All But Three Republicans Voted to Raise Your Taxes Beginning in January!

[JackieB]

Hi,

I've actually created this thread just to make a point. Although the title technically has some element of truth to it based on the House vote, it's grossly misleading and relevant only to political fighting and not the intent behind the votes, or a reflection of what will likely happen when the wrangling is done.

The truth is that the House Republicans want to extend tax cuts to all (i.e. including the wealthy) not just the middle class. So, they voted against the bill that the Democrats brought to the floor because it only included lower and middle income American. So they only voted "no" because the bill doesn't go far enough in keeping taxes lower for all. Understandable.

The point I want to make, and perhaps it's just wishful thinking, is that I hope we will sometimes give a little more thought to the threads we create. Check out a few sources and then think about whether or not it makes sense before posting it.

Threads that are certain to be inflammatory and are at least misleading just aren't helpful to the debate, in my opinion. On a personal note, they lead to me being added to the group of "dumba$$e$" who voted for President Obama, and so on, which is a little uncomfortable for me. If I'm going to be labeled as such, I'd at least like the facts of the thread to be certain.

Thanks for listening.

[outriding01]

Lol, nice JackieB..... I saw the title and my first reaction was "Only because the bill doesn't extend tax cuts to the left's idea of the "wealthy"!"
And then I thought about the thread author and how you always make an effort to do your homework and find the facts, so I figured I should probably give it a read before going off... ;). You almost got me!

[Tiz]

I don't know who you're mad at, Jackie, but you should have mentioned her/his name and given "inflammatory" thread title examples. It isn't enough to just say it happens.

[WashingtonBay]

Here's to better headlines and meatier content! :cheers:

[cowgirlup@idaho]

I don't know who you're mad at, Jackie, but you should have mentioned her/his name and given "inflammatory" thread title examples. It isn't enough to just say it happens.

I agree, and JB, you are too good of a debater to accidentally be so vague.

I do appreciate the explanation of the vote and why it took place the way it did :)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I'm glad the Republicans are taking a stand on these new tax increases. There is an ugliness to the class-warfare that the dems have engaged in for so long now. It's just pathetic and cynical to get people into this idea that it's always OK to raise somebody else's taxes. "Don't worry! it won't affect you! Vote for it!"

That's the ugliest form of democracy: The politics of screwing the other guy. What it is, is the tyranny of the majority.

That's maybe the best reason for a flat tax. Make everybody's tax rate the same... so that they can't play games of pitting one group of people against another. Raise taxes or cut taxes but do it for everybody or nobody. Enough petty little games.

[dame_wolf]

Raise taxes or cut taxes but do it for everybody or nobody. Enough petty little games.

I like that.

[WashingtonBay]

I don't know who you're mad at, Jackie, but you should have mentioned her/his name and given "inflammatory" thread title examples. It isn't enough to just say it happens.

I think it's a critique that is a common enough sighting to not need examples.

Headlines and opening comments around here could be better. Better descriptions of the issue, less argument in the headline. Include enough backup and information (links/excerpts/sourcing) to let people know what the thread is about, and leave commentary for the debate down the thread.



On edit: (go look if you're not familiar with these forums)

Example by general comparison: At FreeRepublic.com (http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index), it is expected that most threads should be sourced articles from major news publications/sites, with the original headline. Starting threads that are just one or two line rants about something are frowned on.

On the other hand, at Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=389), Anything goes... people post "Oh my god did you just hear what Chris Mathews said" as a thread... no information, no backup, just a rant. The forum ends up a mess of poorly articulated stream of consciousness.


We are neither one of those forums, and don't want to be... I'd like to be somewhere in the acceptably-interesting but not uptight middle. :)

[JackieB]

I don't know who you're mad at, Jackie, but you should have mentioned her/his name and given "inflammatory" thread title examples. It isn't enough to just say it happens.

Well, I am saying "in general" because these threads do come up occasionally. But I'll give you the specific example that brought about this post of mine.

Steve, please don't get mad at me. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I appreciate your passion for your positions.

The thread that made me decide to post this one is "Get ready for your next pay cut". I did quite a bit of research and while I haven't been able to get exactly to the bottom of his first assertion about $400 less a month, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.

On the second one about the Bush Tax Cuts expiring and having someone who makes $65k have to pay $3,900 more a year, the fact is that the president wants to extend the tax cuts for wage earners in this class. He's been absolutely clear on this point. Both sides want that and it's extremely unlikely that they won't find a way to make it happen. Their political futures rest on this type of thing and if there's on thing that we know politicians care about, it's getting reelected.

So we have a post with no URL source for reference and a first claim that I'm pretty sure is incorrect and a second one that is at least very misleading.

Offgrid posted a source as a bit of a rebuttal and a request for a reference and she get's a snarky remark about the NY Times. Again, I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with you, Steve. I hope you won't get too mad at me. I mean that.

So then things start to get whipped up and I feel like I'm again being chastised as a "dumba$$" for voting for President Obama. Not that the thread is about me at all, but I am the lone liberal that will still debate these things with you guys.

And I do understand that all of you have some carefully thought out reasons for suggesting that I'm woefully mistaken in my support of President Obama. RD is very articulate in his arguments against me, for example. But this thread is kind of flimsy and we get a fair number of them (again, not from a particular poster - just in general).

So, that's where I'm coming from. I'm not upset, I'm just trying to see if I can inject just a little bit more rigor into the debate. I think it would be terrific if there were three or four forumers on my side (where I do tend to fall on most of these arguments) and then the rest of you on the more conservative side. Fewer threads that are light on facts and heavy on criticism might help in that regard. That's all I'm saying.

Thanks for listening.

[natisha]

JackieB, when you do get 'help' it's not really much help to you if at all. You're stronger standing alone. IMO

[Tiz]

Now that's a detailed post, Jackie. Thank you. Something about this "...I feel like I'm again being chastised as a "dumba$$"...", made me think of that Fed Ex commercial with "You're a Dan Fool.":)

Love you, Jackie.

WB, sorry about the lack of "meat". Reading your mini tutorial there just makes me worry about foruming properly. That's no fun.:)

[WashingtonBay]

Foruming properly isn't fun? Or having to think about it isn't fun?

Should I have added funny pictures? :D

http://blogs.ajc.com/hawks/files/2009/07/wheresdbeef.jpg

[JackieB]

You're stronger standing alone. IMO

Thanks, Natisha. That's kind of you to say (that I make strong arguments).

I won't be put out if nothing comes out of this thread. It's just an observation, really. I enjoy debating these issues and just take a few days off if I feel that I'm getting irritated or anything. We do come here for friendship, socializing, and exchange of knowledge after all.

[JackieB]

Now that's a detailed post, Jackie. Thank you. Something about this "...I feel like I'm again being chastised as a "dumba$$"...", made me think of that Fed Ex commercial with "You're a Dan Fool.":)

Love you, Jackie.



Awww thanks, Tiz. I like that commercial too. He looks kind of hurt and the woman next to him says "Don't take it personally, it's just a memory tool" :p

[Tiz]

That's the one, Jackie.:)

[Tiz]

Worrying about it, WB. No fun.

Is this thread "meaty" enough? Is the topic described to your satisfaction? Does it sound argumentative? Are my comments appropriately placed down thread far enough?

Oy...

And, no, I'm not too strained by thinking about what I write.:(

[WashingtonBay]

Worry about all of this only to the level it's still fun. No more.... no less. :)

[cowgirlup@idaho]

So then things start to get whipped up and I feel like I'm again being chastised as a "dumba$$" for voting for President Obama. Not that the thread is about me at all, but I am the lone liberal that will still debate these things with you guys.

I mean this with sincere intentions of good will :)

1st I don't recall anyone chastising "you" for voting for Obama, I could be wrong, but I don't recall that kind of treatment.

2nd The thread is never 'about you', but sometimes you twist it that way yourself :huh:

3rd Without you, the Lone Liberal, we wouldn't have much debate around here now would we? ;)

I hope you feel better and don't take things so personally, you are well liked here.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

HEY! The "Lone Liberal", that's you!

[JackieB]

1st I don't recall anyone chastising "you" for voting for Obama, I could be wrong, but I don't recall that kind of treatment.

2nd The thread is never 'about you', but sometimes you twist it that way yourself :huh:


Well, I don't think it's very far-fetched to say that many on this forum believe that anyone who voted for President Obama is not very smart, perhaps intelligent but lacking in common sense (often aimed at college professors and the like), or just wanted to get on the bandwagon to elect the first African American president. Almost like there couldn't be other valid reasons.

The posts that make these statements are pretty general and broad. When I do bring them up, the response is always "We don't mean you, Jackie." Oh, really? It looked like the statement was referring to everyone who voted for him to me.

