Obama

[Deanh]

Me too.

 

More money, more people to deal with issues, more skills, more resources, more economies of scale, etc.

 

Fact is, they are all equally difficult. It comes down to management and expectations. CA is the worlds ~7th largest economy. So by your implication the US should be a great failure? Or is CA just run poorly? Because there is a huge disconnect between the US economy and CA economy.

 

Fact is, that CA spending is out of control. Its a perfect example of the Fed Govt with out the ability to print money. CA usually has a republican Gov. Mostly because a Democrat Gov in such a liberally run state creates...Al Davis and a $70 to $90 billion deficit.

 

Peace and Blessings

see now we agree....like I have said...with bigger comes more issues....and Ca is a bloody mess....but it is WAY more complex than it appears on the surface....looks like Taxes are being thought to be the answer to everything, something I TOTALLY disagree with, a lot of those $ are utilized appeasing lazy outstretched hands and those abusing loopholes...ALLL consequences of TOO MANY people and brushstroked legistation ...and unfortunately political correctness will only cause the situation to escalate.....our welfare, handouts and free medical to illegals and freeloaders is one sore point for instance....solve THAT problem and perhaps we wouldn't need to pinch and save $ on Education by laying off teachers, thus increasing class sizes, thus kids getting worse educations, thus more likely to end up leaving early....and there is a direct correlation between quality of education and crime....

[Bored of Pisteon]

[Deanh]

But what inherently makes it more difficult to manage more people? You still need all the same systems in place. The only difference (if done properly) should be scale. Complexity should remain the same.

wish it was that simple Nick....more people more issues...these are people we are taliking about ...NOT machines...and have managed MANY.....trusrt me, with more comes more headaches....

[Deanh]

But what inherently makes it more difficult to manage more people? You still need all the same systems in place. The only difference (if done properly) should be scale. Complexity should remain the same.

let me put it simply...one has say, two people to manage...pretty easy.....times that by five, now he is more thinly spead, and say 1 or 2 all of a sudden have issues that need to be adressed and thus he has to leave the others hanging....

[NickF1011]

let me put it simply...one has say, two people to manage...pretty easy.....times that by five, now he is more thinly spead, and say 1 or 2 all of a sudden have issues that need to be adressed and thus he has to leave the others hanging....

 

100, 1000, 1,000,000. It doesn't matter. If a large group has an issue, the smaller group is also going to have that issue, only not to the same extreme. The only reason California is having so many problems is because their government is trying to be the solution for all of those issues instead of letting the groups of people figure anything out for themselves.

[Deanh]

100, 1000, 1,000,000. It doesn't matter. If a large group has an issue, the smaller group is also going to have that issue, only not to the same extreme. The only reason California is having so many problems is because their government is trying to be the solution for all of those issues instead of letting the groups of people figure anything out for themselves.

case of way too many cooks nick....recipe for disaster.....I've manged 5, and i've mangaed 20...they were two sides of the coin....was a HELL of a lot more stressful and agravating with the higher of the two numbers....I was spread way too thin and never seemed to accomplish half of what was necessary....answer, hire another manager, then more workers, then another manager, then a manager to manage the managers....ARRRRRG....i became a firm proponent of keeping things simple, and I have seen WAY too many clients get too big too quick and POOF!

[NickF1011]

case of way too many cooks nick....recipe for disaster.....I've manged 5, and i've mangaed 20...they were two sides of the coin....was a HELL of a lot more stressful and agravating with the higher of the two numbers....I was spread way too thin and never seemed to accomplish half of what was necessary....answer, hire another manager, then more workers, then another manager, then a manager to manage the managers....ARRRRRG....i became a firm proponent of keeping things simple, and I have seen WAY too many clients get too big too quick and POOF!

 

Well obviously with more people you need a larger government, but only really in correlation to the increase in population. If a service takes one person to provide a service for 100, it should, in most cases, only require 10 people to provide the same service to 1000. It seems instead that California wants to expand the payrolls to 25 people per 1000 when 10 could still do the job. A crude example, but that's how it appears.

