patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

My first question is, why are you so jealous of the top 2%???

Actually I am pretty close to the 2% mark (tons of deductions to get the AGI down on the rentals so not sure exactly where I'd fall but probably around top 3-4% after deductions), and work harder than you, so shut your yap and answer the question you avoided.

In the past 20 years, what legislation (at the national level) has been initiated, supported, and passed by Republicans that exclusively benefits the poor or middle class (the 98%), with no tangible benefit to the top 2%?

CaptainShuddup says

I've never seen a driven woman held back by anyone.

So in summary: you are male, white, and don't know many women. Your point is noted.

gbenson says

So in summary: you are male, white, and don't know many women. Your point is noted.

Ha ha ha, you Liberals actually think that works. My point is NOTED, no fella my point was sorely missed by you. I wont even begin to speculate as to why.
But I'm sure it's environmental. Mostly mental though.

CaptainShuddup says

I wont even begin to speculate as to why

Because I am married to a woman who has a higher degree than I, is smarter than I, (her GPA was 3.99), works harder than I, and has more professional certifications than I. Managers fight to have her on their team. And she makes less income than I do. We both have the same engineering degrees (although hers is a masters) and work in very similar fields.

I understood your point. You went with the combination: A) I've never seen it therefore it doesn't exist, with a dose of B) pull yourself up by your own damn bootstraps.

In utopia you might have a point, but the rest of us live on a planet called earth.

Voting for my own best interests,,,,,

Well, as an American, I see the most important issue as tearing down the police state and stop the insanity of putting people in prison for smoking grass. Which candidate am I supposed to vote for, that is in my best interest?

gbenson says

Because I am married to a woman who has a higher degree than I, is smarter than I, (her GPA was 3.99), works harder than I, and has more professional certifications than I. Managers fight to have her on their team. And she makes less income than I do. We both have the same engineering degrees (although hers is a masters) and work in very similar fields.
I understood your point. You went with the combination: A) I've never seen it therefore it doesn't exist, with a dose of B) pull yourself up by your own damn bootstraps.
In utopia you might have a point, but the rest of us live on a planet called earth

As a man, I have been in the exact situation as your wife. You learn and improve your negotiating skills. You think Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman got to where they are by being nice or suing the company?

I was not too happy when I found out. It is called life lessons-you can learn and then you become better. How many times do you see people in corporations that are experts in bolivating and nothing else get promoted ? Different skill sets-you don't just sit there and expect things to happen to you. You take the bull by the horns and make it happen.

Granted if it were the 50s-yes-they could not and they fought and I fully support that. But not today.

You are trying to create an utopia where everybody in management is wise and jedi like and instinctly know the skills of all under them and automatically all pay is given to those who contribute the most . In planet earth, that won't happen. You have to know your worth and negotiate.
With offshoring that is tough, then you have to move into other areas that are useful and demand more.

errc says

Voting for my own best interests,,,,,

Well, as an American, I see the most important issue as tearing down the police state and stop the insanity of putting people in prison for smoking grass. Which candidate am I supposed to vote for, that is in my best interest?

Ron Paul, I would assume.

95% of the those who vote Republican do not realize what their own best interests are.

These are the same people that will argue with Paul Krugman about economics.

They will claim that all government statistics are lies.

They will argue that raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy.

They will talk about how gas prices have risen because of Obama.

They will talk about how Obama raised their taxes.

They hoard gold.

They bought tech stocks in late 1999 and an investment house in 2006.

They consider themselves job creators because of the illegal immigrant labor they hire to do the drywall on their jobsites.

They complain they can't make money because of government regulations.

They complain about business income taxes but expense personal lunches and family vacations as business expenses. Their taxable income is near zero.

They complain about the earned income tax credit and medicaid, but don't realize that allows them to hire labor for below a living wage in their Mcdonald's franchise.

They complain about manufacturing jobs going overseas while driving their Honda, talking on their Iphone and heading to Walmart.

Seems to me 50% of the nation will vote against the other 50% best interests.

95% of the those who vote Republican do not realize whattheir own best interests are.

HIGH FIVE SISTA!!

So nice to see someone else that gets it. Those freaking stupid jerk republicans are like so totally stupid. If only they all voted for the politicians that are democrats, it would be like heaven on Earth!! Everyone that is smart knows that paul krugman knows everything there is to know about economics, and democrat politicians have everyone elses best interests in mind, only, all the time!! They are like, such total altruisic saints.

errc says

Everyone that is smart knows that paul krugman knows everything there is to know about economics

Safe to say he knows more the authors of every one of the Austrian economic blogs, pick any. And every single Republican currently behind or supporting the Romney/Ryan tax plans.

But these are the guys that will argue with him. And look retarded doing so.

He knows me than me. And I suspect you as well.

