Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:22 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,189,623 times
Reputation: 3411

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
Clinton used Tommy Thompson's [republican] model for welfare-to-work. The budget was balanced thanks to Newt's House.

GW had two wars that the dems endorsed.

Obama spent money foolishly, the stim, to pay off his pals for getting elected. Giving money to schools to study the mating habits of apes does not stimulate the economy. Obama is a pathetic POS who is not an executive. There will be no recovery with him as POTUS.
I accidentally posted before I was done--my apologies for the edit. First--the stimulus wasn't foolish, unless you have ideological blinders on that are more concerned about theory vs. what works. Both R's and D's endorsed it under Bush, and it DID keep us out of a depression.
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, my point is that neither side is doing what it takes to build a business base in this country, which is why we can't pay our debt. If we're creating things here at home that aren't created anywhere else in the world (innovative new products), then we'll have good paying jobs with people paying taxes. That's why I DO support basic research if the end result is that it can be taken by industry for use in applied research for new medical breakthroughs and/or new products and technologies. We need to cut wasteful spending, like coming up with a standard policy for when departments use competitive bids vs. just selecting a supplier and running with it. As I said, we also need to invest in infrastructure, and lower the top marginal corporate tax rate but cut the loopholes and pork. Small business needs tax relief, and they're the ones actually creating jobs here at home. Why are we giving huge tax breaks to companies that use our infrastructure and resources but hire off shore? If you want to lower the debt, you have to address those issues vs. just screaming that we need to cut, without knowing WHY we're doing the spending to begin with.

 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:35 PM
 
977 posts, read 762,243 times
Reputation: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
I accidentally posted before I was done--my apologies for the edit. First--the stimulus wasn't foolish, unless you have ideological blinders on that are more concerned about theory vs. what works. Both R's and D's endorsed it under Bush, and it DID keep us out of a depression.
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, my point is that neither side is doing what it takes to build a business base in this country, which is why we can't pay our debt. If we're creating things here at home that aren't created anywhere else in the world (innovative new products), then we'll have good paying jobs with people paying taxes. That's why I DO support basic research if the end result is that it can be taken by industry for use in applied research for new medical breakthroughs and/or new products and technologies. We need to cut wasteful spending, like coming up with a standard policy for when departments use competitive bids vs. just selecting a supplier and running with it. As I said, we also need to invest in infrastructure, and lower the top marginal corporate tax rate but cut the loopholes and pork. Small business needs tax relief, and they're the ones actually creating jobs here at home. Why are we giving huge tax breaks to companies that use our infrastructure and resources but hire off shore? If you want to lower the debt, you have to address those issues vs. just screaming that we need to cut, without knowing WHY we're doing the spending to begin with.
The stim was BS. Look up where the money went. All the money.

Show me who endorsed an $900,000,000,000 stim plan prior to Obama. And the results are in. Nothing was accomplished by the stim plan. Take your own blinders off.

The other elements of your post are something that Obama could have addressed in his first term when he had both houses. He didn't. Why? So he could use it later to suck people into his class warfare rants. The top 10% pay 60% of the taxes. How much is enough? When will the leftards address spending? We are at DEFCON 1 economically as a nation yet no one on the left gets it.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: New Hampshire
1,137 posts, read 1,395,674 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
Prior to Reagan, there was no one from either party that had the guts to tell the truth. Carter was too stupid to know the truth much less tell it. Nixon was paranoid. LBJ pandered to blacks.

I vote Republican. I could not care less about anyone's religion. Nor to I want a theocracy. Even the left had a good man in JFK. But he would be called either right-of-center today or a conservative by the left.

If you are a LIEberal democRAT, you are festering boil on the arse of humanity. You are a snaky and deceptive pustule who sucks the life out of everything and everyone that is good and right. Slimy and deceptive miscreants who use minorities, the poor, women, children and the unborn as tools to get your perverted policies written into the law of the land. They are scum of the earth and should be viewed as rank flesh rotting in a garbage can. I would rather have ebola than be a LIEberal, democRATic POS. May they rot in hell ASAP.
Quoted for truth!
 
Old 04-07-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
1,565 posts, read 2,446,638 times
Reputation: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
I got through 12 hours a semester while working 50 hours a week. I will confess college was cheaper a quarter century ago but I never took out a loan. I am sure my GPA would have been a bit higher if I had the luxury of not working. Life ain't fair, attempts to make it fairer often backfire.
Are you trying to say that you were taking 12 credits a semester while working 50 hours a week? Because if that's what you're saying, I am not buying it. It is possible to work a job while attending a 4 year university; however, there is simply not enough time in a day to work 50 hours a week wile going to school full time. This is true even if you're getting a cupcake degree like English or business. Going to school full time takes up more time than a full time job does, particularly if you're in grad school; this means that you would be putting in close to 100 hours a week. Nobody could do that for more than a semester. You would simply burn out.

Honestly, I don't think you ever went to a university, but it still bothers me that older people don't care if younger people get the same opportunities that they where given because they got sucked into politics.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 03:39 PM
 
769 posts, read 1,004,586 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
If you are a LIEberal democRAT, you are festering boil on the arse of humanity. You are a snaky and deceptive pustule who sucks the life out of everything and everyone that is good and right. Slimy and deceptive miscreants who use minorities, the poor, women, children and the unborn as tools to get your perverted policies written into the law of the land. They are scum of the earth and should be viewed as rank flesh rotting in a garbage can. I would rather have ebola than be a LIEberal, democRATic POS. May they rot in hell ASAP.
Disgusting and absolutely vile.

