patrick.net

They know the difference between propaganda and real asserted effort.

You mean like the Lilly Ledbetter act that many Republicans opposed?

6 kentm 2012 Oct 21, 3:11am

Try again. You start a sentence and immediately begin talking about what you're against. Never mind that what you're saying is provably false, but I want to hear why you're voting FOR Romney, not what you think you're reacting against, please.

Voting for any candidate that chooses time and time again to create factions and divide the constituency, only to promise or tout to help that one faction, in a time when ALL of the nation is struggling. Is not in the interest of the Voter as a Whole.

It's just pure and simple gross pandering, when a party touts Jobs created for "Women" or color or ethnicity, ect... It's not like we've been in a healthy economy. To actually exhibit you are creating jobs, and asserting that a proportion of those jobs must go to women and other groups, for the sakes of a balanced recovery, would be fine. But to produce a chart weeks before the election claiming "Oh looky here it's a Woman recovery!", just kind of sits wrong in the face of not only the rest of us not working or under employed. But for the millions of Women out there that can't find a job.

They know the difference between propaganda and real asserted effort.

7 kentm 2012 Oct 21, 1:58pm

Its naive of me to ask, of course, but I really do wish I would hear SOMETHING so I keep trying.

8 gbenson 2012 Oct 21, 4:30pm

Had been debating making my own thread, but this one seems appropriate for the question.

I have a legitimate question for our right leaning friends on patnet.

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%?

I have asked a number of righties I know this question and it utterly perplexed them or they just grasp for an answer like 'tax cuts', at which point I have to re-explain the thrust of the question to them.

Google didn't seem forthcoming with an answer either.

9 thenuttyneutron 2012 Oct 21, 9:16pm

Had been debating making my own thread, but this one seems appropriate for the question.

I have a legitimate question for our right leaning friends on patnet.

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%?

I have asked a number of righties I know this question and it utterly perplexed them or they just grasp for an answer like 'tax cuts', at which point I have to re-explain the thrust of the question to them.

Google didn't seem forthcoming with an answer either.

You just don't understand that one day I can be rich. On some payday in the future after using half of my paycheck to buy scratch offs, Mega Millions, and Powerball tickets, I will enjoy the privilege of benefiting from these tax cuts after winning big.

You just have to believe that someday you will be rich too!

10

Tenpoundbass 2012 Oct 22, 3:02am

Ask me again later...

Just think of me as the 8 ball of "NO".

You guys keep shaking me, and expecting a different result.
To be perfectly honest, I have never seen a Liberal explain exactly why they believe Obama's lies or why they voted for him in the first place. They sure talk a lot regurgitating Obama's propaganda, but it's not hardly an answer either. So I just accept it. I don't have any fantasies that one day you will magically explain what Obama has done that is so great.

I woke up this morning and claimed "I will end world hunger".
Should I expect a Nobel peace prize any day now?

Well on second thought, people have gotten them for far less, so the jury is still out on that one.
Just don't vote me in for office based on my asserted efforts.

11

zzyzzx 2012 Oct 22, 3:15am

12

FortWayne 2012 Oct 22, 3:20am

What Romney says: "Corporations are people my friend".

What it means: "Wealthy people that I represent want to pay less, so middle class and the poor can pay more."

This is an election about who will pay the inevitable increase in taxes if we are to stay solvent as a nation.

13 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 3:39am

It's the liberalism, stupid. Stop whining about the government being corrupt and vote the bastards out. The career politician scum in Cali have been there so long they're being term-limited out of certain offices and just going back to their old ones (I'm talking about you, Joe Simitian).

14 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 3:40am

CaptainShuddup says

They know the difference between propaganda and real asserted effort.

You mean like the Lilly Ledbetter act that many Republicans opposed?

That republicans opposed but the Obama administration doesn't follow?

15

Tenpoundbass 2012 Oct 22, 3:48am

I've never seen a driven woman held back by anyone.
The highest paid employee not an executive in the company I work for is a Woman. Do I support paying a woman the same as a man based on sex alone?
Hell no, or any other person for that matter.

A company presents you with an offer when you apply for that position.
You may reserve the right to laugh in that persons face and walk out of the interview, and tell them to call you when they've exhausted all of the other applicants. BUT!!! and this important. Only if you believe in your skill set, and your ability can set you apart from the other applicants.

If you jump on the offer because you don't have faith in your self to ask for more, or you're too scared to hold out for your principals, then you complain when you find out an employee that was hired before or after you is making more. That person just believed in his abilities.

These people are under pressure to prove their worth every day, if they aren't up to snuff, they are the very first to go. There is no Good ole Boy club going on here.

16

lostand confused 2012 Oct 22, 4:01am

I've never seen a driven woman held back by anyone.
The highest paid employee not an executive in the company I work for is a Woman. Do I support paying a woman the same as a man based on sex alone?
Hell no, or any other person for that matter.

Totally agree. Some of the most tough as nails people I have seen in my corporate life are women and they have risen to top positions. This whole Leadbetter law is just horrible policy. I mean, there have always been men who are paid different for doing the same job. A variety of factors come into play-the time you joined and the subsequent small rises, your ignorance of your worth and willing to settle for a low offer, your personal life taking precedance and not willing to put everything for the job. So many factors come into play.

Was there a time when women and non-white people(which includes me) were thought of differently. Absolutely yes-but not anymore. Look around -it is not the 50s. Well ok in some states and some repub circles-the way they talk makes you think it is back then.

If the repubs moderate a bit and stop fighting about issues like birth control and abortion and then stop calling immigrants and non-white folks all sorts of names and instead focus on these issues-you will have a ton of people-especially men willing to jump ship. Of course that would involve stop trying to privatize social security and get rid of medicare and deal with the consequences of free trade. Of course then there is the inequalities in family law that the repubs don't deal with either. They are still fighting the gender war of the 50s and not dealing with the problems modern men have to face.

Sigh-I really miss having a choice and just voting for the guy/gal I am excited about and not the one who is less batsh*t crazy.

17 gbenson 2012 Oct 22, 4:34am

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%?

18 gbenson 2012 Oct 22, 4:51am

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.

19

Tenpoundbass 2012 Oct 22, 4:56am

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.

20 gbenson 2012 Oct 22, 5:12am

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.

21 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 5:19am

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?

22

lostand confused 2012 Oct 22, 5:34am

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.

23

zzyzzx 2012 Oct 22, 5:41am

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.

24 david1 2012 Oct 22, 5:45am

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.

25

Tenpoundbass 2012 Oct 22, 5:55am

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

26 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 8:11am

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.

27 david1 2012 Oct 22, 8:53am

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.

28 david1 2012 Oct 22, 9:58am

Call it Crazy says

david1 says

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

What??? Is that English???

more than me.

29 gbenson 2012 Oct 22, 3:18pm

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%?

30 rfsanders 2012 Oct 22, 4:31pm

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.

31 thomaswong.1986 2012 Oct 22, 5:36pm

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!

32 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 10:20pm

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.

33

Tenpoundbass 2012 Oct 22, 10:28pm

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.

34 anonymous 2012 Oct 22, 11:12pm

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?

35 david1 2012 Oct 22, 11:17pm

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.

36

Dan8267 2012 Oct 23, 12:03am

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.

37 gbenson 2012 Oct 24, 3:51am

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.

38 anonymous 2012 Oct 24, 5:14am