But, I'll take your comments to heart. It's not hard for me to keep from bringing the argument down to the individual (me) level. I just don't think that the - "They just want to take away what's mine...." type of arguments are helpful. I don't want to take away what's yours, but I do support many of President Obama's initiatives, including health reform.

[JackieB]

HEY! The "Lone Liberal", that's you!

That fits! I'll be glad to wear that label proudly. :cowboy:

[mare]

I completely get your point, JackieB. Even though we may differ in some areas of preferred policy, I, like you, dislike the hyperbole and slanted news.

It is so difficult anymore to find straight information. Even statistics and numbers can't fully be trusted.

I'm glad you're here.

[Remali]

Very good observation and very well thought out JackieB. I am proud to be a "Dumba$$" who is for Obama! :)

[WashingtonBay]

It's all about being able to proudly own your point of view :)

[Remali]

That it is. :)

[JackieB]

I completely get your point, JackieB. Even though we may differ in some areas of preferred policy, I, like you, dislike the hyperbole and slanted news.

It is so difficult anymore to find straight information. Even statistics and numbers can't fully be trusted.

I'm glad you're here.

Thanks, Mare. I appreciate the kind words.

One of the biggest problems I see with how we receive our political information these days is that it's degenerated into so many nasty little sound bites and one-liners that are either false/unverifiable, or a real distortion of the truth just like the example I used for this post.

The Democrats are delighted to have gotten this vote on record because they will absolutely use headlines like the one I created for this post, and they'll get mileage out of it. And the other side does exactly the same. Unfortunately, it's quite effective.

Thanks again. I do enjoy debating these issues with this group.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It sounds like some members have come to the somewhat shocking realization that information sources are biased. Well, yes... they are. They always have been. All news reporters, bloggers, newspapers, web sites, magazines... all of them have a "point of view". All of them, and it has always been this way.

Journalism schools are famous to attempting to teach young journalists that they should be "above" the news: Merely reporting factually without personal opinions interfering. I'll never forget a journo round table I watched... several major players (of the 90's) at the table. Peter Jennings was one of them. The question to the table was about journalistic ethics. The question was: "you're on assignment getting a story from the leader of an insurgent faction that is fighting the United States. You've got an interview with the leader of the insurgents. In the process of doing this interview, you find out the exact details about a planned ambush of American soldiers to happen that afternoon. Many American soldiers will doubtlessly be killed. The ethics question is: Do you warn the Americans?"

Peter Jennings answered... "Wow... that's a really difficult question."

That is all you need to know about the late Mr. Jennings and his bias. Sorry, Peter... it's just not a difficult question. Even when it's Canadians that might be killed... it's not a difficult question (Jennings was Canadian).

Even in the (rare) occasion when they're able to report factually without their own bias... the bias is there even before they say a word. The bias is there when they decide what to report, what story to focus on.

As a consumer of news, I understand this. I know about the filter they use in the mainstream media. I know what sorts of stories get buried and what sorts get above-the-fold treatment. I'm much more happy getting news from a source that is openly partisan-- that way at least I know which filter to apply. It makes a huge difference, for example, when a politician is reported to have some scandal... to understand whether the news source is friendly or unfriendly. The view of the unfriendly source isn't to be trusted, automatically. But the friendly source, if they're being harsh... it says something new and useful.

[WashingtonBoy]

It sounds like some members have come to the somewhat shocking realization that information sources are biased. Well, yes... they are. They always have been. All news reporters, bloggers, newspapers, web sites, magazines... all of them have a "point of view". All of them, and it has always been this way.

I'm just about finished reading the David McCullough biography of John Adams, and have been struck by how the media was back then. They were openly, and often viciously, partisan, calling the sitting president things like "old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams". And the campaigns were even worse. But everyone knew what the point of view of each newspaper was, and chose their source accordingly.

This notion that the news media must somehow be completely and utterly impartial appears to be a rather recent invention.

[HoustonFarrier]

Well, I am saying "in general" because these threads do come up occasionally. But I'll give you the specific example that brought about this post of mine.

Steve, please don't get mad at me. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I appreciate your passion for your positions.

No, I honestly don't think you do. Not trying to be mean or snarky, just saying..... Every chance you get to either "chastise " me or try to make me look a fool with your "disguised" humorous jokes, you take it, at least that's how it comes across to me.....but that's OK, I can handle it:) I am mature enough to know that not everyone will like me, no matter what I do, so I 'm just me being me..if you like me cool, if not, that's cool too! The world will certainly not stop spinning because someone doesn't like me :D:D

I did quite a bit of research and while I haven't been able to get exactly to the bottom of his first assertion about $400 less a month, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.

Then I would suggest your reseach is flawed. All you have to do is look at the current tax tables, and look at them PRIOR to Bush tax cuts. Do you own homework, just like I did. Do the math, PROVE me wrong that our taxes will not go up...my figures may not be exact to the cent...but they'll be close. I'll find out on my first paycheck next year if my math was right...... Also realize that it's just not income tax going up, it's other taxes going up as well, and loopholes closing...which are figured into my calculations. The links I posted below will explain that pretty good.


So we have a post with no URL source for reference and a first claim that I'm pretty sure is incorrect and a second one that is at least very misleading.
Nothing at all misleading.....just because I don't pontificate EVERY SINGLE LITTLE point does not make it misleading. That's the big difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want everything handed to them nice and neat, so they don't have to think. (Not saying that's you Jackie, just saying....) Conservatives tend to think for themsleves and make their own decisions, absent "feeeelings":) Sometimes ya gotta THINK and research for yourself. I did not get my facts from a single link....believe it or not, I did research(OMG:eek:), and came to my own conclusions. So, the link was my brain, as small as it is :D..so, here's my link...(it's not really a link...don't click it...)

www.steve'swarpeddementedlittlebrain.com (http://www.steve'swarpeddementedlittlebrain.com):D:D:D


Offgrid posted a source as a bit of a rebuttal and a request for a reference and she get's a snarky remark about the NY Times.

There were NO tax tables in that article....it was merely a liberal puff piece in the NY Times. As for snarky.....no it wasn't... It was meant as a joke, and you know it, that's why I had the smiley on there. If you can't understand or take my humor, put me on ignore....but don't come out here and accuse me of being SNARKY when I wasn't. If I was being snarky.....everyone would know it !:)..and you'd all be going.....DAMN:eek::greengrin:

Right now, I'm just pissed :mad:...borderline snarky:D

I'm honestly not trying to pick a fight with you, Steve. I hope you won't get too mad at me. I mean that.
Sorry, I don't believe you for a second...nothing personal, I'm not trying to be mean.....I'm not calling you a liar....it's just you being you...and that's how you come across to me. While I certainly could be wrong.....it's how I see it:)

So then things start to get whipped up and I feel like I'm again being chastised as a "dumba$$" for voting for President Obama.
Just because you "feel" something, does not make you right. You have to deal with your own decisions and your own insecurites on your own, and not place others (me) to blame for them.I would suggest if you are feeling guilty about it..ask yourself WHY? And then stop, and think for a moment how you(not necessarily you all the time..but sometimes even YOU Jackie) and all your liberal friends have made US feel about GW Bush over the last 10 years........and how you (not necessarily YOU Jackie) continue to blame Bush, when you know damn well it's just not so .......

But this thread is kind of flimsy and we get a fair number of them (again, not from a particular poster - just in general).

Funny, how its the liberals who seem to always attach lables (flimsy) to us....:D Imagine the uproar if I called your posts flimsy Jackie......:D

So you want references....

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/macro-view/tax-cut-calculations-what-the-political-debate-means-to-you/2812/

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/29/battle-looming-over-bush-tax-cuts-what-it-means-to-you/

-- Some taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket would go to the 15 percent bracket;
-- The 25 percent bracket would go to 28 percent;
-- The 28 percent bracket would become 31 percent;
-- The 33 percent bracket would go to 36 percent; and
-- People in the highest bracket -- 35 percent -- would see their rate go up to 39.6 percent.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/expiring-bush-cuts-affect-personal-finance-taxes.html

This one does a good job of talking about all the cumulative effects....

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/

"The bottom line
The Bush tax cuts don’t just offer tax relief to the wealthiest Americans. They offer it to just about anyone who pays federal income taxes. Their scheduled demise next year will raise the tax bill of nearly every taxpayer, unless Congress makes changes and the president jumps on board."

My bottom line is, I did research, I did some averaging, I came up with what I think (very important words there)it's gonna cost ......only time will tell if I am correct. I will gladly post my taxes from the last paycheck in December and the first paycheck in January. I estimate my taxes will go up about $200 per paycheck.

If this post offends you Jackie, I'm sorry, it's not meant to offend you...I'm just me being me..telling it straight without mincing words or thinly veiled shots (not saying you do that...just saying......):)

Steve

[natisha]

I'd say we have meat now

[Remali]

:popcorn:

[Tiz]

Snarky is madder than pissed? I wouldn't have guessed that.

