Pick Ryan and blame the loss on Conservative GOPs

[Cutlass]

Has this been discussed? Paul Ryan sold shares on same day as private briefing of banking crisis

The most insane bit is this:

Congress has often exempted itself from the standards it imposed on others. Just the perq of power.

 

[peter grimes]

I even considered voting for Obama today. I feel ashamed.

I think I'll just take the time off work and get drunk to lament the situation... no vote from the Kochman.

Perhaps I could persuade you to look at a 3rd party? Perhaps the Green Party?
There is a lot in their platform that I think you agree with....

Thats not at all fair since the government ripped her money away from her to invest in their ponzi scheme instead of letting her invest it herself.

You can forcibly mandate people participate in a program and take away their means to participate in the alternative and then whine that they did exactly what you forced them to do.

Oh, please. Social Security tax is a mere 4% or 10%. It's not as if she wasn't free to invest on her own beyond that amount. Everyone should, but obviously not everyone has the means to. Especially with the interest rates we've had for the last 5 years

 

[Patroklos]

Oh, please. Social Security tax is a mere 4% or 10%. It's not as if she wasn't free to invest on her own beyond that amount. Everyone should, but obviously not everyone has the means to. Especially with the interest rates we've had for the last 5 years

Just 10% eh? Can I have ten percent of your salary and give you nothing back for it? Thats exactly what you are claiming Ayn Rand should have done.

Who said she didn't have private investments? The point is she couldn't invest as she wanted to with the 10% forcibly taken from her and instead had to get from it what the government said she should. Not her fault, the simple reality of the government meddling in her private life. Whether it was voluntary or not she paid for those services. Are you saying people against SS period or in its current form should just forfeit that 10% of their income (or more accurately the less valuable return on it)? Man, talk about a win win for the liberals, they get your money either way...

 

[AlpsStranger]

Perhaps I could persuade you to look at a 3rd party? Perhaps the Green Party?
There is a lot in their platform that I think you agree with....

3rd party? No.

Be you a lefty or a righty, this is not the kind of election where we mess around with pie in the sky 3rd party talk.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are you saying people against SS period or in its current form should just forfeit that 10% of their income (or more accurately the less valuable return on it)? Man, talk about a win win for the liberals, they get your money either way...

Yes, if they actually have a problem with it.
For the record, if I get mugged, am I supposed to forfeit that money, or am I entitled to go mug someone else?

EDIT: And for the record, the government didn't take her money. Old people were simply getting the services they paid for from her.

 

[peter grimes]

Just 10% eh? Can I have ten percent of your salary and give you nothing back for it? Thats exactly what you are claiming Ayn Rand should have done.

Who said she didn't have private investments? The point is she couldn't invest as she wanted to with the 10% forcibly taken from her and instead had to get from it what the government said she should. Not her fault, the simple reality of the government meddling in her private life. Whether it was voluntary or not she paid for those services. Are you saying people against SS period or in its current form should just forfeit that 10% of their income (or more accurately the less valuable return on it)? Man, talk about a win win for the liberals, they get your money either way...

But she didn't 'get nothing back for it'. She got checks. Which she cashed.

All in all, the rate of return isn't as good as CDs or something like that, but it's better than cash. I honestly don't understand why people are against it. If you don't want the government taking 10% of your self-employed income, just self-employ yourself a little harder! Isn't that the conservative answer to poverty?

 

[Patroklos]

But she didn't 'get nothing back for it'. She got checks. Which she cashed.

I didn't say she didn't, thats what YOU wanted her to do. Apparently you can't be against something you are compelled to participate in according to this thread.

All in all, the rate of return isn't as good as CDs or something like that, but it's better than cash. I honestly don't understand why people are against it. If you don't want the government taking 10% of your self-employed income, just self-employ yourself a little harder! Isn't that the conservative answer to poverty?

Again, when are you going to send me 10% of your pay check? I can PM you my address if you want...

 

[JollyRoger]

Given you are on the government dole, I already do.

 

[Patroklos]

You underpay for my services out of the goodness of my heart, which by definition means I am not on a dole. You are welcome.

Something tells me your clients don't get the same deal.

 

[JollyRoger]

Underpaid? The bloated military has been underperforming for decades while benefits to them keep expanding.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a shame they work so hard they don't have much time to use the internet.

