Left vs Left

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Again, I'm NOT for killing or even redistributing wealth. I am for killing corporations, and redistributing the burden of poverty.

Just some idealistic blathering flavor I'm becoming known for...

Dennis Prager wrote a terrific book on Conservatives and Liberals' minds. His thesis is that liberals want to feel good. Conservatives want to do good.

Liberals are ok with welfare programs even if they don't work well because they feel good about trying to help the poor. Conservatives want those programs to be effective and to work.

Look back at Bill Clinton. He signed welfare reform. Guess what, millions of Americans formerly on welfare got jobs. It helped their feeling of self worth. It helped their self esteem. They learned new skills. It provided a much better future. Sadly, Obama reversed course on this program and we have more dependency as a result.

There is an old adage but it is absolutely true. Don't give a man a fish, teach the man to fish.

You're heart is in the right place. But my suggestion is to look for ways to help that lift peoples spirits, not just their wallets. That lift their future opportunities, not just the here and now. That give them hope for the future, not let their basic instincts kick in leading to a life of dependency. Work is therapeutic and very rewarding. I am glad that Trump is looking at child care programs to help single mothers gain employment. It is good for everyone.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
We can help make someone earning $60,000 / yr feel more comfortable.

The only obligation a society or Government has to that 60,000/yr wage earner Boomer is to make sure he can earn it freely, legally, and safely, then keep as much of it as he possibly can or earn as much or more of that as he possibly desires to do with it what he prefers.

We have no other obligation to that wage earner as a society except to make sure no one limits his freedom to do any of those things, or tries to kill him while he's either doing it or attempting to.
 
Last edited:

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Im for free market, I actually for less government, im surely for decreased spending, but I'm NOT for praising businesses and providing them the same freedoms that citizens enjoy.

SCOTUS disagrees. Businesses employ people. Those people have a right to be heard. They can petition their government. Unions do the exact same thing. Businesses look out for businesses, but businesses are owned by the people. They employ people. The create wealth for people. A business is not some inanimate entity. It is comprised of stakeholders, all of them people. Customers, suppliers, employees, workers and owners (stock holders). They deserve a chance to be heard as well.

And by the way, can you name any President in our history where we did not grow the economy after recession? The U.S. always comes out of recessions. History shows the deeper the recession, the more robust the growth when coming out of recession, except for this time.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Dennis Prager wrote a terrific book on Conservatives and Liberals' minds. His thesis is that liberals want to feel good. Conservatives want to do good.

Liberals are ok with welfare programs even if they don't work well because they feel good about trying to help the poor. Conservatives want those programs to be effective and to work.

Look back at Bill Clinton. He signed welfare reform. Guess what, millions of Americans formerly on welfare got jobs. It helped their feeling of self worth. It helped their self esteem. They learned new skills. It provided a much better future. Sadly, Obama reversed course on this program and we have more dependency as a result.

There is an old adage but it is absolutely true. Don't give a man a fish, teach the man to fish.

You're heart is in the right place. But my suggestion is to look for ways to help that lift peoples spirits, not just their wallets. That lift their future opportunities, not just the here and now. That give them hope for the future, not let their basic instincts kick in leading to a life of dependency. Work is therapeutic and very rewarding. I am glad that Trump is looking at child care programs to help single mothers gain employment. It is good for everyone.

I posted something similar to this just the other day WVPATX.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Not because of them Boomboom521, in spite of them.

Keep in mind Boom, that the Feds took unprecedented measures to prop up the economy thoughout the vast majority of Obama's 8 years. QE programs designed to lower long term bond rates and supply liquidity. Zero interest rates designed to prop up borrowing and create jobs. These actions more than any other lead to the stock market boom. The middle class did not benefit, but shareholders certainly did as did Wall Street.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
SCOTUS disagrees. Businesses employ people. Those people have a right to be heard. They can petition their government. Unions do the exact same thing. Businesses look out for businesses, but businesses are owned by the people. They employ people. The create wealth for people. A business is not some inanimate entity. It is comprised of stakeholders, all of them people. Customers, suppliers, employees, workers and owners (stock holders). They deserve a chance to be heard as well.