[Deanh]

Well obviously with more people you need a larger government, but only really in correlation to the increase in population. If a service takes one person to provide a service for 100, it should, in most cases, only require 10 people to provide the same service to 1000. It seems instead that California wants to expand the payrolls to 25 people per 1000 when 10 could still do the job. A crude example, but that's how it appears.

yupperz....perhaps a moot point, but of those managers ony 1/2 are probably any good...thus the need for more.....seen THIS shite too.....

Edited May 19, 2009 by Deanh

[macattak1]

O.K. then... Try this one on for size!

 

 

Bwahahahahahaaaaa! :hysterical: :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: :hysterical:

 

Peace and Blessings.

[macattak1]

see now we agree....like I have said...with bigger comes more issues....and Ca is a bloody mess....but it is WAY more complex than it appears on the surface....looks like Taxes are being thought to be the answer to everything, something I TOTALLY disagree with, a lot of those $ are utilized appeasing lazy outstretched hands and those abusing loopholes...ALLL consequences of TOO MANY people and brushstroked legistation ...and unfortunately political correctness will only cause the situation to escalate.....our welfare, handouts and free medical to illegals and freeloaders is one sore point for instance....solve THAT problem and perhaps we wouldn't need to pinch and save $ on Education by laying off teachers, thus increasing class sizes, thus kids getting worse educations, thus more likely to end up leaving early....and there is a direct correlation between quality of education and crime....

 

More issues as well as more resources. Or maybe a few more issues but mostly the same ones just on a larger scale with more resources. :hysterical:

 

What is it? CA looks at its 3rd grade literacy rate to get projections for how many prison beds they will need? Sad. Very sad. LA is spending like a billion a month is it on illegal services? But hey, that's an entitlement they are entitled to. Me, I might not get the truck or cars I want or need much longer. But people from all over the world can come here and get what they need for free. Luckily it is mostly from Californians taxation of citizens, of which I am no longer part of. But how long before Obam's democratic controlled everything is funding the rest of the world through CA?

 

You sell cars. What do you think of the huge Reg Fee? Do you think it is appropriate to pay ~$2k in reg fees on a $40k vehicle?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

see now we agree....like I have said...with bigger comes more issues....and Ca is a bloody mess....but it is WAY more complex than it appears on the surface....looks like Taxes are being thought to be the answer to everything, something I TOTALLY disagree with, a lot of those $ are utilized appeasing lazy outstretched hands and those abusing loopholes...ALLL consequences of TOO MANY people and brushstroked legistation ...and unfortunately political correctness will only cause the situation to escalate.....our welfare, handouts and free medical to illegals and freeloaders is one sore point for instance....solve THAT problem and perhaps we wouldn't need to pinch and save $ on Education by laying off teachers, thus increasing class sizes, thus kids getting worse educations, thus more likely to end up leaving early....and there is a direct correlation between quality of education and crime....

 

More issues as well as more resources. Or maybe a few more issues but mostly the same ones just on a larger scale with more resources. :hysterical:

 

What is it? CA looks at its 3rd grade literacy rate to get projections for how many prison beds they will need? Sad. Very sad. LA is spending like a billion a month is it on illegal services? But hey, that's an entitlement they are entitled to. Me, I might not get the truck or cars I want or need much longer. But people from all over the world can come here and get what they need for free. Luckily it is mostly from Californians taxation of citizens, of which I am no longer part of. But how long before Obam's democratic controlled everything is funding the rest of the world through CA?

 

You sell cars. What do you think of the huge Reg Fee? Do you think it is appropriate to pay ~$2k in reg fees on a $40k vehicle?

 

Peace and Blessings

[Deanh]

More issues as well as more resources. Or maybe a few more issues but mostly the same ones just on a larger scale with more resources. :hysterical:

 

What is it? CA looks at its 3rd grade literacy rate to get projections for how many prison beds they will need? Sad. Very sad. LA is spending like a billion a month is it on illegal services? But hey, that's an entitlement they are entitled to. Me, I might not get the truck or cars I want or need much longer. But people from all over the world can come here and get what they need for free. Luckily it is mostly from Californians taxation of citizens, of which I am no longer part of. But how long before Obam's democratic controlled everything is funding the rest of the world through CA?

 

You sell cars. What do you think of the huge Reg Fee? Do you think it is appropriate to pay ~$2k in reg fees on a $40k vehicle?

