Supporting Al Gore
- Thread starter Penn
- Start date
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: Huh?
MGKrebs: For what it's worth, I don't think that you ever will. I'm not going to get all technical and down on you. The Democratic party and Republican party are fundamentally different in their outlook. I have to believe they both want what is best for America, but their approach is opposed to each other; ie. how to achieve the end via the means. Dems are for big government, spend, spend, spend 'cause the belief is if you pour enough money into a project, it HAS to work.
The Republicans don't buy that, they'd rather have have the states solve the problem on a local level. Less money changing hands, more "hands on" at the "people" level =
a much better chance of accountability. Chew on that for a moment or two.
penncam
MGKrebs: For what it's worth, I don't think that you ever will. I'm not going to get all technical and down on you. The Democratic party and Republican party are fundamentally different in their outlook. I have to believe they both want what is best for America, but their approach is opposed to each other; ie. how to achieve the end via the means. Dems are for big government, spend, spend, spend 'cause the belief is if you pour enough money into a project, it HAS to work.The Republicans don't buy that, they'd rather have have the states solve the problem on a local level. Less money changing hands, more "hands on" at the "people" level =
a much better chance of accountability. Chew on that for a moment or two.
penncam
Last edited:
Re: Re: Huh?
First of all, what's that got to do with " do as I say, not as I do"?
Second, I dispute your premise. It is the repubs who are all about money. The repubs practically have a monopoly on greed and selfishness. More for me, to hell with you.
Y'all are always spouting off about welfare cheaters and illegal immigrants taking YOUR money. But when it comes down to it, you won't spend the money to help the INS or help fix up a school 800 miles from you or penalize the companies that hire the illegals (because that would hinder somebody's ability to make more money). Your fallback position is always "it's better handled by the private sector'...which actually is "somebody else other than you".
We have built a capitalist society. Everything costs money. IF you want to help disadvantaged people, it costs money. Admit it- you just don't want to spend the money. Vrai admitted it. She's basically saying a certain amount of people can die in the streets and that's OK. But the thing is, there are ALREADY a certain amount of people dying in the streets. So the question becomes- how many is OK? Therefore, how much money to spend? Who decides? How much does it cost to prevent cheating?
I'm gonna go play some guitar now.
Originally posted by penncam
The Republicans don't buy that, they'd rather have have the states solve the problem on a local level. Less money changing hands, more "hands on" at the "people" level =
a much better chance of accountability. Chew on that for a moment or two.
penncam
First of all, what's that got to do with " do as I say, not as I do"?
Second, I dispute your premise. It is the repubs who are all about money. The repubs practically have a monopoly on greed and selfishness. More for me, to hell with you.
Y'all are always spouting off about welfare cheaters and illegal immigrants taking YOUR money. But when it comes down to it, you won't spend the money to help the INS or help fix up a school 800 miles from you or penalize the companies that hire the illegals (because that would hinder somebody's ability to make more money). Your fallback position is always "it's better handled by the private sector'...which actually is "somebody else other than you".
We have built a capitalist society. Everything costs money. IF you want to help disadvantaged people, it costs money. Admit it- you just don't want to spend the money. Vrai admitted it. She's basically saying a certain amount of people can die in the streets and that's OK. But the thing is, there are ALREADY a certain amount of people dying in the streets. So the question becomes- how many is OK? Therefore, how much money to spend? Who decides? How much does it cost to prevent cheating?
I'm gonna go play some guitar now.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
I hate Al Gore, so it amazes me that this post has dragged on for so long, that every day it pops up with new messages. 60-some messages, and many views - why in the world are you guys wasting your time on this political has-been? Al Gore must be the only restaurant owner and slum lord who commands this much attention about nothing. His political career is over. Surely the Dems can find a winner in the party to discuss?
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Re: Huh?
Ok, that's cool, Just don't expect the rest of us to string along with you. As I alluded to in my last post: You and your party
are playing dis(chord)ant notes.
Hey, MCKrebs: Do you think Hillary is going to make a run at the Presidency? And don't give me that BS that (she) says she's tied to a 6 yr committment as US Senator to NY.
We all know her(puke, gag!)) husband said much the same when he was Governor of Arkansas, and you know damn well where that lie ended up. You know, I wasn't familiar with the term "Political Viability" until that jerk got in office. Do you think he's the only one who has confidence in the expression, and intends to exploit it it?
penncam
Ok, that's cool, Just don't expect the rest of us to string along with you. As I alluded to in my last post: You and your partyare playing dis(chord)ant notes.