Not only that, but businesses serve a need in direct relation to their customer's desires. Any business not meeting customer demands or offering solutions to their desires is doomed to fail. In short businesses do not exist to address social issues, unless that is the reason they are in business.

Businesses exist to make money, and ultimately to grow & generate profits by servicing their customer's needs with products or services their customers need, want, and desire. There is no other purpose for a business or for even having one.

The Left wants to use businesses as tools to implement their social experiments, just like they try to use other institutions...but ironically in doing so they would rather kill them or shame them instead of growing them or allowing them to grow.

Just more of the Left arguing against or working against it's own stated interests.
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Look back at Bill Clinton. He signed welfare reform.

And he had to be hauled in kicking and screaming to do it, with his Democrat Left threatening a "revolt" if he did!

Now what does THAT tell you?
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
SCOTUS disagrees. Businesses employ people. Those people have a right to be heard. They can petition their government. Unions do the exact same thing. Businesses look out for businesses, but businesses are owned by the people. They employ people. The create wealth for people. A business is not some inanimate entity. It is comprised of stakeholders, all of them people. Customers, suppliers, employees, workers and owners (stock holders). They deserve a chance to be heard as well.

And by the way, can you name any President in our history where we did not grow the economy after recession? The U.S. always comes out of recessions. History shows the deeper the recession, the more robust the growth when coming out of recession, except for this time.
Herbert Hoover
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
And he had to hauled in kicking and screaming to do it, with his Democrat Left threatening a "revolt" if he did!

Now what does THAT tell you?

I agree but I was throwing the liberal a bone. This was an example of Dick Morris's famous triangulation strategy, which worked.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Herbert Hoover

Herbert Hoover left office during the depression. The point is the U.S. has always come out of recession. It is a given.

Can you name one policy Obama initiated that lead us out of recession? Remember, we exited the recession in June, 2009.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Not only that, but businesses serve a need in direct relation to their customer's desires. Any business not meeting customer demands or offering solutions to their desires is doomed to fail. In short businesses do not exist to address social issues, unless that is the reason they are in business.

Businesses exist to make money, and ultimately to grown & generate profits by servicing their customer's needs with products or services their customers need, want, and desire. There is no other purpose for a business or for even having one.

The Left wants to use businesses as tools to implement their social experiments, just like they try to use other institutions...but ironically in doing so they would rather kill them or shame them instead of growing them or allowing them to grow.

Just more of the Left arguing against or working against it's own stated interests.
Didn't these wonderful businesses that are the central nervous system of your great American society just spend the last two decades outsourcing jobs and placing your "middle America" in ruin? Isn't your savior Captain Combover threatening a system of tariffs and tax concessions to bring them back? Isn't that government acting on behalf of the $60,000 /yr wage earner? Isn't that big government at work?

You are ok with it when it works for what you want. I could very easily turn it around....I want business practices that work, I want jobs that are sustainable....conserves just want to feel good about the jobs being there now, even if they go away in 10 years again
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,175
3,227
113
I understand your mindset, there are WAY TOO MANY taking advantage of programs and benefits provided by the government, and an overall entitlement sentiment from generations coming of age. I did choose to teach, but don't you want teachers that care and are effective. Same with police, fire, etc... we want people to make choices not completely based on money. Fathers aren't there for children in order to accumulate substantial wealth....what's best for that child? These are not areas the government can regulate. We can try to balance (NO, NOT COMMUNISM) the landscape. We can help make someone earning $60,000 / yr feel more comfortable.
You don't have my mindset pegged at all actually. Do people abuse the system? Absolutely, at every level this holds true. That doesn't bother me, it's human nature. Not taking responsibility for choices made and blaming others is what bothers me.