 

Peace and Blessings

2 k sounds crazy, here its more like $800 although APPARENTLY Arnie is about to double it....as for the 1bill a month on illegal services, thats the tip of the iceberg...and all because of fear of abusing someones rights?????how bout them apples, immigrants come here, milk the system but have RIGHTS! unfortunately those right are consistantly ABUSED, costing honest taxpayers hard earned cash...thats where the anger towards illegals stems from, BUT it does NOT apply to all, just like everything, if they could clamp down on the scams that would be a great first step...but what is it with the US and rights???? hell, do something wrong you should be out of here to releive the debt on society...and utilize the $ on other important issues...ie EDUCATION! problem is, the issue was not adressed and has grown to the point where it may not even be remotely containable....should have been nipped in the bud 20 years ago...and thus NOW it has become a major sore point to both people living here and paying their taxes legally AND the health of the state itself...

[macattak1]

2 k sounds crazy, here its more like $800 although APPARENTLY Arnie is about to double it....as for the 1bill a month on illegal services, thats the tip of the iceberg...and all because of fear of abusing someones rights?????how bout them apples, immigrants come here, milk the system but have RIGHTS! unfortunately those right are consistantly ABUSED, costing honest taxpayers hard earned cash...thats where the anger towards illegals stems from, BUT it does NOT apply to all, just like everything, if they could clamp down on the scams that would be a great first step...but what is it with the US and rights???? hell, do something wrong you should be out of here to releive the debt on society...and utilize the $ on other important issues...ie EDUCATION! problem is, the issue was not adressed and has grown to the point where it may not even be remotely containable....should have been nipped in the bud 20 years ago...and thus NOW it has become a major sore point to both people living here and paying their taxes legally AND the health of the state itself...

 

I thought you lived in CA? While Gray Davis was invisible in his 2nd term the reduction of the full fee was about to expire or be eliminated by him. I forget exactly. When Arnold came in one of the first things he said he would do and did was to freeze that so it would not go back. So the $800 you talk of is only half of what it 'should' be per CA liberals.

 

We can not tax and spend our way out of this.

 

Rights? Illegal immigrant rights baby. But not for citizens. If I call and report illegals nothing would happen. Unless of course some liberals got a hold of the fact that I reported some illegals. Then they would have me on the news chanting hate towards me. No rights like illegal rights.

 

Peace and Blessings

[Deanh]

I thought you lived in CA? While Gray Davis was invisible in his 2nd term the reduction of the full fee was about to expire or be eliminated by him. I forget exactly. When Arnold came in one of the first things he said he would do and did was to freeze that so it would not go back. So the $800 you talk of is only half of what it 'should' be per CA liberals.

 

We can not tax and spend our way out of this.

 

Rights? Illegal immigrant rights baby. But not for citizens. If I call and report illegals nothing would happen. Unless of course some liberals got a hold of the fact that I reported some illegals. Then they would have me on the news chanting hate towards me. No rights like illegal rights.

 

Peace and Blessings

I do, but I do my own DMV work so I see the fees , highest I have seen was still south of $1000, and that was on a 450 with a HEAVY service body that was 40k....but rumour has it that everything changes 6/1. As for the rights comment...its NOT just the illegals.....seems ANY group of people come to the United States and instantly hold up the "I have rights" card that if ANYONE questions it is slanderous towards their beleifs, race, culture or religion....need I remind them, they came here, if they don't like it, please go back to your own country and customs.....( close to an actual quote from the Australian Prime Minister whom after he listened to some recent legal immigrants bleating about their so called mis-treatments and un-sympathetic treatments towards catering to THEIR beleifs, basically said....hey don't like it LEAVE!....God I love someone that calls it out...) I find it exceptionally hypocritical....seems everyone has rights here, even if a felon....it is NOT the same in the countries some of these perps came from...ie, what rights dioes an American have in Mexico?.....

[grbeck]

Per the chart above Reagan and Bush 41 balooned the deficit and Clinton brought it to new lows. The economy isn't static and projections change. If the stimulus results in a shorter recession, Obama's projections may turn out to be correct. In any event, the recession started with W and his policies and the Republican Congress from 2000-2007. The Dems slight majority in 2006 did not give them control over anything wioth W in the Whitehouse.

 

Obama got handed this turd sandwich and he's trying to do something about it. The future will tell if his plan is correct. What do you think McCain would have done?