Hey, MCKrebs: Do you think Hillary is going to make a run at the Presidency? And don't give me that BS that (she) says she's tied to a 6 yr committment as US Senator to NY.
We all know her(puke, gag!)) husband said much the same when he was Governor of Arkansas, and you know damn well where that lie ended up. You know, I wasn't familiar with the term "Political Viability" until that jerk got in office. Do you think he's the only one who has confidence in the expression, and intends to exploit it it?
penncam
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Afterlife
However, as in a lot of the POLITICAL postings on this site, it has seemed to have taken on a life of it's own. People from both sides of the aisle are and have been proferring prodigeous amounts of verifiable diatribe, in the hopes of convincing each other their side has the answer, and why.
In the meantime, concerned citizens like you and I are left to ponder the wisdom of it all, wondering if, in fact, it will ever amount to a hill of beans. It's amusing, I feel as though I should say - "Thank You". Hah!
penncam
Well Nodnarb, go back 5 or 6 posts and I think you'll find I advanced much the same arguement.
However, as in a lot of the POLITICAL postings on this site, it has seemed to have taken on a life of it's own. People from both sides of the aisle are and have been proferring prodigeous amounts of verifiable diatribe, in the hopes of convincing each other their side has the answer, and why.
In the meantime, concerned citizens like you and I are left to ponder the wisdom of it all, wondering if, in fact, it will ever amount to a hill of beans. It's amusing, I feel as though I should say - "Thank You". Hah!
penncam
H
Heretic
Guest
Its amazing how nobody has answered my post about the economy never actually taking a down turn. I guess those that are so quick to praise Clinton and condemn Bush for the economy have no real insight to the economy they are just so shortsited that anything a democrat does is automatically good and anything a republican does is automatically bad. Having been on the democrat side of the fence and now sitting on the fence I must say this I don't really agree with some republican points of view but they are much more open minded to listen to people than the democratic side.
Where to start...
Heretic, your post about the economy looked like a continuation of an idea posted by JolietJake, and i did respond to that. I asked a few questions which no one has answered.
There is no disputing that congress has a lot to do with the economy, but that doesn't mean that the prez has NOTHING to do with it. The president has influence on money supply, trade, (Mexican) bailouts, buying foreign currencies, interest rates (some of these are actually controlled by the Fed, but the Fed usually works within an administrations policy goals).
And your post mostly dealt with the stock market. Granted, the stock market is more closely connected to the overall economy now than it used to be because so many people have 401k's, but the stock market is not the only, or even major, indicator of the health of the economy.
I don't think we disagree on any of this in principle. I'm not sure what your point is. It seemed you just wanted to take another shot at Clinton.
As for Hillary, I don't know if she'll run, but I doubt it. I bet she wants to, but there is so much rabid opposition to her personally, I don't think the numbers will ever be right for her. I hope she finishes her term, but I ask you, did all those repubs who promised to self-term-limit themselves and go back on the promise get voted out?
Back to (what I thought was) the issue at hand:
We started talking about Al Gore, but slid into a discussion about why the dems aren't the party of the "common man".
You conservative types are the ones saying the repubs are for the common man, but you can't back it up. All we get are cute little catch phrases like " You Can't Beat Business", or " they are the Handout party", " Dems are for big government, spend, spend, spend 'cause the belief is if you pour enough money into a project, it HAS to work."
I get the feeling that conservatives respond to these simple ideas, but when you get into the nuts and bolts of it, you have no answers. For example, illegal immigration bothers you. But how are we to fix it? You don't want to spend any money, you don't want to punish companies for hiring them. What's the answer???
You don't want to spend money on welfare, but most of you won't say what we are to do with the people who can't support themselves.
It's too easy to say that EVERYBODY on welfare is a cheater. It's just not true. Besides, it might cost more to eliminate the cheating than it's costing now. Someone said earlier (different thread?) that they would be willing to pay more taxes to put welfare people to work on public service jobs. Do any of you agree with that? What about single mothers?
The idea of state contol is fine, penncam. What would you have the states control? Aren't 50 seperate programs less efficient than one big one?
My overall questions remain unanswered:
what are the goals?
What constitutes success?
What is the timetable?
I think I have been very forthcoming in challenging your positions and trying to take them to the next level, but if you don't want to think about the details, fine, just say so and i wll back off. If you just want to believe in conservatism on faith, I guess that is your prerogative.
Heretic, your post about the economy looked like a continuation of an idea posted by JolietJake, and i did respond to that. I asked a few questions which no one has answered.