I do want teachers that care and are effective. I want them to do it because that's the calling they "chose". To turn around and ***** about the salary they make when choosing that profession is wrong. You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you did your research ahead of time on what salary teachers make. So, you knowingly went into a career field for your own reasoning that mattered to you which limited your monetary options. You effectively have a max earnings potential. You knew that and you chose that path. So you placed the desire to teach and influence youthful minds above personal wealth. That's fine. I respect the hell out of that. My mother was a teacher.

I personally started working at 12 on the family farm making $4 an hour. Every summer I spent daylight to dark working in the hayfields instead of our fvcking off at the local pool and going to the lake like so many of my friends. I was climbing the ladder in our business and given more and more responsibility as I got older and earned that responsibility. By the time I graduated, I was managing the production aspect of the hay business we had and managing 7 guys to include negotiating salary and payment terms. I was responsible for ensuring success from the time the first blade of grass was cut to the last bail was in a customer's barn. I had my *** chewed in front of my team and my salary docked for my team's failure when it happened (because of choices I made and direction I gave). By the time I graduated high school, I was making $12 an hr and hauling cattle as far away as Iowa and Georgia pulling a 32 foot trailer with 20k lbs of cattle in it.

I decided during those years what type of life I wanted and essentially mapped out what I needed to do to achieve those goals. This included finding a spouse who shared that vision of what our future would look like and had an equally strong work ethic as well a career choice to realize it. These were choices that we made and we accept the sacrifices associated with it.

My stance is all about personal choice and accountability to self for those decisions. You made a choice which limits upward mobility and wealth. I don't look down on that. Hell, I applaud your choice, I truly do. But nevertheless, it was a choice you made.

In summary, yes, I want people to care about their jobs regardless of what they are. Where I have issue is when they bemoan those choices and complain about other people's stations and income, which certainly seems the case in the examples you illustrated in the Brad Pitt and LB from Cinci. They too made their choices that could have just as easily not worked out had they not put the effort forth to achieve their dreams. If you aren't living the dream you have for yourself, go back and reflect on your choices, make the necessary changes as you desire, or don't, but don't bemoan the choices and sacrifices others have made because they are more monetarily prosperous than you are.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Herbert Hoover left office during the depression. The point is the U.S. has always come out of recession. It is a given.

Can you name one policy Obama initiated that lead us out of recession? Remember, we exited the recession in June, 2009.
First, I think the bailout was handled in a very taxpayer friendly manner, I credit him with structuring the bailout in a way that helped stop the bleeding and provided incentive for the government. The 2009 $780+ stimulus package, and the 2010 tax cuts. I also think the step towards forcing the healthcare system to reform was a good one, it needs serious changes but it will force that change and debate. I also think regulation has been a positive step as well, some are excessive and must be reformed but it will force change and debate.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Didn't these wonderful businesses that are the central nervous system of your great American society just spend the last two decades outsourcing jobs and placing your "middle America" in ruin?

Yes, because our Government demanded too much of what they produce ie: revenues (in the form of taxes) and made it too expensive for them to either hire American workers, or operate profitably & freely in this country. So they went someplace else where they could service their customers' needs profitably.

So enter one Mr. Donald J Trump, who is promising them that equation or "unwelcome" sign that was hung out by the US Government which is run primarily by Leftist-Socialist types will be taken down.

Their taxes will be lower, the onerous regulations against them will be reduced, the unfair trade deals that make them uncompetitive will be ended, and they will be encouraged to make their money here hiring Americans who will also have less of what they earn or make for the companies taxed away from them.

What's wrong with that?
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Herbert Hoover left office during the depression. The point is the U.S. has always come out of recession. It is a given.

Can you name one policy Obama initiated that lead us out of recession? Remember, we exited the recession in June, 2009.

He can't because there isn't one.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
You don't have my mindset pegged at all actually. Do people abuse the system? Absolutely, at every level this holds true. That doesn't bother me, it's human nature. Not taking responsibility for choices made and blaming others is what bothers me.