 

What Regan and Bush 41 did is irrelevant to what is happening today.

 

Plus, the economy was recovering from the 1990-91 recession BEFORE Clinton was elected president. The recovery was underway by late 1991. Clinton was handed a recovering economy.

 

And this recession's roots go back to the 1990s, when the government began putting pressure on banks to relax lending standards. Everyone soon got into the act, and this mess is the result. That was before George W. Bush was president. (And please don't bring up the Gramm Leach Bliley Act - it PREVENTED the current situation from getting worse by permitting certain financial situations to take over failing ones.)

[grbeck]

We won't know if they are the wrong things for a while. We do know all the wrong things that got us into this mess in the first place. 6 years of Republicans spending like drunken sailors in an effort to produce a permanent Republican majority. Bush didn't veto a single spending bill produced by the Republican Congress. Spending billions on two wars based on the assertion that Iraq oil would pay for the cost while cutting taxes on the wealthiest. Sweetheart no-bid contracts with no enforcement mechanism for when they were breached.

 

So, unchecked spending by President Bush brought about this mess, but even more unchecked spending by President Obama is going to get us out of it?

 

Sorry, but that doesn't pass the logic test. That's like telling someone who has suffered liver damage from drinking too much wine that the cure is to drink vodka instead, and in even larger quantities.

 

And please note that part of President Bush's spending included a big, fat infrastructure bill - remember the infamous Bridge to Nowhere? But now infrastructure spending is going to save us, because we supposedly neglected it during the Bush years. Which, as shown by the passage of the infrastructure bill, is not true.

 

I don't know if Obama is right or wrong. He isn't outside the mainstream of Keynsian economic thought. The government is the stimulator of last resort. We are at the last resort. We had plenty of "Trickle Down" that never trickled down to the middle class. Middle class buying power based on earnings has continuously dropped since Reagan despite increases in U.S. productivity. Our entire economy has been based on debt and the belief that housing prices would continue to go up.

 

Middle class people live worse than they did prior to 1979? Sorry, but I was there and I can't buy it. People live MUCH better today - and they don't even have to go into debt to do it, if they are smart about it.

 

Even products that do cost more are far superior to their counterparts in 1979. A flat-screen television is not much more expensive than its 1979 counterpart - and it offers far more capabilities (connectivity to computers and a far superior picture) than the 1970s television.

 

A new car is cleaner, safer, more reliable and will last longer than a 1979 car. A 2009 Civic will outperform a 1979 Mercedes S-Class in many areas, and is more reliable to boot. A new Civic is a better car than a 1979 Cadillac or Lincoln was in 1979 in every possible way except prestige. A person who buys a 2009 Civic is getting MORE for his or her money than a person who bought a brand-new 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car did in 1979. Cars may cost more, but they last longer, so if people really think about it (there's an idea!), they will take advantage of this and keep their cars longer and spend LESS on vehicles, in the long run, than they did in the 1970s. If people are dumb enough to believe that they still need a new car every 3-4 years, or that they can trade vehicles as often as women buy new shoes without running up big loan balances, that is not the fault of the Republican party.

 

Food quality is much improved, and the variety is mind boggling compared to the 1970s.

 

Personal computers? We didn't have them in the 1970s. Today, even poor people have them.

 

Also note that we are spending LESS of our income on food and clothing than we were in 1960 - and getting more variety and better quality.

 

Now, I realize that this will bring about the inevitable rejoinder that "we shouldn't be judging our lives on the basis of the material possessions we own" or "what about the quality of life?".

 

As to the first - people can't wail about middle class buying power being in decline and then attempt to derail the conversation when the facts show that it isn't, by suddenly saying that it doesn't matter how many things people can buy, or how good those things now are. "Buying power" refers to the ability to buy things. If we can buy better, longer lasting things (and in some case for LESS, or even for the same amount, in inflation adjusted dollars), one can logically conclude that buying power has improved. As I said, a 2009 Civic is a better car now than a 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car was in 1979. Unless middle class people are simply supposed to stuff their money in the mattress and take psychic satisfaction over it sitting there - although that doesn't allow them to enjoy the buying power provided by that money.