[JackieB]

Hmmmm. Well, that didn't go over very well, did it?

I was sincere, Steve. Not trying to be passive aggressive with "backhanded humor" or anything like that.

I think this might be the fourth time that you have suggested that I put you on ignore if I don't like it. So, I'll take you up on that. It's probably best for both of us.

I do want to say that I sure do appreciate all that you do and have done for the animals of the Houston SPCA. It's wonderful and trumps any differences we might have otherwise.

[Remali]

Well, JackieB, for what it's worth, I always do enjoy your posts, you are always considerate and willing to weigh all the pros and cons. I've never noticed any "backhanded humor" from you.

~ Renee (the other Lone Liberal)

[WashingtonBay]

What's wrong with backhanded humor? It's a fine art form.

Eh.... don't ignore him, just pretend to.

...for awhile... Till you're in the mood to get in a fish fight again some night... :trout:

[natisha]

Well, JackieB, for what it's worth, I always do enjoy your posts, you are always considerate and willing to weigh all the pros and cons. I've never noticed any "backhanded humor" from you.

~ Renee (the other Lone Liberal)I think that makes you his Sidekick :)

[JackieB]

I got to thinking that I should clarify a little bit for you, Steve.

First off, thanks for the references. I appreicate them and you definitely came back with lots of detail.

The reason why I thought it might be a good ideas for us to go our separate ways (ignore) is because I have made you mad, and apparently created a perception that you think I chastise or try to make you look like a fool every time I get a chance. The truth is (although I clearly have not done a good job of getting this across), that I would never do that to anyone, ever. It completely goes against everything I believe. I value kindness above all other qualities and chastising someone or purposely trying to make him/her look bad is obviously not very kind.

On the other hand, I feel compelled to challenge some of your posts because I do believe that they are sort of intended to be inflammatory more than for debate. For example, mentioning that the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts for the middle class will dramatically increases taxes when both sides are on record saying that they don't want to let them expire.

I'll admit that I am a very sensitive person. I've come to value that as a quality, though. I used to get down on myself for not being tougher (it hurt my career a bit) but finally came to realize that I just needed to be true to myself, embrace who I am, and make the best of it. I'm glad I did. Although I'm overly-sensitive sometimes, it helps me try to be kind always, and just allows me to be myself.

So what I'm really trying to say here is that I don't want to be at odds with you. This isn't bullfighting or dogfighting we're talking about. And I most definitely don't want you to think that I'm poking at your posts in an effort to make you look bad or something. That can't be very much fun for you to be thinking "Here comes JackieB again..."

Thanks again for all you do for the animals. It means a lot to me. They could care less about politics, but they know what it feels like to walk without pain! Oh, and for the advice you freely provide to the forum as well. On second thought, I'll skip the "ignore" and just ignore political threads. I wouldn't want to miss an important nugget of wisdom from you that would help me take better care of Buster's feet. :)

Thanks,
Tom

[natisha]

Snarky is madder than pissed? I wouldn't have guessed that.You are my idol

[JackieB]

What's wrong with backhanded humor? It's a fine art form.

Eh.... don't ignore him, just pretend to.

...for awhile... Till you're in the mood to get in a fish fight again some night... :trout:

Thanks, WB. I think Steve and I are probably cool now. I can avoid threads that I am pretty sure from the title will get my dander up, and I can definitely avoid making posts that he's likely to think are me trying to diminish his positions.

[natisha]

Hmmmm. Well, that didn't go over very well, did it?

Possibly the Understatement of the Year

[WashingtonBay]

Thanks, WB. I think Steve and I are probably cool now. I can avoid threads that I am pretty sure from the title will get my dander up, and I can definitely avoid making posts that he's likely to think are me trying to diminish his positions.

What's wrong with getting your dander up once in awhile? And his? I mean really....

This is a political forum, not the old ladies quilting circle at church :)

It's good for ya.... builds character, gives everyone else something to share popcorn over. :)

[Tiz]

"I'd say we have meat now"

Yes, Natisha, Steve's writing style does remind me of a bull in a china closet.

Jackie, "That didn't go over well"? What do you want? I'm happy you started the thread, and a lively conversation, but you will have to rely on your fellow liberals for unconditional support for every word you wrote. Conservatives don't think that way. I guess we assume you would want to know where you're wrong.

I think "it" went over fine. Everyone got to say what they wanted to say, just like they know how to say it.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

[/B] it's not meant to offend you...I'm just me being me..telling it straight without mincing words or thinly veiled shots (not saying you do that...just saying......):)
Steve

Well I like your posts, I think they are informative. I also like your communication style, straight and to the point, no misunderstandings :)

[Remali]

I think that makes you his Sidekick :)

Kinda like Bobalouie from Quick Draw McDraw. :)

[cowgirlup@idaho]

Bobalouie!!! Wow, thanks for the blast from the past Remali :p

[JackieB]

What's wrong with getting your dander up once in awhile? And his? I mean really....



Nothing, of course. RD and I do that (quite often). Tiz, Natisha, you, and I do. I do with most conservatives on the forum, I suppose. The difference here is that Steve is fairly angry. And he is of the opinion that I compose my responses to him with the intention of making him look like a fool. That's so far from my intent, and how I wish to be perceived (to the extent that I can influence another's perception of me), that's it calls for me to back down.

There are a few issues such as bullfighting, dogfighting, equal rights for women and gays, intentional cruelty, etc., that I wouldn't back down on no matter what. But politics isn't one of them.

The fact is that the Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all want what's best for America. They just have very different ideas about how to get there. So when I say that I respect Steve's positions and passion, I mean it. The fact that he doesn't think I'm sincere is enough for me to want to back down because his intentions are every bit as good as mine, just different.

[JackieB]

[QUOTE=Tiz;373282Jackie, "That didn't go over well"? What do you want? I'm happy you started the thread, and a lively conversation, but you will have to rely on your fellow liberals for unconditional support for every word you wrote. [/QUOTE]

No, no, no, no, and no, Tiz. Not Steve's response on the positions at all, Natisha. It's the fact that he thinks I am trying to make him look like a fool and that I don't respect his passion for his positions.

I debate with the rest of you guys and we're the best of forum friends otherwise. Steve is of the opinion that I don't respect his positions and go out of my way to make him look bad. That couldn't be farther from the truth and I don't want him to feel that way.

On the other hand, I also don't know how to be more diplomatic in my responses, so it's probably best that I don't respond.

[Tiz]

Oh gads, Steve isn't angry. Where did he say you were trying to make him look like a fool? I must have skipped that part.

I think you can relax, Jackie. Steve can handle stuff, and he did. I mean, it read like he was using a bullhorn, but that's his style. Have some tolerance.

By the way, I disagree wholeheartedly with this sentence of yours. I've heard too many liberals express shame and distaste for America to believe it.

"The fact is that the Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all want what's best for America. "

[Tiz]

And Jackie, if you get more diplomatic, I'm afraid you'll disappear. You're good enough in that department.

[Remali]

Bobalouie!!! Wow, thanks for the blast from the past Remali :p

I was worried no one would know what I was talking about and who Bobalouie was, LOL. :)

Sorry JackieB, I got off topic and went off on a tangent there....

[cowgirlup@idaho]

I heard the voice, the words, everything the instant I read that! Finally! Someone my age :p

[JackieB]

Oh gads, Steve isn't angry. Where did he say you were trying to make him look like a fool? I must have skipped that part.

I think you can relax, Jackie. Steve can handle stuff, and he did. I mean, it read like he was using a bullhorn, but that's his style. Have some tolerance.


This, Tiz:
Every chance you get to either "chastise " me or try to make me look a fool with your "disguised" humorous jokes, you take it,

Oh I know that Steve has very thick skin. He's tough as nails.

I'm just not comfortable with someone thinking that I attempt to chastise or make him/her look foolish. That's a rotten thing to do to another person and while that would never be my intent, just the fact that Steve is of this opinion is enough to make me want to just apologize for giving that impression and back off.

Not that I'm spineless, of course. It's just that there are only a handful of issues that rise to the level of being worthy of being at odds with someone personally, and politics isn't one of them.

So Steve, if it's not clear from my earlier posts, I do apologize for giving you the impression that I am attempting to chastise you or make you look foolish. That's just never been my intention.

[Tiz]

"I'm just not comfortable with someone thinking that I attempt to chastise or make him/her look foolish. That's a rotten thing to do to another person and while that would never be my intent, just the fact that Steve is of this opinion is enough to make me want to just apologize for giving that impression and back off."

I'll bet there's a slim possibility, very, very unlikely, but still slightly possible, that Steve may have, but probably not, I mean really it's nearly unheard of, the wrong impression. Oh, I know, people don't misunderstand each other like that often, but I hear it does happen...rarely though.