Call it Crazy says

david1 says

He knows me than me. And I suspect you as well.

What??? Is that English???

more than me.

Still no takers?

In the past 20 years, what legislation (at the national level) has been initiated, supported, and passed by Republicans that exclusively benefits the poor or middle class (the 98%), with no tangible benefit to the top 2%?

Vote against my own interest?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting effectively pays my salary. I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. It may cost me my job.

The end.

rfsanders says

Vote against my own interest?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting effectively pays my salary. I plan to vote for Mitt Romney. It may cost me my job.

The end.

No.. you will do fine... call it a spin off ! a few commercials and cable deals will bring in higher $$ royalties and you may well prosper. Fact is spin offs do much better than normal start up IPO since they have long history with customers which will continue. A new beginning!

david1 says

errc says

Everyone that is smart knows that paul krugman knows everything there is to know about economics

Safe to say he knows more the authors of every one of the Austrian economic blogs, pick any. And every single Republican currently behind or supporting the Romney/Ryan tax plans.

But these are the guys that will argue with him. And look retarded doing so.

He knows me than me. And I suspect you as well.

Well, since you seem to feel that you know better than I, what my best interests are, can you vote for me?

Lemme guess, just vote for the democrat. Because they are democrats, and everyone that is smart knows that democrats have my best interests as a priority.

errc says

Lemme guess, just vote for the democrat. Because they are democrats, and everyone that is smart knows that democrats have my best interests as a priority.

And don't forget Dummies shouldn't vote.

I don't intend to vote. And I'm dumb as rocks

I just can't seem to bring myself to wait in line to pull the lever for any of the cretins mired in their neo-classical economic farce, nor their hard-on for the police state and torturing "drug" users. I mean, unless its a big pharma approved highly profitable drug

If it was your best interest,,,to vote against the candidate that supports giving themselves the ability to illegaly detain and torture any citizen at any time, indefinitely, for no particular reason whatsoever,,,than who do you vote for?

errc says

Lemme guess, just vote for the democrat. Because they are democrats, and everyone that is smart knows that democrats have my best interests as a priority.

Not at all. In every election, you should only chose the candidate, regardless of party, that lays out policies that will serve your best interests.

What I am saying to you here is in this case, unless you make over 500k per year, voting for Obama is in your best interest. I simply cannot think of any other reason of voting for Romney.

Provided Romney is elected, and he does what he has campaigned on: lowering tax rates by 20%, reducing or eliminating deductions, increasing military spending, and decreasing domestic spending, these policies will destroy our weak economy.

Tax cuts do NOT spur economic growth. They never have, they never will. GWB tried it, the economy did not respond. Reagan lowered taxes and GDP grew 63% in 8 years, but Reagan also increased goverment spending 57%, (from $679B to $1,067B) Keynesians like Krugman would argue thatthe Reagan boom is due increased goverment spending. I tend to agree with him.

As such, here is the data by President:
Obama: GDP +12%, expenditures +8.8% (09-12), taxes flat
GWB: GDP +40%, expenditures +60% (01-08), taxes down
Clinton: GDP +49%, expenditures +27% (93-00), taxes up
GHWB: GDP +16%, expenditures +21% (89-92), taxes flat
Reagan: GDP +63%. expenditures +57% (81-88), taxes down
Carter: GDP +38%, expenditures +45% (77-80), taxes flat
Nixon/Ford: GDP +83%, expenditures +102% (69-76), taxes flat

So what this tells me is this: if you are a single issue voter, and that issue is the economy, and the ideas that one guy has for helping the economy are lowering taxes and cutting spending, and the data shows that lowering taxes has never helped the economy, and the data also shows that increasing government spending HELPS the economy, why would I vote for that guy?

On the other hand, the other guy wants to raise taxes and make investments in areas like infrastructure and education. Policies like these have historically helped the economy.

I also believe the primary problem with our economy is income inequality - and Obama's policies attempt to address this while Romney only wants to enact policies that would exascerbate the problem.

To me the choice is clear.

zzyzzx says

Reagan raised taxes 11 times and mushroomed the national debt. So I guess Reagan was bad for tax payers.

Bush's illegal and corrupt wars drained our treasury. Bush was bad for tax payers, too.

You know who was awesome for tax payers? Bill Clinton. He kept us out of war and the economy was orgasmic under him. Adjusting for inflation, he's the only one to actually lower the national debt, albeit barely since he kept taxes so low. So let's give Bill Clinton a third term.

Or just put Gore in office. His policies are similar and he won the year 2000 election. Had he been in office, Obama would never have been. See, it's a win-win. Had the Republicans committing election fraud not stolen the 2000 election, they wouldn't have to "endure" the Obama socialist regime. Payback's a bitch.