Newsflash, you are a perfect personification of EXACTLY why the Republicans are the losing party!

The Republican party is dying so your choices are limited. Either radically change and adapt or die. Period.

You guys continue to insult and push more and more Americans further and further away and then act flabbergasted when you lose elections. Is it really that confusing? C'mon, this isn't the mystery of the century here.

But if one is to judge by the posts here on C-D by some of the hard-core RWNJs, then change doesn't look like it's happening any time soon. So keep on doing what you're doing and keep on losing elections. Maybe change and you'll have a shot in 2024? Because 2016 through then is about about President Clinton.

P.S. A good start is real universal health care, 21st century views on social issues which you're losing anyways (gay marriage, abortion, soft drugs, etc.), and a real social safety net. Good luck!
 
Old 04-07-2013, 03:55 PM
 
Location: New Hampshire
1,137 posts, read 1,395,674 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityLover9 View Post
Disgusting and absolutely vile.

Newsflash, you are a perfect personification of EXACTLY why the Republicans are the losing party!

The Republican party is dying so your choices are limited. Either radically change and adapt or die. Period.

You guys continue to insult and push more and more Americans further and further away and then act flabbergasted when you lose elections. Is it really that confusing? C'mon, this isn't the mystery of the century here.

But if one is to judge by the posts here on C-D by some of the hard-core RWNJs, then change doesn't look like it's happening any time soon. So keep on doing what you're doing and keep on losing elections. Maybe change and you'll have a shot in 2024? Because 2016 through then is about about President Clinton.

P.S. A good start is real universal health care, 21st century views on social issues which you're losing anyways (gay marriage, abortion, soft drugs, etc.), and a real social safety net. Good luck!
Can you please answer a simple question?

If the Republican party is dying as you say then why does it control control 30 state governorships, 27 state legislatures and the US House of Representatives?

Seems to me they're doing pretty well for a party that is dying.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 04:07 PM
 
769 posts, read 1,004,586 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Declan's Dad View Post
Can you please answer a simple question?

If the Republican party is dying as you say then why does it control control 30 state governorships, 27 state legislatures and the US House of Representatives?

Seems to me they're doing pretty well for a party that is dying.
Look at demographics, and look at the results of the way that minorities vote from the last election. The USA is changing and the GOP does not appeal to minorities in their current stage. Throw in roughly half of the white population (liberals and a good number of independents) and things aren't too rosy for the GOP in their current stage going forward. Could they change? Sure. But as of now, doesn't seem like it.

You have to remember that even though the US demographics are rapidly changing, the vast majority of the voting population is still white. As the years go on and they start to die off, then the GOP loses more and more of its base. Either change and adapt to appeal to more minority Americans or die.

The first, baby step and the best thing that the R's could do right now imo, would be to liberalize their social issues stances. Or at the very least, shut up about them. Do I think they'll do that though? No. Abortion is ALWAYS going to be legal in the USA in the future and gay marriage is inevitable. Stop shooting yourself in the foot and just stay quiet about them. Of course, then the occasional truly insane nutjobs emerge from the right too often and claim that "rape is God's will" or whatever it was, and that of course paints a bad image of the party too.

P.S. Obama should have been easy to beat, but he still won. Nominate sane, rational people like J. Huntsman and your chances of winning improve dramatically. I would have considered voting for Huntsman had he been the GOP nominee. The GOP needs to stop putting forward these absolute radicals and lunatics in the likes of Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, etc. Stop pandering to the Rush Limbaugh conservatives and the Evangelicals and move the party to the center and they will remain very competitive going into the future.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by redfish1 View Post
Are you trying to say that you were taking 12 credits a semester while working 50 hours a week? Because if that's what you're saying, I am not buying it. It is possible to work a job while attending a 4 year university; however, there is simply not enough time in a day to work 50 hours a week wile going to school full time. This is true even if you're getting a cupcake degree like English or business. Going to school full time takes up more time than a full time job does, particularly if you're in grad school; this means that you would be putting in close to 100 hours a week. Nobody could do that for more than a semester. You would simply burn out.

Honestly, I don't think you ever went to a university, but it still bothers me that older people don't care if younger people get the same opportunities that they where given because they got sucked into politics.
I went full time to a University and had 3 sources of income.

USCGR - 16 hours a month (2 day weekend reserve stint)
P/T job - 20 hours a week
P/T job at school in computer lab - 10 hours a week

While that is not 50 hours per week it's up there at 30 plus one weekend a month.
I had no social life though and every free moment was doing homework.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:15 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
1,565 posts, read 2,446,638 times
Reputation: 1647
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
I went full time to a University and had 3 sources of income.

USCGR - 16 hours a month (2 day weekend reserve stint)
P/T job - 20 hours a week
P/T job at school in computer lab - 10 hours a week

While that is not 50 hours per week it's up there at 30 plus one weekend a month.
I had no social life though and every free moment was doing homework.
30 hours would be hard, but is possible for someone with a great work ethic..............50 hours is just unrealistic.
 
Old 04-07-2013, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
13,562 posts, read 10,316,598 times
Reputation: 8252
Quote:
Originally Posted by butkus51 View Post
LOL! Go back a few pages on the thread. You decided to make Mississippi and issue. I responded with Illinois and California. And liberalism run amok is obvious at the fed level. Especially the last 5 years.
Actually, with the Republican leaders in Congress blocking most legislation around, it is hardly liberalism run amok. More like gridlock.

I guess you've never let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Bravo.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top