that the federal government should be involved in hiring, firing and in compensation issues. People are not equal and the government should not force private employers to treat them as such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:22 PM
 
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
21,850 posts, read 27,118,777 times
Reputation: 8920
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
I never said that I disagree with this. You however are refusing to understand what I'm saying.

You keep leaving out the part, "enforced by the government". Equal work = Equal Pay is a myth that is meaningless without this part added in. When that part is added then all of a sudden an employer is forced to treat everyone the same BEFORE the work part is done. This is where this concept fails. Because when this part happens, then work performance is removed from the equation.

When it comes to private business, I fundamentally disagree that the federal government should be involved in hiring, firing and in compensation issues. People are not equal and the government should not force private employers to treat them as such.
If a job as a tech starts at $15 an hour & I'm working with John Doe, if one of us has been there longer, that person will be making more.

When you, as an employer think that it's clever to start me at $13 an hour, if my qualifications are the same as John's, because I'm female, that is what I'm talking about. Companies do this all the time by not making pay grades public. You obviously do not understand what I'm talking about. This is a situation that I have lived with. I understand where you are coming from. You obviously think that it's fine to stick it to women & minorities. It's too bad that the government had to step in.

Last edited by SunnyKayak; 11-14-2012 at 12:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 12:40 PM
 
3,914 posts, read 3,939,788 times
Reputation: 1272
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound_295 View Post
.... You obviously do not understand what I'm talking about. This is a situation that I have lived with. I understand where you are coming from. You obviously think that it's fine to stick it to women & minorities. It's too bad that the government had to step in. Now drop it or I will assume that you are trying to pick a fight.
I completely understand what you are talking about. You are looking for the federal government to force private employers to treat everyone exactly the same. Let's call it what it is instead of beating around the bush. This has nothing to do with whether I think it's fine that private employers might discriminate. IMO, and I've already said it above, if they choose to do so, then it's their loss as they are missing out on a big pool of talent otherwise. This is their business however. You can also choose not to work there.

Government never solves problems, it creates dependence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 01:23 PM
 
569 posts, read 1,221,075 times
Reputation: 543
I am not at all surprised that Romney did not win. The GOP is waaayyyy out of touch in recent years. These guys have to get a clue and drop the Religious right that has a firm hold on them. You would think the GOP would figure out that this country now has more women voters. Hello When you make comments about anti abortion even in cases of rape, don't you think you are going to anger your female market?

The bottom line for me was job creation. I wanted to vote for someone that would get our economy moving and create more jobs. I did not believe Romney and his policies would create jobs any better than Obama. Even if you take away the fact that the GOP socially speaking are a bunch of freaks. I do not believe that they would create any more jobs than the current President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 01:37 PM
 
4,222 posts, read 6,708,200 times
Reputation: 1560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grim Reader View Post
The Norwegian health care system is actually doing quite well. Compared to the US. Great results, costs, between 50 - 66 % of the US does depending on how you measure it, percentage of GDP or per person. Outcomes got the US beat, like most developed nations.

Makes heavy use of markets and patients choice. If you are ill you can chose your own hospital, and get the transport paid. Queues trigger government purchases of bulk number of operations, bid on by both private and public hospitals. Of course, no nation is ever totally satisfied with their healthcare system.

Also, differences in population between countries do not normally matter a lot for health care comparisons. You need the same number of hospital beds, nurses, doctors per 1000 people. Similar numbers of tax payers per 1000 people. Iceland, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan have no problems comparing stats, despite ranging in population from 300 000 to 125 million. Differences in population density do matter, though.
Those countries are basically one race countries where unemployment issues are minimal with the exception of Germany which is having some issues. The big factor in hospital beds per capita is diversity. The U.S. could never be on the same level, per capita, as Japan or Switzerland because of our murder rates, obesity, and other issues that go along with being diverse. It would be like comparing health needs in Lousiana with those of Wyoming.

The problem that Norway is having with national health is paying for it. Norway is highly taxed and the cost of living is incredible. I still love Norway, but cheap it 'ain't.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 01:40 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 6,987,313 times
Reputation: 4402
Quote:
Originally Posted by frewroad View Post
Government never solves problems, it creates dependence.
Government solves plenty of problems. It creates order, enacts a monetary system, sets up defenses against enemies foreign and domestic, provides infrastructure, capitalizes on economy of scale, and corrects injustices.

Some of the individual mandates may be imperfectly created or enforced, but that hardly negates the value of government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2012, 01:46 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 6,987,313 times
Reputation: 4402
Quote:
Originally Posted by bindibadji View Post

The problem that Norway is having with national health is paying for it. Norway is highly taxed and the cost of living is incredible. I still love Norway, but cheap it 'ain't.'
Consider Norway's per capita GDP is double the US's and consider it is less expensive to them than it is from a US standpoint. You don't think Norway's policies help create their wealth? It isn't all oil... Saudi's per capita GDP is less than half of the US's. Hmmmm, could there be a problem with conservative fundamentalist government vs liberal secular? I'd say so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Charlotte
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:01 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top