 

[JollyRoger]

And complaining about me getting what the free market will bear is pretty rich coming from someone receiving what overspending politicians dole out. The more I extract from the free market, the more the government extracts from me to pay for the bloated military.

 

[peter grimes]

I didn't say she didn't, thats what YOU wanted her to do. Apparently you can't be against something you are compelled to participate in according to this thread.

Again, when are you going to send me 10% of your pay check? I can PM you my address if you want...

Yeah, actually you did say that:

Can I have ten percent of your salary and give you nothing back for it?

Like JollyRoger I find it remarkable that you seem to think that taxpayers are getting a good deal through defense spending. And I don't think you're doing us a favor by your 'service'. No thank you very much. It's a choice you made - you weren't drafted. You'll get no sympathy from me on that account.

Dollars spent on the military are an inefficient way for government to spend our money:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/defense-spending-job-loss/

A few years ago, the Center for Economic and Policy Research commissioned Global Insight, one of the leading economic modeling firms, to project the impact of a sustained increase in defense spending equal to 1.0 percentage point of GDP. This was roughly equal to the cost of the Iraq War.

Global Insight’s model projected that after 20 years the economy would be about 0.6 percentage points smaller as a result of the additional defense spending. Slower growth would imply a loss of almost 700,000 jobs compared to a situation in which defense spending had not been increased. Construction and manufacturing were especially big job losers in the projections, losing 210,000 and 90,000 jobs, respectively.

The scenario we asked Global Insight to model turned out to have vastly underestimated the increase in defense spending associated with current policy. In the most recent quarter, defense spending was equal to 5.6 percent of GDP. By comparison, before the September 11th attacks, the Congressional Budget Office projected that defense spending in 2009 would be equal to just 2.4 percent of GDP. Our post-September 11th build-up was equal to 3.2 percentage points of GDP compared to the pre-attack baseline. This means that the Global Insight projections of job loss are far too low.

Education and infrastructure spending is a far better value, and makes our country a better place to live and work. Defense spending - at least above a certain minimum - doesn't.

 

[Cutlass]

Paul Ryan and the Mega-Donors
New York Times: "When Mr. Romney announced that Mr. Ryan would be his running mate, his campaign emphasized the congressman's detailed knowledge of the federal budget and his chemistry with Mr. Romney. Less well-known are Mr. Ryan's close ties to the donors and activists who have channeled Tea Party anger into a $400 million political machine, financed by a network of conservative and libertarian donors that now rivals, and occasionally challenges, the Republican establishment behind Mr. Romney."

"Mr. Ryan is one of a very few elected officials who have attended the Kochs' biannual conferences, where wealthy donors sit in on seminars on runaway government spending and the myths of climate change."

http://politicalwire.com/

 

[WindFish]

So Willard Mittens Romney gets money from Paul FYGM Ryan who gets money from rich people who hate Willard Mittens Romney?

 

[Cutlass]

The rich don't so much hate Mittens as wish they had a mouthpiece with some charisma to lick their boots.

 

[AlpsStranger]

FYGM

I absolutely love this phrase. It's probably my favorite export from the SA forums.

I've gotta stop being cheap/lazy and make an actual account there someday.

EDIT: At least I'm pretty sure it's a SA thing. Perhaps it comes from somewhere else and is just really common on SA.

 

[WindFish]

The rich don't so much hate Mittens as wish they had a mouthpiece with some charisma to lick their boots.

I see.

 

[Archbob]

You might as well, unless you want another 4 years of suck.

I'd rather have 4 years of suck, then 4 years of really suck.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, actually you did say that:


Like JollyRoger I find it remarkable that you seem to think that taxpayers are getting a good deal through defense spending. And I don't think you're doing us a favor by your 'service'. No thank you very much. It's a choice you made - you weren't drafted. You'll get no sympathy from me on that account.

Dollars spent on the military are an inefficient way for government to spend our money:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/defense-spending-job-loss/


Education and infrastructure spending is a far better value, and makes our country a better place to live and work. Defense spending - at least above a certain minimum - doesn't.

And yet defense spending is actually Constitutional. Can you point to me where in the Constitution it says the Federal government can spend money on education? I certainly cannot find it, which means by definition it is reserved to the State and people and forbidden to the Feds. NEXT!