I do want teachers that care and are effective. I want them to do it because that's the calling they "chose". To turn around and ***** about the salary they make when choosing that profession is wrong. You seem like a smart guy, I'm sure you did your research ahead of time on what salary teachers make. So, you knowingly went into a career field for your own reasoning that mattered to you which limited your monetary options. You effectively have a max earnings potential. You knew that and you chose that path. So you placed the desire to teach and influence youthful minds above personal wealth. That's fine. I respect the hell out of that. My mother was a teacher.

I personally started working at 12 on the family farm making $4 an hour. Every summer I spent daylight to dark working in the hayfields instead of our fvcking off at the local pool and going to the lake like so many of my friends. I was climbing the ladder in our business and given more and more responsibility as I got older and earned that responsibility. By the time I graduated, I was managing the production aspect of the hay business we had and managing 7 guys to include negotiating salary and payment terms. I was responsible for ensuring success from the time the first blade of grass was cut to the last bail was in a customer's barn. I had my *** chewed in front of my team and my salary docked for my team's failure when it happened (because of choices I made and direction I gave). By the time I graduated high school, I was making $12 an hr and hauling cattle as far away as Iowa and Georgia pulling a 32 foot trailer with 20k lbs of cattle in it.

I decided during those years what type of life I wanted and essentially mapped out what I needed to do to achieve those goals. This included finding a spouse who shared that vision of what our future would look like and had an equally strong work ethic as well a career choice to realize it. These were choices that we made and we accept the sacrifices associated with it.

My stance is all about personal choice and accountability to self for those decisions. You made a choice which limits upward mobility and wealth. I don't look down on that. Hell, I applaud your choice, I truly do. But nevertheless, it was a choice you made.

In summary, yes, I want people to care about their jobs regardless of what they are. Where I have issue is when they bemoan those choices and complain about other people's stations and income, which certainly seems the case in the examples you illustrated in the Brad Pitt and LB from Cinci. They too made their choices that could have just as easily not worked out had they not put the effort forth to achieve their dreams. If you aren't living the dream you have for yourself, go back and reflect on your choices, make the necessary changes as you desire, or don't, but don't bemoan the choices and sacrifices others have made because they are more monetarily prosperous than you are.
Well said. The only issues I have are : I don't bemoan anything about my life. I'm happy, and wouldn't change a thing. Getting a little tired of not working (the reason I'm on here so much---too much play dough and kids games), but I'm more happy than I was making $100k / yr in hospitality prior to grad school.

And I'm not upset about the choices people make, and their benefits that follow. I'm upset at what we hold as worthy of praise in our society. A trucker? He is the backbone of our entire grocery and retail system, they should be coveted. A cop? A soldier? But a $&@#ing linebacker? We need to change our vision of what our system is, and what it needs and doesn't.

And I'm not trying to peg anything. I think I understand your thoughts of personal choice. We have different ideas on policy, that's healthy....the anger is what I don't understand. My heart is good, so is yours....all else can be worked out on policy if that is conceded.

And if money makes you happy....more power to you brother. We are all different in many ways.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Yes, because our Government demanded too much of what they produce ie: revenues (in the form of taxes) and made it too expensive for them to either hire American workers, or operate profitably & freely in this country. So they went someplace else where they could service their customers' needs profitably.

So enter one Mr. Donald J Trump, who is promising them that equation or "unwelcome" sign that was hung out by the US Government which is run primarily by Leftist-Socialist types will be taken down.

Their taxes will be lower, the onerous regulations against them will be reduced, the unfair trade deals that make them uncompetitive will be ended, and they will be encouraged to make their money here hiring Americans who will also have less of what they earn or make for the companies taxed away from them.

What's wrong with that?
So, you're telling me that if taxes were lowered, businesses would have not outsourced at all? I think that is as naive as anything I've ever thought my friend.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
I also think the step towards forcing the healthcare system to reform was a good one, it needs serious changes but it will force that change and debate

Once again, another example of how the Left defeated it's own stated interests with the ACA. Every stated objective of that Law has had the exact opposite effect on Health care in the country. Every single one. So much so now that it can easily be called the "un" affordable care act.