There is no disputing that congress has a lot to do with the economy, but that doesn't mean that the prez has NOTHING to do with it. The president has influence on money supply, trade, (Mexican) bailouts, buying foreign currencies, interest rates (some of these are actually controlled by the Fed, but the Fed usually works within an administrations policy goals).
And your post mostly dealt with the stock market. Granted, the stock market is more closely connected to the overall economy now than it used to be because so many people have 401k's, but the stock market is not the only, or even major, indicator of the health of the economy.
I don't think we disagree on any of this in principle. I'm not sure what your point is. It seemed you just wanted to take another shot at Clinton.
As for Hillary, I don't know if she'll run, but I doubt it. I bet she wants to, but there is so much rabid opposition to her personally, I don't think the numbers will ever be right for her. I hope she finishes her term, but I ask you, did all those repubs who promised to self-term-limit themselves and go back on the promise get voted out?
Back to (what I thought was) the issue at hand:
We started talking about Al Gore, but slid into a discussion about why the dems aren't the party of the "common man".
You conservative types are the ones saying the repubs are for the common man, but you can't back it up. All we get are cute little catch phrases like " You Can't Beat Business", or " they are the Handout party", " Dems are for big government, spend, spend, spend 'cause the belief is if you pour enough money into a project, it HAS to work."
I get the feeling that conservatives respond to these simple ideas, but when you get into the nuts and bolts of it, you have no answers. For example, illegal immigration bothers you. But how are we to fix it? You don't want to spend any money, you don't want to punish companies for hiring them. What's the answer???
You don't want to spend money on welfare, but most of you won't say what we are to do with the people who can't support themselves.
It's too easy to say that EVERYBODY on welfare is a cheater. It's just not true. Besides, it might cost more to eliminate the cheating than it's costing now. Someone said earlier (different thread?) that they would be willing to pay more taxes to put welfare people to work on public service jobs. Do any of you agree with that? What about single mothers?
The idea of state contol is fine, penncam. What would you have the states control? Aren't 50 seperate programs less efficient than one big one?
My overall questions remain unanswered:
what are the goals?
What constitutes success?
What is the timetable?
I think I have been very forthcoming in challenging your positions and trying to take them to the next level, but if you don't want to think about the details, fine, just say so and i wll back off. If you just want to believe in conservatism on faith, I guess that is your prerogative.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Re: Where to start...
Deportation. If they come here, and don't have a reason to be here, or a visa, then they go back to where they came from. Malvo, should have been sent home.
Maybe, if taxes weren't so opressive, employers could afford to put more people to work?
I haven't followed the welfare thread. But NO, HE11 No, I wouldn't be willing to put welfare people to work in government jobs. An article in the Post this week said that a high percentage of welfare people, don't return to the roles of welfare after 5 years. That, to me, is how the system is supposed to work. We are a compassionate society, in that people who are down on their luck should have opportunity to turn it around. If people use welfare, temporarily, to get to the next level, then that's exactly what we need our system to do for us.
Employers pay a percentage of payroll into the welfare system. We expect that money to be used temporarily, and responsibly. If people stay in the system, then those are the ones who should be reformed. If a high percentage of the people, use welfare, and then never return then I'd say the system needs to focus on the smaller percentage of abusers. I think most people don't want to be on welfare. But we can't be so naive as to think that there are people out there who don't want to work, and they milk the system. I've known both types. People who couldn't wait to have a baby so they could collect welfare, and people who couldn't wait to get off of unemployment so they could go back to work.
I don't agree with either of these. I think that the cost of running a corrupt system, is far greater in the long run, than to deal with the problem when its smaller. To weed this out, you have to use a fair analysis of the system and the participants, and determine where the abuse is, and end it.
That has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But, in this case, I believe the answer is NO, and I use Social Security as the benchmark for this determination. Surely there are some states that could run a better program. These states would benefit from a broader program. But there are some states that run a great program. I think you benchmark a program by looking at results. How many of the same people are still in the program 2 years later. How many people have returned to the program within 5 years. If you keep those numbers low, then I think you have a pretty efficient program.
Did I miss anything?
Deportation. If they come here, and don't have a reason to be here, or a visa, then they go back to where they came from. Malvo, should have been sent home.
Maybe, if taxes weren't so opressive, employers could afford to put more people to work?
I haven't followed the welfare thread. But NO, HE11 No, I wouldn't be willing to put welfare people to work in government jobs. An article in the Post this week said that a high percentage of welfare people, don't return to the roles of welfare after 5 years. That, to me, is how the system is supposed to work. We are a compassionate society, in that people who are down on their luck should have opportunity to turn it around. If people use welfare, temporarily, to get to the next level, then that's exactly what we need our system to do for us.