I would have said "No, I don't. I never have that in my mind when I'm writing, so I think you're misunderstanding me."

Carry on.

[JackieB]

I'll bet there's a slim possibility, very, very unlikely, but still slightly possible, that Steve may have, but probably not, I mean really it's nearly unheard of, the wrong impression. Oh, I know, people don't misunderstand each other like that often, but I hear it does happen...rarely though.


You're funny. :p:p

It's true, though. Any impression I make of that type, related to US politics anyway, would definitely be the result of a misunderstanding. Hopefully Steve and I are at least semi-cool now. I'll just chill out. :)

[outriding01]

The fact is that the Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all want what's best for America. They just have very different ideas about how to get there.

I personally believe the difference lies in their ideas of exactly what it is that is best for America, not how to get there.....

[JackieB]

I personally believe the difference lies in their ideas of exactly what it is that is best for America, not how to get there.....

That is an astute observation. I can certainly accept it.

[Tiz]

I think the powers that be on the left don't like America, and are working toward one world governance. Megalomania style.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

That is an astute observation. I can certainly accept it.

You didn't say that when *I* said it. :)

Dennis Prager had a great article today, in WND. I'm not a big fan of WND, but every now and then even a blind squirrel finds a nut. The title of the article was "Why are conservatives happier than liberals?" Here's an excerpt, and I think it really points out one of the key differences between conservatives and liberals:


The unhappy gravitate toward the left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals, and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams. At his brother Robert's funeral, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy recalled his brother saying: "Some men see things as they are and say 'why?' I dream things that never were and say 'why not?'"

Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to the every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky to be born or naturalized an American.

Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. Both earn $45,000 a year, both have the same amount of debt on their homes and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?

[JackieB]

You didn't say that when *I* said it. :)


Probably because it was buried in 90 paragraphs of dribble and I didn't see it. :p Just kidding. I don't recall your comment, but I thought about Outriding's comment for awhile and it made sense.

However, there is a bit of semantics. The "what it is that's best for America" is also the "how to get there" for both liberals and conservatives. Really liberal Americans think we'd be better off with social programs similar to a Scandinavian country. So, that's what's better and also how to get there (implement more of them).

Believe it or not, I'd probably be more conservative if I felt that conservatives, in general, "walked the walk" better. And I'm definitely not pointing to anyone on the forum. Please nobody flame me for that. Seriously. I'd like to see more conservatives calling for a serious revamp/elimination of Medicare (charging premiums to all recipients would be a good start), Social Security (phasing it out), a meaningful overhaul of the tax code, and so on.

In my own life, I actually live more like a conservative. I'm a small business owner, I pay all my taxes quarterly, I pay 100% of my own premiums, no prescription/dental/vision coverage, I don't believe in carrying debt, I support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and many, many other things. I guess I'm sort of an enigma.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]

However, there is a bit of semantics. The "what it is that's best for America" is also the "how to get there" for both liberals and conservatives. Really liberal Americans think we'd be better off with social programs similar to a Scandinavian country. So, that's what's better and also how to get there (implement more of them).

No, that's not semantics. How are those social programs working out lately in those socialist countries? Pretty crappy really... lets take a look at the "austerity measures" being enacted pretty much EU-wide and what sorts of riots are happening because of them. Sorry... that's not a model I think we should follow.


Believe it or not, I'd probably be more conservative if I felt that conservatives, in general, "walked the walk" better. And I'm definitely not pointing to anyone on the forum. Please nobody flame me for that. Seriously. I'd like to see more conservatives calling for a serious revamp/elimination of Medicare (charging premiums to all recipients would be a good start), Social Security (phasing it out), a meaningful overhaul of the tax code, and so on.

Conservatives have been trying to reform medicare AND social security for decades now. ONE PARTY stands in the way. Guess who that is. Bush pushed (you should remember!) for reform of SS from his very first speech and dozens of times after that. But the dems said no. "Hell no"... actually. Pelosi... Reid... Dodd... Franks... all stood athwart any change to SS reform (and reform of Fannie and Freddie) and created what we have happening now.


In my own life, I actually live more like a conservative. I'm a small business owner, I pay all my taxes quarterly, I pay 100% of my own premiums, no prescription/dental/vision coverage, I don't believe in carrying debt, I support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, and many, many other things. I guess I'm sort of an enigma.

No... you're just confused. Sooner or later it will come to you. You do know better. Someday you'll actually admit it. :-)

[outriding01]

I think the what comes before the how in both cases.... But they both factor in in the end.

My biggest issue is the difference in how liberals and conservatives "interpret" our country. Many individuals tout American as either a land of equality or a land of equal opportunity, which are two VASTLY different things. And at it's core, America is meant to be a country of equal opportunity. That's how I view it. If someone in this country is rich, chances are very great that it's because they/their parents/grandparents, etc. did something smart, or inventive or worked hard to make that happen. There really is every opportunity out there for anyone in this country to become happy and wealthy. It may take a lot of back-breaking, never ending work. There may be a lot of setbacks. You might lose it all the next day. That's the chance we take with our freedom. But the opportunity is there, no one is inherently screwed beyond measure from the get go. My father came from a dirt poor family with 5 sisters. He got his first job at 7, stacking pallets at the gas station down the street in exchange for the expired food in the store to take home to his sisters. He started working for Good Year at 15, sweeping the front office and keeping the garage tidy. He learned how to fix cars from the mechanics and how to run a business from his boss. He moved up the ranks, becoming a tire changer, then a tech, then a sales rep and finally store manager. He married my mom at 23, became his boss's partner at 27 and opened a new store with him, and he and my mom finally bought him out in 1994. We'll celebrate 17 years as small business owners on April 1st of this coming year. I will graduate from the University of Florida on May 1st as the very first person in my family to earn a college degree. My parents have worked their a$$s off to get where they are, and to help my sister and I get where we are. They understand the way this country works and that their is a direct relationship between the amount of work you put in and the returns you get.

On the other hand, I have noticed more and more recently that liberals have this tendency to use the word equality in describing our country a heck of a lot more than they say equal opportunity. They seem to want everyone to be the same.... Have the same amount of money, the same education, the same size house, etc. But for everyone to be equal, that means some people have to come down, and some have to be elevated. Why are those who are going to be elevated regardless of what they do, bother doing anything? Why are the people who are going to be knocked down continue to put in the effort to remain there, if it's fruitless? I hear some liberals talk about wealthy individuals and what they spend their money on with disdain and condescension. Like it's wrong to have that much money and spend it on a Porsche Turbo S or a vacation to the French Riviera... But why? If someone has done something to have that much money, they should be able to spend it however they please, it's their damn money. And if they stole it or came across it dishonestly, then they should go to jail. The end. Why should they ever be forced to give it to someone who is unmarried, unemployed, uneducated and has 8 kids? It just makes no sense to me. It upsets me that I may have just spent all this time, effort and money to get an education so I can make a good living and good money, and someone might try to tell me it's not fair that I make that much, and try to take it away from me.

Those are just the thoughts that run through my head randomly as I am busy not paying attention in Ag Data and Analysis.... 3 hour lectures suck.

[outriding01]

Conservatives have been trying to reform medicare AND social security for decades now. ONE PARTY stands in the way. Guess who that is. Bush pushed (you should remember!) for reform of SS from his very first speech and dozens of times after that. But the dems said no. "Hell no"... actually. Pelosi... Reid... Dodd... Franks... all stood athwart any change to SS reform (and reform of Fannie and Freddie) and created what we have happening now.

Exactly, they were afraid of backlash from their own constituents and unwilling to cooperate with Republicans. Medicare, SS and immigration reform were the platform for Bush's second term.... (I'm almost finished with Decision Points btw, and it has literally changed my entire perspective on what to do with my life when I graduate. Amazing book.)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You can say that again. :)

But you make an excellent point. And... it is a a point of difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are all about equality of opportunity. Liberals, however, believe is equality of outcomes.

Big difference, that.

Liberals do not accept that there are differences in people that should matter. Differences like ambition, personal drive, motivation... skill... ability... none of these should matter according to the liberal. Everyone should have an equal outcome regardless of what they put into the equation. Everyone must END UP the same. It doesn't matter where you start or what you bring to the table.

All incomes should be equal, and anybody that makes more than someone else must be punished with higher taxes, so that their income is redistributed to somebody that doesn't have the same talent, or ability, or drive. Indeed it is "from each according to his ability and to each according to their need". (hat tip: Karl Marx)

Look at Obama's myopeia on so-called "tax cuts for the rich". Nobody is talking about any tax cuts for ANYBODY. The only thing being discussed is whether there should be any tax INCREASES for anybody. In a recession... tax increases are generally disastrous. Tax increases on the people who PROVIDE jobs are probably the stupidest taxes anyone could think of. But that's what he wants.