If they (Lefties) had first set out to design a way to destroy the finest most comprehensive health care system in the world, they could not have designed anything better than the ACA.

It is an unmitigated disaster, I believe by design because the Left really wanted a single payer system, they just knew most Americans would never buy into that scheme. So they developed this one to hide their ultimate objective yet ultimately force the private Health care system to collapse of its own weight so they could come in offering a Government run plan as an alternative to the private market based system.

Were there, are there problems with health care delivery systems in this country? Of course!

Was the ACA the solution?

Absolutely not...it was the worst way to address those problems, and instead it created even more.

But I'm glad the Left passed it, because I believe more so than any Russians, or the FBI, or Fake News outlets, that healthcare bill known as 'Obamacare' had more to do with the Dems getting shellacked these past few election cycles than all of Hillary's lies and illegal activity combined.

Thank you Lefties, we needed that (ACA) to get rid of you!
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
So, you're telling me that if taxes were lowered, businesses would have not outsourced at all? I think that is as naive as anything I've ever thought my friend.

I'm saying Boomer that if we made it more profitable for businesses to operate in America, yes more of them would stay here. We chased them away by telling them they could not keep most of what they earned, and in some cases telling them we didn't even want them producing here.

Bad idea. Cause know what Boomer my Man? They took us up on our suggestions pointing to the door for them to leave.

Trump wants them back, and he's not only telling them to come back, he's giving them incentives for doing so and even promising them it's not going to be to their benefit to even think about leaving.

Big difference from the message they were being sent from the Left.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Once again, another example of the Left defeated it's own stated interests with the ACA. Every stated objective of that Law has had the exact opposite effect on Health care in the country. Every single one. So much so now that it can easily be called the "un" affordable care act.

If they (Lefties) had first set out to design a way to destroy the finest most comprehensive health care system in the world, they could not have designed anything better than the ACA.

It is an unmitigated disaster, I believe by design because the Left really wanted a single payer system, they just knew most Americans would never buy into that scheme. So they developed this one to hide their ultimate objective yet ultimately force the private Health care system to collapse of its own weight so they could come in offering a Government run plan as an alternative to the private market based system.

Were there, are there problems with health care delivery systems in this country? Of course!

Was the ACA the solution?

Absolutely not...it was the worst way to address those problems, and instead it created even more.

But I'm glad the Left passed it, because I believe more so than any Russians, or the FBI, or Fake News outlets, that healthcare bill known as 'Obamacare' had more to do with the Dems getting shellacked these past few election cycles than all of Hillary's lies and illegal activity combined.

Thank you Lefties, we needed that (ACA) to get rid of you!
Do you really see your vision of politics as American? Healthcare has been an issue in the election cycle since I was a kid! At least the man DID something and tried to get millions of Americans covered. There are good points in the Act too. Even Obama stated that's it's a "starter house".
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Do you really see your vision of politics as American? Healthcare has been an issue in the election cycle since I was a kid! At least the man DID something and tried to get millions of Americans covered. There are good points in the Act too. Even Obama stated that's it's a "starter house".

His efforts don't match his results Boomer! Everything he promised because of this bill has blown up in his face and is now the very reason to get rid of it. Premium costs, access to Insurance, loss of choice on Physicians, being excluded or priced out of policies for pre-exisiting conditions, having more choices at lower costs with higher quality care...none of it is working as promised.

My Man are we grading his results as promised with this turkey, or his "intentions"? Hell we "tried" to beat Oklahoma this year...at least that certainly was our intention going into that game--but based on our results... our intentions I think came up a little short wouldn't you agree?
 
Last edited:

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
I'm saying Boomer that if we made it more profitable for businesses to operate in America, yes more of them would stay here. We chased them away by telling them they could not keep most of what they earned, and in some cases telling them we didn't even want them producing here.