 

As to the second, the idea that life was all sunshine and roses in 1979 is nonsense. Much of the productivity improvements were used to fund safety and pollution control efforts. The air is cleaner today than it was in 1979. So is the water in most places, too. I remember visiting Lorain, Ohio, in the 1970s with my parents to see relatives. The city is right on Lake Erie. I and my cousins were told not to even WADE in the water. When I visited there in the summer of 2000, people were happily swimming in the lake and living to tell about it. The improvements to water quality cost time and money - they didn't just happen out of the blue.

 

One area where prices really have increased is housing. Houses are more expensive in many areas, but that is often a LOCAL issue, and is driven as much by building restrictions enacted by LOCAL governments. The federal government has hurt housing affordability by promoting the idea that everyone should own a home, but that was BIPARTISAN goal. And please note that President Obama has been trying to help people "save" their homes from foreclosure, when what is really needed is to allow the foreclosure process to continue, as it will bring prices down to reasonable levels.

 

Incidentally, if "trickle down" economics don't work, we need to tell President Obama, as he has been practicing it with his limited tax breaks and his decision to not immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the upper income brackets. The idea is that this money will circulate through the economy. For that matter, Alec Baldwin complained that if New York state repeals the tax breaks his show - 30 Rock - receives, he will be forced to move production to another location. Which, as he noted, will hurt the people who are employed to produce the show, and will result in them not spending their money in New York City, which, in turn, will hurt the local small businesses patronized by the cast and crew. This will ultimately hurt the employees of the small businesses. Which sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of "trickle down" economics.

 

Last time I checked, he wasn't a conservative Republican.

 

I guess since Tina Fey does a mean Sarah Palin imitation, good ole Alec thinks it's okay to channel the late Ronald Reagan...

 

But then, many liberals sound positively conservative when it comes to their own money...

Edited May 20, 2009 by grbeck

[stephenhawkings]

So, unchecked spending by President Bush brought about this mess, but even more unchecked spending by President Obama is going to get us out of it?

 

Sorry, but that doesn't pass the logic test. That's like telling someone who has suffered liver damage from drinking too much wine that the cure is to drink vodka instead, and in even larger quantities.

 

And please note that part of President Bush's spending included a big, fat infrastructure bill - remember the infamous Bridge to Nowhere? But now infrastructure spending is going to save us, because we supposedly neglected it during the Bush years. Which, as shown by the passage of the infrastructure bill, is not true.

 

 

 

Middle class people live worse than they did prior to 1979? Sorry, but I was there and I can't buy it. People live MUCH better today - and they don't even have to go into debt to do it, if they are smart about it.

 

Even products that do cost more are far superior to their counterparts in 1979. A flat-screen television is not much more expensive than its 1979 counterpart - and it offers far more capabilities (connectivity to computers and a far superior picture) than the 1970s television.

 

A new car is cleaner, safer, more reliable and will last longer than a 1979 car. A 2009 Civic will outperform a 1979 Mercedes S-Class in many areas, and is more reliable to boot. A new Civic is a better car than a 1979 Cadillac or Lincoln was in 1979 in every possible way except prestige. A person who buys a 2009 Civic is getting MORE for his or her money than a person who bought a brand-new 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car did in 1979. Cars may cost more, but they last longer, so if people really think about it (there's an idea!), they will take advantage of this and keep their cars longer and spend LESS on vehicles, in the long run, than they did in the 1970s. If people are dumb enough to believe that they still need a new car every 3-4 years, or that they can trade vehicles as often as women buy new shoes without running up big loan balances, that is not the fault of the Republican party.

 

Food quality is much improved, and the variety is mind boggling compared to the 1970s.

 

Personal computers? We didn't have them in the 1970s. Today, even poor people have them.

 

Also note that we are spending LESS of our income on food and clothing than we were in 1960 - and getting more variety and better quality.

 

Now, I realize that this will bring about the inevitable rejoinder that "we shouldn't be judging our lives on the basis of the material possessions we own" or "what about the quality of life?".

 

As to the first - people can't wail about middle class buying power being in decline and then attempt to derail the conversation when the facts show that it isn't, by suddenly saying that it doesn't matter how many things people can buy, or how good those things now are. "Buying power" refers to the ability to buy things. If we can buy better, longer lasting things (and in some case for LESS, or even for the same amount, in inflation adjusted dollars), one can logically conclude that buying power has improved. As I said, a 2009 Civic is a better car now than a 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car was in 1979. Unless middle class people are simply supposed to stuff their money in the mattress and take psychic satisfaction over it sitting there - although that doesn't allow them to enjoy the buying power provided by that money.