I can only assume from here on out that Obama is intentionally lengthening and deepening this recession, because that must somehow serve his purposes. Even a mentally retarded President would have by now realized that his Keynesian approach was failing. Assuming that's not Obama, then anything from here on out is on purpose. He's got Beranke out there saying now that 9% or 10% unemployment is just the "new normal" for the next four or five years.

It's despicable.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...](I'm almost finished with Decision Points btw, and it has literally changed my entire perspective on what to do with my life when I graduate. Amazing book.)

Great book, ain't it?

[JackieB]

Sorry, my last post didn't really make sense. I realized that when I was downstairs exercising.

What I meant to say, and do believe, is that liberals and conservatives both want a prosperous, economically healthy, relatively safe (respect for rule of law), clean (environment), etc., USA. I'm talking about the mainstream of both schools of thought, of course.

It really comes down to what role goverment can/should play in bringing this about.

[JackieB]

No, that's not semantics.

You're right. It's definitely not semantics. I tried to correct my error in a later post.

[JackieB]

How are those social programs working out lately in those socialist countries? Pretty crappy really... lets take a look at the "austerity measures" being enacted pretty much EU-wide and what sorts of riots are happening because of them. Sorry... that's not a model I think we should follow.


You do have the Constitution on your side on this issue. I will grant that for sure.

But we've got socialism aplenty in this country and have for decades. I wish we'd be more honest about that. I saw multiple conservative political commercials in this cycle that simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and protect Medicare. Medicare is a joke in terms of the miniscule portion of its costs that are ever funded through employee and employer contribitutions. The average senior probably blows through all of that money in the first two or three years. If that.

[outriding01]

Bah, I had to take an exam based almost solely on Keynesian economic ploicies today and I swear I cringed the entire time...

What really gets me is how Bernanke was so adamant about QE2 working and how bond-buying is sure to work to bring inflation rates up and ease unemployment, etc... And now he and Yellen are still claiming it will be successful...... but only if Congress enacts price stabilizing, deficit shrinking policy. They're trying to take the heat off themselves in the event that the program is a flop. But monetary policy is generally supposed to be a response to fiscal policy, not the other way around! And they're declining to actually make any comments on the specifics of these policies they are requesting..... just that they need to be made, but no hint as to what they should be! Bernanke claims it's because it's not the Fed's place to get involved in politics, and doing so would invite Congress to attempt to influence monetary policy, but I think it's a load of bull. No one wants to take the blame, no one wants to be the cause of further failure, but no one seems willing to actually communicate and compromise on what needs to be done period.

[JackieB]

No... you're just confused. Sooner or later it will come to you. You do know better. Someday you'll actually admit it. :-)

Maybe. I don't know. I guess I feel like it's just hard to pin myself down. Like Warren Buffett, for example. He just wrote an op-ed from a "grateful nephew" to his Uncle Sam thanking it for averting financial ruin, giving him such opportunities, etc. He also supports the quantitative easing and expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. But he's hardly a socialist. I don't know how we should categorize someone like him, Ted Turner, or Bill Gates.

[outriding01]

Great book, ain't it?

Oh my god yes! I told my mom the other day that I wish George W. was my grandpa and Paula Dean was my grandma, lol.

[JackieB]

What really gets me is how Bernanke was so adamant about QE2 working and how bond-buying is sure to work to bring inflation rates up and ease unemployment, etc... And now he and Yellen are still claiming it will be successful...... but only if Congress enacts price stabilizing, deficit shrinking policy.

Don't you think it's more that they are just stumped about what to do - period? Granted, a perfectly reasonable answer to that question is to just stop doing anything at all and let time and market forces work. But the public just doesn't understand that course of action and the pressure to do something is tremendous.

Bernanke was a Bush appointment, right? He's not a liberal per se', is he? Since they are out of levers to pull, it seems like they are just pulling the same ones again hoping that something will work.

[JackieB]

I hear some liberals talk about wealthy individuals and what they spend their money on with disdain and condescension. Like it's wrong to have that much money and spend it on a Porsche Turbo S or a vacation to the French Riviera... But why? If someone has done something to have that much money, they should be able to spend it however they please, it's their damn money.

I couldn't agree with this statement more fully. I've known quite a few wealthy people in my lifetime (e.g. really wealthy by US standards) and in almost every case, I personally have no desire to do what they had to in order to get there. Most, like your parents, worked 80 hour weeks for decades. They also frequently risked losing it all.

Nobody looked down with more contempt up millionaires than my dad. Boy he'd get a head of steam and just let it rip. Interestingly, it never for a minute occurred to him that he was biting the hand that fed him. He spent 30 years in the USAF and has now been retired for 40 years. Where does he think all the money not only for him for the past 70 years now, but for the military in general comes from? We saw how well it worked for the USSR when they had a poor economic model trying to sustain the military.

[outriding01]

Don't you think it's more that they are just stumped about what to do - period? Granted, a perfectly reasonable answer to that question is to just stop doing anything at all and let time and market forces work. But the public just doesn't understand that course of action and the pressure to do something is tremendous.

Bernanke was a Bush appointment, right? He's not a liberal per se', is he? Since they are out of levers to pull, it seems like they are just pulling the same ones again hoping that something will work.

Yes, he was a Bush appointment, to several different positions over the years. I wasn't implying the issue is because he's liberal. I'm perfectly capable of admitting there are republicans out there who are just as ignorant or ridiculous as any liberal. And he's actually an extremely well educated and intelligent man, but you are exactly right. The economy is self-regulating and if left alone, if would reach long-run equilibrium at some point. The problem is, like you said, the general public doesn't get it, and they are also impatient and unwilling to wait for the long-run. That is part of the reason we're still seeing Keynesian policies like RD said. Keynesian economic approaches deal with short-run models almost exclusively. These give short-run results. What they end up doing in the long run is almost completely apposite half the time. But apparently no one wants to volunteer to be the one to explain that to the American people. I exactly believe it's on purpose in the way RD meant. I think the thing that is on purpose is Obama's unwillingness to part from short-run Keynesian policies in an effort to not piss the public off and get voted out of office next election. Chances that the economy would correct itself before then are slim, especially with all the fiddling they've already done and he doesn't want it to look like he just sat around and let the recession continue unchecked....

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Maybe. I don't know. I guess I feel like it's just hard to pin myself down. Like Warren Buffett, for example. He just wrote an op-ed from a "grateful nephew" to his Uncle Sam thanking it for averting financial ruin, giving him such opportunities, etc. He also supports the quantitative easing and expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. But he's hardly a socialist. I don't know how we should categorize someone like him, Ted Turner, or Bill Gates.

Actually... Warren Buffet is a full-on communist. He's totally crossed over from semi-socialist long ago. He's gone 'round the bend. No... I don't know why. I doesn't make any sense to me, either. But apparently he thinks it will help him keep his stuff.

It's curious... because most multi-millionaire types ultimately become massive charity benefactors. Look at the Ford foundation, the Andrew Carnegie foundation, the Annenberg Foundation... and so many others...

But no... we need to punish the rich for all those years of providing jobs and incomes for so many people. We'd be better off without them.

God knows its all those poor people that will provide jobs...

[JackieB]

I wasn't implying the issue is because he's liberal.

Yes, I understood that.

I actually couldn't exactly remember if he was a Bush appointment or not. But I was really asking if there would be an reasonable rationale for what we would think of as a fairly conservative economist to be so much in favor of the quantitative easing?

I sure with they would quit (quantitative easing). I've always been pretty happy with the 5% returns that my wife and I could get with FDIC-insured investments. Along with a reasonable percentage of equities. We're very risk averse and are happy to take the slow route to financial independence - but not this slow! :hysterical: Whenever a CD renews, we get a whopping 1%, unless there is a "special" at 1.5% or so. I have a feeling that this could go on this way for many more years.

[Tiz]

Outriding, are you really unusual amongst your peers? Your grasp of fundamental reality is very impressive for your age group. I hope you preach it!

Jackie, enigma? You are a fifty year old man who has an ounce of common sense, yet still pines for a socialist Utopian commune. It could work! No, it defies human nature. It can't.

Until you get your ducks completely lined up, I think I'll call you Sybil. No, I'll call you the male version, Syb.:)

What is happening now in our country is purposeful. It isn't due to a lack of experience, ineptness, or just not knowing what to do. We are on a path to Communism driven by the ideology of the people in and around this administration.

[cowgirlup@idaho]

Outriding, are you really unusual amongst your peers? Your grasp of fundamental reality is very impressive for your age group.

I'll bet the dinnertable conversations are great at your house Outriding!