Employers pay a percentage of payroll into the welfare system. We expect that money to be used temporarily, and responsibly. If people stay in the system, then those are the ones who should be reformed. If a high percentage of the people, use welfare, and then never return then I'd say the system needs to focus on the smaller percentage of abusers. I think most people don't want to be on welfare. But we can't be so naive as to think that there are people out there who don't want to work, and they milk the system. I've known both types. People who couldn't wait to have a baby so they could collect welfare, and people who couldn't wait to get off of unemployment so they could go back to work.
I don't agree with either of these. I think that the cost of running a corrupt system, is far greater in the long run, than to deal with the problem when its smaller. To weed this out, you have to use a fair analysis of the system and the participants, and determine where the abuse is, and end it.
That has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. But, in this case, I believe the answer is NO, and I use Social Security as the benchmark for this determination. Surely there are some states that could run a better program. These states would benefit from a broader program. But there are some states that run a great program. I think you benchmark a program by looking at results. How many of the same people are still in the program 2 years later. How many people have returned to the program within 5 years. If you keep those numbers low, then I think you have a pretty efficient program.
Did I miss anything?
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Where to start...
[Originally posted by MGKrebs
As for Hillary, I don't know if she'll run, but I doubt it. I bet she wants to, but there is so much rabid opposition to her personally, I don't think the numbers will ever be right for her. I hope she finishes her term, but I ask you, did all those repubs who promised to self-term-limit themselves and go back on the promise get voted out?
------ I agree with you, and your point is taken, but none of them had the notoriety of "Willy Jeff", and his so- called "convictions". I guess I never trusted him.
It's too easy to say that EVERYBODY on welfare is a cheater. It's just not true; any of you agree with that? What about single mothers?
----- If Michigan and Gov Tommy Thompson can do the job, why can't other states use it as a model, and modify it to their needs? How hard is it to identify abusers of the system?
The idea of state contol is fine, penncam. What would you have the states control? Aren't 50 seperate programs less efficient than one big one?
------- Again, and I'm for Welfare Reform, how about the states handling this project? Take the brunt of it off the Fed Govt.?
penncam
[Originally posted by MGKrebs
As for Hillary, I don't know if she'll run, but I doubt it. I bet she wants to, but there is so much rabid opposition to her personally, I don't think the numbers will ever be right for her. I hope she finishes her term, but I ask you, did all those repubs who promised to self-term-limit themselves and go back on the promise get voted out?
------ I agree with you, and your point is taken, but none of them had the notoriety of "Willy Jeff", and his so- called "convictions". I guess I never trusted him.
It's too easy to say that EVERYBODY on welfare is a cheater. It's just not true; any of you agree with that? What about single mothers?
----- If Michigan and Gov Tommy Thompson can do the job, why can't other states use it as a model, and modify it to their needs? How hard is it to identify abusers of the system?
The idea of state contol is fine, penncam. What would you have the states control? Aren't 50 seperate programs less efficient than one big one?
------- Again, and I'm for Welfare Reform, how about the states handling this project? Take the brunt of it off the Fed Govt.?
penncam
H
Heretic
Guest
MGKrebs I never took any shots at Clinton, there is your shortsightedness showing through again. I guess anyone that disagrees with you is doing nothing more than spewing BS in your eyes.
My point was that looking back on things that the economy wasn't as good as we thought it was at the time, and part of the so called downturn was the loss of jobs that we knew were going to go away (all the people working to fix the Y2k Bug) Companies that said they were posting record earnings that really were loosing money eventually had to get rid of people, etc etc.
My point was that looking back on things that the economy wasn't as good as we thought it was at the time, and part of the so called downturn was the loss of jobs that we knew were going to go away (all the people working to fix the Y2k Bug) Companies that said they were posting record earnings that really were loosing money eventually had to get rid of people, etc etc.
This is getting a bit wonky even for me.
Thank you oz. Good thoughts.
Deportation
Again, I don’t think anybody has a problem with this in principle, but evidently the INS does not have the resources to do this.
Also, not only will it cost more to implement this plan, prices for many things that these immigrants work on will go up ( poultry processing, produce picking, home building) as the companies will then have to pay competitive wages and benefits and legal working conditions.
Personally, i think it would be great. We pay a little more for our stuff, but unemployment goes down, and we have less undocumented people running around. but we have to be willing to cough up the money to make it happen.