 

As to the second, the idea that life was all sunshine and roses in 1979 is nonsense. Much of the productivity improvements were used to fund safety and pollution control efforts. The air is cleaner today than it was in 1979. So is the water in most places, too. I remember visiting Lorain, Ohio, in the 1970s with my parents to see relatives. The city is right on Lake Erie. I and my cousins were told not to even WADE in the water. When I visited there in the summer of 2000, people were happily swimming in the lake and living to tell about it. The improvements to water quality cost time and money - they didn't just happen out of the blue.

 

One area where prices really have increased is housing. Houses are more expensive in many areas, but that is often a LOCAL issue, and is driven as much by building restrictions enacted by LOCAL governments. The federal government has hurt housing affordability by promoting the idea that everyone should own a home, but that was BIPARTISAN goal. And please note that President Obama has been trying to help people "save" their homes from foreclosure, when what is really needed is to allow the foreclosure process to continue, as it will bring prices down to reasonable levels.

 

Incidentally, if "trickle down" economics don't work, we need to tell President Obama, as he has been practicing it with his limited tax breaks and his decision to not immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the upper income brackets. The idea is that this money will circulate through the economy. For that matter, Alec Baldwin complained that if New York state repeals the tax breaks his show - 30 Rock - receives, he will be forced to move production to another location. Which, as he noted, will hurt the people who are employed to produce the show, and will result in them not spending their money in New York City, which, in turn, will hurt the local small businesses patronized by the cast and crew. This will ultimately hurt the employees of the small businesses. Which sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of "trickle down" economics.

 

Last time I checked, he wasn't a conservative Republican.

 

I guess since Tina Fey does a mean Sarah Palin imitation, good ole Alec thinks it's okay to channel the late Ronald Reagan...

 

But then, many liberals sound positively conservative when it comes to their own money...

the term liberal and conservative have been twisted and exploited to distract every one from the reality that all politicians are looting our paychecks!

As long as yopu fight/argue/debate over DEMS vs REPS you'll keep missing the forest for all the trees!

[macattak1]

the term liberal and conservative have been twisted and exploited to distract every one from the reality that all politicians are looting our paychecks!

As long as yopu fight/argue/debate over DEMS vs REPS you'll keep missing the forest for all the trees!

 

Not so. Soon global warming will kill all the trees and forests so then we will have clear vision.

 

Anyway, how can you talk about politicians looting in one thread and then back MMGW predominantly pushed by govt paid scientists, the UN, and Al Gore in another thread?

 

It aint right I'm tellin ya!

 

Peace and Blessings

[Floyd Lawson]

the term liberal and conservative have been twisted and exploited to distract every one from the reality that all politicians are looting our paychecks!

As long as yopu fight/argue/debate over DEMS vs REPS you'll keep missing the forest for all the trees!

Nice sentiment, too bad you didn't express the same "let's all sing kumbaya attitude" when Bush was President.

[Bored of Pisteon]

quote name='grbeck' post='507984' date='May 20 2009, 11:18 AM

 

MY REPLIES ARE IN CAPS... DIDN'T EDIT IT RIGHT. IT'S BEEN A TIRING DAY.

 

So, unchecked spending by President Bush brought about this mess, but even more unchecked spending by President Obama is going to get us out of it?

 

PROVES ONCE AGAIN THAT POLITICANS DON'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT YOU, ME OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THIS COUNTRY.

 

Sorry, but that doesn't pass the logic test. That's like telling someone who has suffered liver damage from drinking too much wine that the cure is to drink vodka instead, and in even larger quantities.

 

AND YOU WONDER WHY PEOPLE ARE BROKE IN THIS COUNTRY...

 

And please note that part of President Bush's spending included a big, fat infrastructure bill - remember the infamous Bridge to Nowhere? But now infrastructure spending is going to save us, because we supposedly neglected it during the Bush years. Which, as shown by the passage of the infrastructure bill, is not true.