[WashingtonBay]

Just musing here... I admit to being out of my element almost completely on Econ. either through a failure in what should have been good genetics for understanding it, or through the crazy Econ profs I had in college (and they were indeed crazy) much of it goes right over my head.



Believe it or not, I'd probably be more conservative if I felt that conservatives, in general, "walked the walk" better. And I'm definitely not pointing to anyone on the forum. Please nobody flame me for that. Seriously. I'd like to see more conservatives calling for a serious revamp/elimination of Medicare (charging premiums to all recipients would be a good start), Social Security (phasing it out), a meaningful overhaul of the tax code, and so on.

They (the other comments made already) are right that W did push for changes to Social Security, did a number of town halls and did a lot of politicking... it went.... nowhere.

I think it's probably level jumping to expect results from those first.

I wish they would at least go after the lower hanging and smaller fruit. The vast overcomplication and mission creep of government. Entire buildings and city blocks that could be emptied. Elimination of earmarks. Requiring that bills be simple and tackle one issue. Vote it... move on.


And FWIW, I wish and hope the Tea Party doesn't let itself get bogged down with a lot of the republican social issues which I think, only confuse and delay progress on the more pertinent problems of modern government.

I'm really tired of the debate on the right using abortion as a litmus test for any candidate when, once in office, nothing ever happens on it. Even when Republicans are in power. It has cost us in the practical elimination of people who I think would have made us great candidates, people like Rudy Giuliani and Condi Rice. And for what?


Saying that would likely have a lynch mob after me calling for my banning on FR. I know... I've done it, though I haven't been banned yet. That place is nearly intolerable for me (for that and other reasons). I'd be Libertarian if they weren't a little 'off' (IMHO) in their foreign policy of late.

I want smaller, simpler government. Period.

[JackieB]

.... yet still pines for a socialist Utopian commune.


Well, it doesn't look to me like I pine for a socialist Utopian commune. That's not my perspective of myself anyway. I don't like welfare, not because of what it costs me in taxes, but because it has the ability to rob some people of their work ethic. I'd prefer that we give out food, clothing, etc., to the poor, but no money.

I think that people should support themselves through their entire lives, including retirement. I'd still be glad right now to take what I've put into social security along with my employer's contribution and not take one more dime. I mean that. I know how much money it is and I could take it and gladly promise never to collect a social security check.

Those are just a few examples. There are a lot of things about me that wouldn't fit the socialist idea. I'd say that I'm more indefinable than anything else.

I feel like I look at things like Warren Buffett. I think the world of him. RD said that he's a total communist, but I don't see how that would pass the smell test. Buffett didn't get to be a billionaire as a communist, so I guess RD is saying that he capitulated. But Buffett still runs Berkshire-Hathaway, so he's not a commie at work. He's giving away his fortune, but not to create a commune or anything. He's donating it to various causes and we all agree that a person should be able to spend his/her money freely. That's more how I look at the world.

[JackieB]

And FWIW, I wish and hope the Tea Party doesn't let itself get bogged down with a lot of the republican social issues which I think, only confuse and delay progress on the more pertinent problems of modern government.


This is exactly how my wife and I feel. We are actually pretty excited about some of the things that the Tea Party proposes. But as soon as it gets turned into religion (not government's place to be meddling), guns (I support the Second Amendment - our guns are secure), and abortion (the vast majority of conservatives support abortion on demand anyway), it turns us off. I cannot stand those pompous, pious people.

[JackieB]

We are on a path to Communism driven by the ideology of the people in and around this administration.

Well, the deal that the President just struck to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for two more years (right through the next presidential election cycle) contradicts this notion. Whether he did it because he "had to" or not, he still did it.

Honestly, if President Obama ends up being a one-term president, which is certainly possible, I think it will be the left that is more upset and costs him than it will be conservatives who are fed up with him. The liberals are plenty ticked off with him right now.

[WashingtonBay]

It is a little lonely being Obama right now.

[WashingtonBay]

FWIW, I understand completely why the left is mad, and why many are claiming they are finished with Obama. He flat out said he would not do what he just did. And for what gain? They ask... He is compromising with people who will still dislike him no matter what, and in doing so, he's lost the respect of his base.

I think he's done.

[JackieB]

And for what gain? They ask... He is compromising with people who will still dislike him no matter what, and in doing so, he's lost the respect of his base.

That's a really good point. If there's one thing that I've learned in my support of President Obama, it's that I am probably wasting my time suggesting that he receive "credit where credit is due" or anything along those lines. The dislike of him is so profound and so deep that his antagonists just don't want to hear it. My dad has always been that way about Republicans, so I understand even though I disagree.

But I will go out on a limb here and say that it's possible that he did this not because of any lack of intestinal fortitude, but because it was the right thing to do in a really difficult economic time.

The President wanted the unemployment benefits extended, and I am sympathetic to that issue. These people aren't on unemployment because they are refusing to work at McDonald's. Even those jobs aren't available right now. And that money does go right back into the economy.

And it really would have been disastrous to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire for lower and middle income Americans. So, he accepted them for all, knowing that this will be revisited countless times during his reelection bid, and moved ahead.

[JackieB]

It is a little lonely being Obama right now.

That's for sure. My wife and I have wondered if he will even really wants a second term. It's a brutal job.

[Tiz]

Here you go, Jackie. From September "Communism doesn't work!!!!" thread.

Pining...

"For some reason, I can't seem to convince you guys that the people in my little, fictional, communist society are all living this way because it's what they choose. I've agreed with everything you've pointed out in terms of the pitfalls. Probably three or four times now. But I still can't get an acknowledgement that its a noble idea. In fact, just the contrary. It's still got to be an inherently evil idea."

[outriding01]

Outriding, are you really unusual amongst your peers? Your grasp of fundamental reality is very impressive for your age group. I hope you preach it!

Lol, I was always the oddball when I was younger. I've learned to tone it down a little now, but I still have my moments. I think going to the University of Florida probably helps. You have to be so smart to get in here that I tend to feel like a moron compared to most of my friends.... But I still seem to have a lot more common sense than the majority ;).

[Tiz]

"The President wanted the unemployment benefits extended, and I am sympathetic to that issue. These people aren't on unemployment because they are refusing to work at McDonald's. Even those jobs aren't available right now. And that money does go right back into the economy."


Oops. Had again, JackieB.

Economy

Job openings rise sharply to most in 2 years


Published December 07, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Employers posted a sharp increase in job openings in October, raising hopes that hiring could pick up in the coming months.
The Labor Department says businesses and government advertised nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of October, up about 12 percent from the previous month. That reverses two months of declines and is the highest total since August 2008, just before the financial crisis intensified.
The number of available jobs has increased by about 1 million, or 44 percent, since July 2009, a month after the recession ended. But openings are still far below the 4.4 million advertised in December 2007, when the recession began.




Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/07/job-openings-rise-sharply-years/#ixzz17T0gTsVz[/COLOR]

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

While it's good that taxes won't be raised in January, I'm disappointed somewhat that the Republicans remain so spineless. They should have gone for permanent tax rates, not just kicked the can down the road by two years. They also should not have agreed to the extension of unemployment benefits.

The whole thing of doing the tax cuts with an "expiration" date was wrong-headed and cynical in the first place. They should have the guts to pass legislation and stand behind it. Don't bake in a later tax increase for some other Congress down the road-- merely to have cover and not have to go on the record voting for a tax increase. That's a cheap and shallow trick. You want to raise taxes? Well write a law and vote on it in public-- or sit down and shut yer yap.

The extension of unemployment benefits is just more liberal cruelty masquerading as kindness. Do we want people to have jobs, or not? If not, then extend UB's. Thomas Sowell just wrote a great column on this. The data could not be more clear: The average time that people spend unemployed is directly and perfectly correlated to the length of time that benefits are provided. When UB's lasted for six months, the average length of time that people were unemployed was about six months. When it has been a year, then it takes on average a year for most people to find jobs. When it was two years (two years!!! are you freaking kidding me??) then it takes two years for people to find jobs. Say what you want... but that's how the data maps out. Under the disguise of kindness they just let people sink further into hopelessness. What's next? Lifetime benefits?

Now we'll have even more people unemployed for even longer. Three years!!! You know... if a friend needed some help I would have no problem taking them in and giving them a place to live for a few months while they figured a way to get back on their feet. But after three years I think I'd start to feel taken advantage of... and lately... my welcome mat is wearing really, really thin.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
The President wanted the unemployment benefits extended, and I am sympathetic to that issue. These people aren't on unemployment because they are refusing to work at McDonald's. Even those jobs aren't available right now. And that money does go right back into the economy.
[...]


Nonsense. I just did a Monster.com jobs search in my zip code and it says there are over 1,000 jobs listed for my zip code. I'll bet somewhere in there, there's at least one job I could get tomorrow if I really needed it. It likely won't be as good as my current job, but it would be a job.