Stock market is also historically much better under Democrats. Romney win's, then better to just cash out the old 401k. Wait for the implosion of our economy, then get back in again when the next Dem is elected in 2016.

gbenson says

Stock market is also historically much better under Democrats. Romney win's, then better to just cash out the old 401k. Wait for the implosion of our economy, then get back in again when the next Dem is elected in 2016.

Blue states have MUCH higher cost of living as well

As a working poor person that's not dumb enough to get duped into participating, how exactly does much higher cost of living and higher stock market, benefit me?

The party of the poor ROTFLMAO

I'm just glad there's people like you, that know better then me, what my own best interests are

And the blue states have higher incomes per capita, along with paying for EVERY perk that the red states hand out to their citizens that they don't, and won't, pay for themselves.

You red-staters want to be treated like adults and "have some say over your own destiny" and what best for you, YOU START PAYING FOR IT THEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nice idea..

Dan8267 says

2. A choice of "no confidence" in which no one gets to be president and another election must be started one year later

so then...why are you jealous of yourself?

gbenson says

Actually I am pretty close to the 2% mark (tons of deductions to get the AGI down on the rentals so not sure exactly where I'd fall but probably around top 3-4% after deductions), and work harder than you, so shut your yap and answer the question you avoided.

IDDQD says

... or like California.

Keep in mind that California is mostly a Red State. Its only the population centers that are blue, and thus tip the balance.

Overlay the two maps below (political leaning vs unemployment) Cause and effect maybe?

gbenson says

Keep in mind that California is mostly a Red State. Its only the population centers that are blue, and thus tip the balance

......so, basically it's the vast number of people that just vote blue or the opposite, that make CA blue. Genious. Brilliant. It was a red state right up until it wasn't.

What else would you expect from a jealous 2%'er...??

upisdown says

gbenson says

Keep in mind that California is mostly a Red State. Its only the population centers that are blue, and thus tip the balance

......so, basically it's the vast number of people that just vote blue or the opposite, that make CA blue. Genious. Brilliant. It was a red state right up until it wasn't.

SoftShell says

What else would you expect from a jealous 2%'er...??

Jealous? No, that wasn't my first thought, wishful thinking yes, but not jealousy. That reminds me of: they are exactly the same except............

Righties bash California as a bunch of liberals that are bankrupting the state. The reality is that the vast majority of CA's real estate is painted red, not blue. It's the red portions of the state that are draining all the resources and have brutally high unemployment.

If the deep-blue San Francisco Bay area was a state, it would have a GDP of $500 billion.

Hey Gbenson, check out:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

and drag the little slidebar to contrast the whole country's voting patterns over the last few cycles. Not exactly on-topic, but I thought interested parties might like it.

I like to use that for the exit polls as well, and to show how every single religious and ethnic minority is moving toward the Dems.

gbenson says

The reality is that the vast majority of CA's real estate is painted red, not blue. It's the red portions of the state that are draining all the resources and have brutally high unemployment.

I wasn't trying to bust your chops, it's like that in every blue state. The farther that you get away from the population density, the lower the IQ and the higher the unemployment/welfare participation. The 98% of a samll community struggling to just put $5 worth of gas in a car while utilizing EVERY known type of assistance to pay their power bill and buy food. To add insult to injury, the millionaire farmers are either getting money directly(mostly phased out) to free insurance and generous tax breaks. Then both groups pretend that it's inner-city blacks that use 100% of all the previously mentioned assistance.

Upisdown. Thanks for the explanation, and if I insinuated you were a Republican, my most sincere apologies. No excuse on my part for leveling such an insult at someone like that! :)

CL says

Hey Gbenson, check out:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Sweetness, thanks! How come wherever there are educated people its blue, and wherever there's hillbillies its red?

upisdown says

I wasn't trying to bust your chops, it's like that in every blue state. The farther that you get away from the population density, the lower the IQ and the higher the unemployment/welfare participation

What do you mean? I thought that wineries in Lodi region were frequented by "real americans" while the wineries in napa/sonoma are attended by liberals who want to turn us into france?

dublin hillz says

What do you mean? I thought that wineries in Lodi region were frequented by "real americans" while the wineries in napa/sonoma are attended by liberals who want to turn us into france?

There's 2 categories of Americans?

upisdown says

dublin hillz says

What do you mean? I thought that wineries in Lodi region were frequented by "real americans" while the wineries in napa/sonoma are attended by liberals who want to turn us into france?

There's 2 categories of Americans?

Yes, according to elites, only 2 just like there are dems and reps and everyone else is irrelevant

gbenson says

Sweetness, thanks! How come wherever there are educated people its blue, and wherever there's hillbillies its red?

Well, Liberals have long cornered the "smart vote", which caused the Right to deride higher education, and those that pursue it to be called "eggheads" and "elite".

HTH!