 

DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT, AND THE STATES THEMSELVES. MICHIGAN HAS THE SHITTIEST GOD DAMN ROADS AND LOOK WHO'S BEEN LEADING THAT STATE?

 

 

Middle class people live worse than they did prior to 1979? Sorry, but I was there and I can't buy it. People live MUCH better today - and they don't even have to go into debt to do it, if they are smart about it.

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "MIDDLE CLASS". YOU SEEM TO FORGET THAT!

 

 

Even products that do cost more are far superior to their counterparts in 1979. A flat-screen television is not much more expensive than its 1979 counterpart - and it offers far more capabilities (connectivity to computers and a far superior picture) than the 1970s television.

 

SORRY, I DON'T EQUATE A $1000+ TV NOW TO BE CHEAPER. I CAN PICK UP A PERFECTLY GOOD ONE FOR $100 AND IT'LL DO JUST FINE.

 

 

A new car is cleaner, safer, more reliable and will last longer than a 1979 car. A 2009 Civic will outperform a 1979 Mercedes S-Class in many areas, and is more reliable to boot. A new Civic is a better car than a 1979 Cadillac or Lincoln was in 1979 in every possible way except prestige. A person who buys a 2009 Civic is getting MORE for his or her money than a person who bought a brand-new 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car did in 1979. Cars may cost more, but they last longer, so if people really think about it (there's an idea!), they will take advantage of this and keep their cars longer and spend LESS on vehicles, in the long run, than they did in the 1970s. If people are dumb enough to believe that they still need a new car every 3-4 years, or that they can trade vehicles as often as women buy new shoes without running up big loan balances, that is not the fault of the Republican party.

 

YEAH, BUT HOW MANY 1979 HONDA CIVICS DO YOU STILL SEE ON THE ROADS? WHY DON'T YOU TELL US THE ANSWER...

SORRY, BUT A 2009 CIVIC IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IT'S 1979 COUNTERPART. NOT IN TERMS OF SIZE, SPACE AND CERTAINLY SAFETY. I THINK I'D RATHER BE BEHIND THE CONTINENTAL THAN A CIVIC. AT LEAST I HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF WALKING AWAY FROM A SERIOUS ACCIDENT! AND YOU CAN WORK ON THE CONTINENTAL YOURSELF FOR LESS MONEY. TRY REPLACING A PART ON A 2009 CIVIC AND SEE HOW MUCH THAT COSTS!

 

Food quality is much improved, and the variety is mind boggling compared to the 1970s.

NO COUNTERPOINT HERE.

 

Personal computers? We didn't have them in the 1970s. Today, even poor people have them.

 

THE SAME POOR PEOPLE WHO RAN UP THEIR CREDIT CARDS BUYING ONE?

 

Also note that we are spending LESS of our income on food and clothing than we were in 1960 - and getting more variety and better quality.

 

SAVE YOUR MONEY AND GO TO GOODWILL OR THE SALVATION ARMY! I'M SERIOUS... YOU CAN FIND SOME GOOD QUALITY CLOTHING, ESPECIALLY STUFF YOU CAN WEAR WHILE YOU WORK AROUND THE HOUSE AND THE SHOP AND YOU'LL SAVE A LOT MORE MONEY THAT WAY. WHY BUY USELESS MADE IN CHINA CLOTHING ANYWAY, FROM SOME DEPARTMENT STORE THAT HAS IT OVERPRICED TO BEGIN WITH?

 

 

 

Now, I realize that this will bring about the inevitable rejoinder that "we shouldn't be judging our lives on the basis of the material possessions we own" or "what about the quality of life?".

 

As to the first - people can't wail about middle class buying power being in decline and then attempt to derail the conversation when the facts show that it isn't, by suddenly saying that it doesn't matter how many things people can buy, or how good those things now are. "Buying power" refers to the ability to buy things. If we can buy better, longer lasting things (and in some case for LESS, or even for the same amount, in inflation adjusted dollars), one can logically conclude that buying power has improved. As I said, a 2009 Civic is a better car now than a 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car was in 1979. Unless middle class people are simply supposed to stuff their money in the mattress and take psychic satisfaction over it sitting there - although that doesn't allow them to enjoy the buying power provided by that money.

 

I'D RATHER HAVE MY MONEY IN GOLD AND SILVER ANYWAY.