And... about that money going right into the economy? Where do you think it came from? It was taken out of the economy, in order to put it back in. That's like bailing water from the port side of the boat to the starboard side. It doesn't really fix anything.

[JackieB]

Here you go, Jackie. From September "Communism doesn't work!!!!" thread.

Pining...

"For some reason, I can't seem to convince you guys that the people in my little, fictional, communist society are all living this way because it's what they choose. I've agreed with everything you've pointed out in terms of the pitfalls. Probably three or four times now. But I still can't get an acknowledgement that its a noble idea. In fact, just the contrary. It's still got to be an inherently evil idea."

Oh, I see. That wasn't me saying that it's something I wanted to do. That was me saying that communism is a noble idea that doesn't work. And that if members in the little commune chose to live that way that they were free to do so.

I finally had to give up on that one because RD just couldn't accept that it would be possible for the members of my little commune to choose to live that way freely. It had to be capitalism.

[JackieB]

Oops. Had again, JackieB.

Economy

Job openings rise sharply to most in 2 years


Published December 07, 2010
| Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Employers posted a sharp increase in job openings in October, raising hopes that hiring could pick up in the coming months.
The Labor Department says businesses and government advertised nearly 3.4 million jobs at the end of October, up about 12 percent from the previous month. That reverses two months of declines and is the highest total since August 2008, just before the financial crisis intensified.
The number of available jobs has increased by about 1 million, or 44 percent, since July 2009, a month after the recession ended. But openings are still far below the 4.4 million advertised in December 2007, when the recession began.





Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/07/job-openings-rise-sharply-years/#ixzz17T0gTsVz[/COLOR]


Well I'm delighted to be had in this case. I was under the impression that there are millions of unemployed workers right now that can't find anything right now, even for minimum wage.

I am aware that jobs are starting to come back. That's good news.

[JackieB]

And... about that money going right into the economy? Where do you think it came from? It was taken out of the economy, in order to put it back in. That's like bailing water from the port side of the boat to the starboard side. It doesn't really fix anything.

Yes, I understand that. But the money is circulating through the economy. That's all I was saying. It doesn't bother me to see these benefits extended.

[JackieB]

But after three years I think I'd start to feel taken advantage of... and lately... my welcome mat is wearing really, really thin.

Really? I never would have known. :p Seriously, I understand. I was opposed to seeing them extended, but then changed my mind on that.

I would like to see that article on Sowell. I'll look it up. If it's backed by a sizeable (statistically significant) amount of data and not simply anecdotal evidence, it could be very compelling.

Don't get me wrong on this one. I am not in favor of anything that erodes a person's work ethic. Not because of the money the program might cost me, but because of what it does to the person. I'm reminded of when Oprah (not someone you care for I know, but she's got a good point here) will have someone on her show begging her to pay off their nasty credit card debt, etc. She always says the same thing which is "If I thought it would help you to do so, I would."

Suze Orman is my favorite personal finance coach. She doesn't mince words. But anyway, I digress.

[Tiz]

There are millions of people drawing unemployment benefits. 12 million, I think. All while job openings have increased by 44% in the last year. 3.4 million jobs advertised 10/31/10, as opposed to 4.4 million jobs 12/31/07. Yes, you had the wrong impression, yet the one that your President wants you to have.


If you read Natisha's homework thread, you would have a good understanding of how people, who are on unemployment, job hunt, Jackie.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]
I would like to see that article on Sowell. I'll look it up. If it's backed by a sizeable (statistically significant) amount of data and not simply anecdotal evidence, it could be very compelling.
[...]


It is compelling. And speaks for itself.

The Sowell column is here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/555839/201012061835/Debate-Is-Not-Over-Tax-Cuts-But-Tax-Hikes.htm

He doesn't provide the source data in the column, but he does (in spades) in a few of his books. Notably: Economic Facts and Fallacies; and Dismantling America. Both recent and both of which I've read and highly recommend. His Economics textbook: Basic Economics is possibly the best Econ book available.

[JackieB]

If you read Natisha's homework thread, you would have a good understanding of how people, who are on unemployment, job hunt, Jackie.

Well, to be fair, not all of them by any means, Tiz. I have a close relative who is very worried that unemployment insurance may be in his near future. If it happens, I think he'll accept he money to support his family, but I can guarantee you that he'll be burning up the pavement trying to find a new job. I'm sure there are a lot like that.

[natisha]

If you read Natisha's homework thread, you would have a good understanding of how people, who are on unemployment, job hunt, Jackie.Absolutely no correlation. I want to do the homework...but.....

[Remali]

For those of you who are against extending unemployment benefits, have any of you ever actually been out of work and facing your unemployment running out? I bet not. Here is a reality check....come to Wisconsin and talk to some of my friends... all very hard working people who have worked since they were in their teens every day of their lives. One, for instance, was laid off, has been struggling along doing three part time jobs, can't make ends meet and is probably going to lose his house (he is 58 years old)...he would take a job anywhere right now, but cannot find one other than these part time fill-in bus driver jobs. I have another friend who cannot get a job either, and has been looking all over. I was in that situation a few years ago as well.... let me tell ya, walk a mile in their shoes..... Sure, there are some jobs out there here and there, but the sad reality is that a lot of older people (like me, and others) get over-looked and not hired due to their age.

And while it is kind and considerate that people like Ragnar would take in a friend who was facing being homeless, not everyone has friends or relatives who will or can do that.

At least around here, "older" workers are not having much luck. And when I was trying to find ANY job (and I would take any job) because of my education and degree I was always asked why I would want to do "that" job (doh, I need a job), or I was told I was "over-qualified". So, people like my friend, who is older and has a degree, gets passed over for jobs due to age and being "over-qualified"...... It's a mess, and unemployment is necessary for quite a few people, they need to eat and have a place to live. Not everyone has family to turn to for help.

[natisha]

I've been there but didn't come close to having the UB running out. A long time ago & not so long ago. I got tired of crap jobs, living check to check. I finally decided to make my own future. It wasn't easy.
UB's would not even pay 1/3 of my mortage. I don't know how people can make it on UB, add a few kids to the mix, oh boy.

[Remali]

I know what you mean natisha, a lot of people can go back to school, etc. or do other things. But when some people are in their mid 50's, they don't have very many options, and going back to school won't pay their house payment or bills.... I just really feel badly for a couple of my friends. And, just tonite it was announced that another employer is laying off people here in town. It's pretty tough for some, and UB is all they have right now.

After I lost my job many years ago, I went back to school and that opened a lot more doors for me, but that was a long time ago too.... I sure wouldn't want to go thru that now.

[JackieB]

Do we want people to have jobs, or not? If not, then extend UB's. Thomas Sowell just wrote a great column on this. The data could not be more clear: The average time that people spend unemployed is directly and perfectly correlated to the length of time that benefits are provided. When UB's lasted for six months, the average length of time that people were unemployed was about six months. When it has been a year, then it takes on average a year for most people to find jobs. When it was two years (two years!!! are you freaking kidding me??) then it takes two years for people to find jobs.

I did some more research. I'd be skeptical of an argument suggesting that any correlation between how long it takes a person to find a job and how long he/she receives benefits is somehow related to the benefits reducing motivation to find work.

The average benefit is about $300/week. That's $15,600 a year. I checked three different sources and they all pretty much agreed with this article.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.aspx

The last time I tried to live on that much was in 1984, my first year out of college, and it was brutal. I was 100% out of my own (rent, utilities, car insurance, fuel, food, etc.) and it was the toughest year (financially) of my adult life. And that was just me living in a studio apartment. I was pretty darn motivated to find a better job.

I can understand if one's argument is that it's not the job of employers or taxpayers to give money to anyone who isn't working no matter what the reason. That's not my own opinion (I don't mind helping pay for unemployment), but it would fit within the guidelines of the Constitution.

But the idea that unemployment benefits somehow make it less attractive for a person to find a job before they expire doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Unemployment benefits are more like a life preserver for a person at risk of drowning. He/she is not doing OK by any means. Just somewhat stabilized for a little while. That's my impression anyway.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I did some more research. I'd be skeptical of an argument suggesting that any correlation between how long it takes a person to find a job and how long he/she receives benefits is somehow related to the benefits reducing motivation to find work.<P>

That's cute, that you're skeptical and stuff. I know it sounds just so unbelievable that some people might actually take advantage of other people. <P>

The average benefit is about $300/week. That's $15,600 a year. <P>

Wow... my first job with the Coast Guard I made about $9,000 a year as an E-5 my last year. My heart bleeds.

[/QUOTE]

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[....]
The last time I tried to live on that much was in 1984, my first year out of college, and it was brutal. I was 100% out of my own (rent, utilities, car insurance, fuel, food, etc.) and it was the toughest year (financially) of my adult life. And that was just me living in a studio apartment. I was pretty darn motivated to find a better job.