Welfare/oppressive taxes
I don’t think the tax structure affects this. Before you explode, here’s why: IF all similar companies pay similar taxes, then they’re all in the same competitive boat anyway. They all get to charge enough for their product to pay taxes and still be competitive with one another. Obviously, there is a limit to this- taxes could be so high that nobody can sell their stuff at a price people can afford and still make a profit. But i doubt this is the case since we have the lowest taxes of all industrialized countries.
Welfare to work
I largely agree with you on this, except to say that to assume that those who are on welfare for a long time are there because they don’t want to work is too general. Some of them, yes. Others are just not competitive. There are plenty of people out there who are smarter than me and more competitive than me. By the same token, I am smarter and more competitive than a lot of other people. This relationship continues until you get down to the bottom of the ladder. Those people are not competitive with anybody. They may want to work, they just may have marginal intelligence or some physical shortcoming that doesn’t allow them to compete for a job. (I hate it when the guys working at McDonalds have horrible skin conditions.) It’s like musical chairs.
I imagine finding the small percentage of chronic welfare cheaters is a difficult and expensive project. Maybe not, but in any case I can't believe libs are FOR welfare cheating.
50 separate programs
Personally, I don’t have a problem with letting the states run something like social security or welfare. I think it would end up being a mistake, but it has worked in some places, as Penncam mentioned. I think the fear liberals have on this is that a state, say like Alabama, might choose to not have any social security, and the rest of us would end up bailing them out eventually anyway, which might be very expensive.
Penncam
See above, and thanks for the thoughts.
This is cool. I see a glimmer of hope that if WE can identify some possible middle ground to do some of these things, then maybe someday our alleged leaders can too.
Heretic
No need to get snippy, heretic. My apologies for confusing you with this from jolietjake;
“Clinton did nothing for the economy! He rode it like a gravy train and like a good marketing dink he claimed credit for everything he saw regardless of who actually did the work.
“Clinton was a failure. Like Carter before him, and Johnson before Carter. They know how to screw things up, create handouts, swell bureaucracy, but not how to make corrections. “
Thank you oz. Good thoughts.
Deportation
Again, I don’t think anybody has a problem with this in principle, but evidently the INS does not have the resources to do this.
Also, not only will it cost more to implement this plan, prices for many things that these immigrants work on will go up ( poultry processing, produce picking, home building) as the companies will then have to pay competitive wages and benefits and legal working conditions.
Personally, i think it would be great. We pay a little more for our stuff, but unemployment goes down, and we have less undocumented people running around. but we have to be willing to cough up the money to make it happen.
Welfare/oppressive taxes
I don’t think the tax structure affects this. Before you explode, here’s why: IF all similar companies pay similar taxes, then they’re all in the same competitive boat anyway. They all get to charge enough for their product to pay taxes and still be competitive with one another. Obviously, there is a limit to this- taxes could be so high that nobody can sell their stuff at a price people can afford and still make a profit. But i doubt this is the case since we have the lowest taxes of all industrialized countries.
Welfare to work
I largely agree with you on this, except to say that to assume that those who are on welfare for a long time are there because they don’t want to work is too general. Some of them, yes. Others are just not competitive. There are plenty of people out there who are smarter than me and more competitive than me. By the same token, I am smarter and more competitive than a lot of other people. This relationship continues until you get down to the bottom of the ladder. Those people are not competitive with anybody. They may want to work, they just may have marginal intelligence or some physical shortcoming that doesn’t allow them to compete for a job. (I hate it when the guys working at McDonalds have horrible skin conditions.) It’s like musical chairs.
I imagine finding the small percentage of chronic welfare cheaters is a difficult and expensive project. Maybe not, but in any case I can't believe libs are FOR welfare cheating.
50 separate programs
Personally, I don’t have a problem with letting the states run something like social security or welfare. I think it would end up being a mistake, but it has worked in some places, as Penncam mentioned. I think the fear liberals have on this is that a state, say like Alabama, might choose to not have any social security, and the rest of us would end up bailing them out eventually anyway, which might be very expensive.
Penncam
See above, and thanks for the thoughts.
This is cool. I see a glimmer of hope that if WE can identify some possible middle ground to do some of these things, then maybe someday our alleged leaders can too.
Heretic
No need to get snippy, heretic. My apologies for confusing you with this from jolietjake;
“Clinton did nothing for the economy! He rode it like a gravy train and like a good marketing dink he claimed credit for everything he saw regardless of who actually did the work.
“Clinton was a failure. Like Carter before him, and Johnson before Carter. They know how to screw things up, create handouts, swell bureaucracy, but not how to make corrections. “