 

As to the second, the idea that life was all sunshine and roses in 1979 is nonsense. Much of the productivity improvements were used to fund safety and pollution control efforts. The air is cleaner today than it was in 1979. So is the water in most places, too. I remember visiting Lorain, Ohio, in the 1970s with my parents to see relatives. The city is right on Lake Erie. I and my cousins were told not to even WADE in the water. When I visited there in the summer of 2000, people were happily swimming in the lake and living to tell about it. The improvements to water quality cost time and money - they didn't just happen out of the blue.

 

USUALLY THE AIR AROUND FACTORY AREAS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DIRTIER THAN RURAL AREAS. NO WONDER WHY PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE A LONGER LIVE EXPECTENCY OUT IN THE COUNTRY THAN IN THE CITY!

 

One area where prices really have increased is housing. Houses are more expensive in many areas, but that is often a LOCAL issue, and is driven as much by building restrictions enacted by LOCAL governments. The federal government has hurt housing affordability by promoting the idea that everyone should own a home, but that was BIPARTISAN goal. And please note that President Obama has been trying to help people "save" their homes from foreclosure, when what is really needed is to allow the foreclosure process to continue, as it will bring prices down to reasonable levels.

 

BUT HIS FRIENDS UP AT FANNIE AND FREDDIE DIDN'T SEEM TO MIND POCKETING ALL THAT CASH ON THE EXPENSE OF THE SO CALLED "MIDDLE CLASS"

 

Incidentally, if "trickle down" economics don't work, we need to tell President Obama, as he has been practicing it with his limited tax breaks and his decision to not immediately repeal the Bush tax cuts for the upper income brackets. The idea is that this money will circulate through the economy. For that matter, Alec Baldwin complained that if New York state repeals the tax breaks his show - 30 Rock - receives, he will be forced to move production to another location. Which, as he noted, will hurt the people who are employed to produce the show, and will result in them not spending their money in New York City, which, in turn, will hurt the local small businesses patronized by the cast and crew. This will ultimately hurt the employees of the small businesses. Which sounds suspiciously like an endorsement of "trickle down" economics.

 

ALEC MOVING OUT OF STATE? WHY DON'T HE MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY LIKE HE PROMISED YEARS AGO. FUCKIN' GREEDY SON-OF-A-BITCH!

 

Last time I checked, he wasn't a conservative Republican.

NO SHIT.

 

I guess since Tina Fey does a mean Sarah Palin imitation, good ole Alec thinks it's okay to channel the late Ronald Reagan...

BY THE WAY... TINA FEY IS A LOT BETTER LOOKING THAN JANEANE GAROFALO ANYDAY.

THE ONLY GOOD ROLE ALEC EVER HAD WAS IN BEETLEJUICE.

 

But then, many liberals sound positively conservative when it comes to their own money...

 

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF SELF-SERVING HYPOCRITES ON THIS EARTH. THEY'LL STEAL FROM THE POOR JUST TO GIVE TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRUITY ASS-BACKWARD DOUCHEBAG CAUSES. THEY'RE JUST AS BAD AS THE CONSERVATIVES BUT EVEN ON A FAR WORSE SCALE. SCUM SUCKING LEECHES.

Edited May 21, 2009 by Bored of Pisteon

[fmccap]

OBAMA TV: White House officials produce own media report on event; Reporters Shut Out...

Is the goal to ultimately replace the pesky photographers who film what they want to and not what they're told to (not to mention the annoying reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about, say, detainee policy and bank bailouts)?

 

Do you want your OTV? (I'll bet there are a few takers out there.)

[stephenhawkings]

isn't the election over already?

[Cocheese]

isn't the election over already?

 

Yes. But this clown is still in the Oval Office. And you can be sure the fine people here aren't going to let his fuck ups slide without mentioning them. Unlike the media who turns a blind eye.

[stephenhawkings]

Yes. But this clown is still in the Oval Office. And you can be sure the fine people here aren't going to let his fuck ups slide without mentioning them. Unlike the media who turns a blind eye.

don't worry there will be a republican clown soon enough if the democrat clown scares you, and then you can laugh and be happy again as both parties live off your paycheck taxes, and gas taxes, and alcohol taxes and...

[Bored of Pisteon]