[...]

In 1985 I lived on about $6,000 a year as a boot seaman in the Coast Guard. Cry me a river.

[Remali]

Well I guess someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... ;)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Grrrrr... what? I have no idea what yer talkin' 'bout.

[Tiz]

"I'd be skeptical of an argument suggesting that any correlation between how long it takes a person to find a job and how long he/she receives benefits is somehow related to the benefits reducing motivation to find work."

The problem is the correlation is measurable. And, if that's the case, the "argument" is a fact.

I know three people drawing unemployment. One gets $480 a week, one gets $520 a week and the other gets $500+, but I don't know the exact figure. This is what they told me. I didn't go to a dot gov site to confirm it. They all are happy as pigs in s*$t, and intend to draw their paid vacation until it stops.

That kind of money translates into what, $40,000 or $45,000 plus a year? Once you allow for the expense of going to work, taxes, ect.?

I'm very in favor of safety nets, and I have taken advantage of unemployment benefits in my life. Back when you were granted 26 WEEKS initially, and if you hadn't found a job when it ran out, you could APPLY for and HOPE to be granted a 13 WEEK extension. It was subsistence pay also, very modest.

Now we are talking about 99 WEEKS, with a proposed 13 MONTH extension. That really can't be considered anything but welfare for the able bodied, and it isn't good. It makes people lazy, period.

Another thing I wonder about. The fifty plus worker who gets passed over because of age. I've been in the position of hiring people and have to say, I'd take an older employee over a younger one every day of the week. I know people who feel the same way, so I wonder if that too is a myth.

[JackieB]

In 1985 I lived on about $6,000 a year as a boot seaman in the Coast Guard. Cry me a river.

And you had to pay rent, buy your own meals, pay utilities, insure your car, and fill it with fuel for your job (I was a sales rep and had to cover my own expenses)? Amazing! I don't know how you did it.

[JackieB]

That's cute, that you're skeptical and stuff. I know it sounds just so unbelievable that some people might actually take advantage of other people.

No, it's not unbelievable. People take advantage of other people every single day. I'm just not convinced that recipients of unemployment benefits will delay their job search in order to keep receiving those benefits.

I read Sowell's article. I understand what he was saying. Then I started searching to see how much people receive on average, thought about how far that would go for anyone living on his/her own, and decided that I was unconvinced. I think it's fair to say that you are skeptical of many things that I suggest.

[JackieB]

"I'd be skeptical of an argument suggesting that any correlation between how long it takes a person to find a job and how long he/she receives benefits is somehow related to the benefits reducing motivation to find work."

The problem is the correlation is measurable. And, if that's the case, the "argument" is a fact.

I know three people drawing unemployment. One gets $480 a week, one gets $520 a week and the other gets $500+, but I don't know the exact figure. This is what they told me. I didn't go to a dot gov site to confirm it. They all are happy as pigs in s*$t, and intend to draw their paid vacation until it stops.

That kind of money translates into what, $40,000 or $45,000 plus a year? Once you allow for the expense of going to work, taxes, ect.?

I'm very in favor of safety nets, and I have taken advantage of unemployment benefits in my life. Back when you were granted 26 WEEKS initially, and if you hadn't found a job when it ran out, you could APPLY for and HOPE to be granted a 13 WEEK extension. It was subsistence pay also, very modest.

Now we are talking about 99 WEEKS, with a proposed 13 MONTH extension. That really can't be considered anything but welfare for the able bodied, and it isn't good. It makes people lazy, period.

Another thing I wonder about. The fifty plus worker who gets passed over because of age. I've been in the position of hiring people and have to say, I'd take an older employee over a younger one every day of the week. I know people who feel the same way, so I wonder if that too is a myth.

Right. I understand what you are saying. I just didn't see where the correlation was measurable. Maybe I need to do more research.

I do agree with you that anything that diminishes the incentive to find work is bad. No argument there. I've always felt that way.

Regarding the 50+ worker, there's no doubt that age discrimination is a concern. I feel confident that I could find a job doing something to pay the bills because I'm very determined in that regard. But I know that there are numerous jobs that I've had over my career that I wouldn't be seriously considered for now. Not because of any lack of qualifications, but because of where I am in my career overall now. But I could still get some job, that's for sure.

[natisha]

No, it's not unbelievable. People take advantage of other people every single day. I'm just not convinced that recipients of unemployment benefits will delay their job search in order to keep receiving those benefits.

I read Sowell's article. I understand what he was saying. Then I started searching to see how much people receive on average, thought about how far that would go for anyone living on his/her own, and decided that I was unconvinced. I think it's fair to say that you are skeptical of many things that I suggest.If the person could get only a low paying job, say @ $8/hr x 40 hrs/week, that would be $320/week before taxes. They would get more for doing way less by not working. That is how many see it. Add that to having to pay for sitters, gas etc. so they can work & financially they are better off collecting the UB.
Now if I had to go on UB I think it would be a treat, for a while, but I also blow through money pretty quick & have a lot to lose so I would go back to work after a few weeks of R&R.

I think the main difference is how employable a person is & the number of any available jobs in an area. If you live in an area where there just are few jobs at any time then no amount of UB will change that. Maybe, just maybe, Gov. money would be better spent helping people to relocate to where there are jobs. Here in the Milwaukee area there are lots of jobs available, may not all pay great but they are jobs.

[JackieB]

Here in the Milwaukee area there are lots of jobs available, may not all pay great but they are jobs.

That's a good point. I was thinking about that yesterday when someone said that there were a bunch of jobs on Monster.com. There wouldn't be in a rural area where I live.

So, the response to that is to move, which is a reasonable suggestion, but one not to be taken lightly if there are kids in school, a mortgage to pay on a house that wouldn't sell, etc. It gets complicated pretty fast.

I agree with what Tiz, RD, and anyone else that any handout that makes it less attractive to go find a job is bad. It was just the assertion that there is a direct correlation between UB and job searching that I am unsure about. Nothing wrong with being skeptical of a claim.

I did say that I can understand if someone just feels that UB shouldn't exist at all. That it's not their problem or an employer's problem. I don't mind my taxes going to help pay for UB, but I couldn't fault someone who disagrees.

[natisha]

UB should be a stepping stone, not a life style
What's that fish saying?

[WashingtonBay]

What's that fish saying?

If in doubt, whack it with a trout... :trout:

[natisha]

If in doubt, whack it with a trout... :trout:That's not my 17, is it?:eek:

[WashingtonBay]

Is there some reason you think it shouldn't count? :coffee:

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I tried to find some data today, but I didn't have much time. The bureau of labor statistics (bls.gov) has some good data, but it didn't go back far enough to be useful for this exercise. It really needs to show each extension for the last few decades, and then the average weeks that benefits are claimed. I'd need to spend more time digging.

The last change to the UC (unemployment compensation) was in 2008. There was a definite bump in the data after that, where the long-term unemployed (more than 27 weeks) on average added more than four weeks to the average time spent unemployed. That is... that the extension of benefits added time to the average time that people spent on UC. I know it's happened in previous examples, too. I just haven't had time to find any older data.

It's like welfare reform back in the 90's. Liberals whined and screamed that it was just cruel to cut people from welfare after some amount of time. But welfare reform was a massive success. Turns out that when you pull people away from the government trough, or at least shut down the chute that drops more slop in the trough... they tend to get (gasp!) jobs! People actually figure out how to take care of themselves. Amazing, that.

Liberals define compassion as how many people they can support on government assistance.

Conservatives define compassion as how many people don't need government assistance anymore.

[JackieB]

Well, I appreciate you trying to dig up the data. It's darn hard, as you know. It's out there (the data), but there is just so much to wade through to find it in many cases.

I think we can agree in principle on this one. While I may not be convinced that the current UB amounts have a statistically-significant negative effect on recipients' job searches, there is common sense in your argument. At some dollar amount, there is an incentive to take the money and not look as hard for work.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Quite so, Jackie.... as I used to argue with a liberal friend of mine, who used to say that "nobody really wants to be on welfare, ". I said, "OK"...

"Raise welfare to 50K a year". See what happens. though, that was thirty years ago when 50K was still a lot of money. I suppose now we'd have to raise it to 100K or so. But of course... that wouldn't be enough.

[JackieB]

Quite so, Jackie.... as I used to argue with a liberal friend of mine, who used to say that "nobody really wants to be on welfare, ". I said, "OK"...

I'm not that naive.

I heard a quote one time that's not really funny, but it is when you say it.

"There is a leisure class at each end of the socioeconomic spectrum"

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

LOL... that's pretty good. Gracias.

[JackieB]

You're welcome. I thought you'd get a kick out of it. Good night!