Bad idea. Cause know what Boomer my Man? They took us up on our suggestions pointing to the door for them to leave.

Trump wants them back, and he's not only telling them to come back, he's giving them incentives for doing so and even promising them it's not going to be to their benefit to even think about leaving.

Big difference from the message they were being sent from the Left.
Your delusional about businesses. Once transportation costs were manageable and foreign governments were stable, businesses were going overseas. That's like saying businesses wouldn't automate either
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
His efforts don't match is results Boomer! Everything he promised because of this bill has blown up in his face and is now the very reason to get rid of it. Premium costs, access to Insurance, loss of choice on Physicians, being excluded or priced out of policies for pre-exisiting conditions, having more choices at lower costs with higher quality care...none of it is working as promised.

My Man are we grading his results as promised with this turkey, or his "intentions"? Hell we "tried" to beat Oklahoma this year...at least that certainly was our intention going into that game--but based on our results... our intentions I think came up a little short wouldn't you agree?
But if we always say we know how to beat Oklahoma, then never put them on the schedule....those aren't results either...talk is worse. At least now Oklahoma is on our schedule, and we got to figure out how to beat them.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,175
3,227
113
Well said. The only issues I have are : I don't bemoan anything about my life. I'm happy, and wouldn't change a thing. Getting a little tired of not working (the reason I'm on here so much---too much play dough and kids games), but I'm more happy than I was making $100k / yr in hospitality prior to grad school.

And I'm not upset about the choices people make, and their benefits that follow. I'm upset at what we hold as worthy of praise in our society. A trucker? He is the backbone of our entire grocery and retail system, they should be coveted. A cop? A soldier? But a $&@#ing linebacker? We need to change our vision of what our system is, and what it needs and doesn't.

And I'm not trying to peg anything. I think I understand your thoughts of personal choice. We have different ideas on policy, that's healthy....the anger is what I don't understand. My heart is good, so is yours....all else can be worked out on policy if that is conceded.

And if money makes you happy....more power to you brother. We are all different in many ways.
I agree society's priorities are screwed up on the emphasis placed towards what and who is important. I can only control myself and my family though. We don't watch E or Entertainment Tonight or any of the other celebrity shows. My kids don't even know who the Kardashians are and I wish I didn't. I don't watch the voice, Dancing with the Stars etc.

Money is not what drives me or makes me happy. It's a tool to achieve what does. I have my kids in very nice private schools, their educational upbringing and educational success makes me happy. Taking them all over the world to see and experience different cultures makes me happy.

My children spending time with their family is important to me. Owning a plane enables me to cover the 5/7/9 hr drives in a lot less time to enable them to spend a weekend with their cousins and grandparents more frequently. Considering my wife and I average about 60 hrs a week working, it was a necessary purchase to buy time and flexibility that enables us to go and see things we ordinarily wouldn't have the time for. Simply owning a plane doesn't make me happy, it too is a tool and only achieved with increased money.

My boat, well, that one is for me. It's waste of money but I do love to fish in the bay and compete in tournaments. That's all hobby related for my own enjoyment. I'll give you that one is excessive though. Hahhaha

Money isn't the driver, it's the enabler. If all I wanted was money, I'd just play the lottery.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
QE programs designed to lower long term bond rates and supply liquidity. Zero interest rates designed to prop up borrowing and create jobs.

Which also ironically ballooned our debt and left us with a much more massive hole to climb out of if we can get economic growth above the paltry 1-to-1.5% in real GDP we've had under Odumba.
 
Last edited:

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
First, I think the bailout was handled in a very taxpayer friendly manner, I credit him with structuring the bailout in a way that helped stop the bleeding and provided incentive for the government. The 2009 $780+ stimulus package, and the 2010 tax cuts. I also think the step towards forcing the healthcare system to reform was a good one, it needs serious changes but it will force that change and debate. I also think regulation has been a positive step as well, some are excessive and must be reformed but it will force change and debate.

As even the liberal economist Paul Krugman said the Obama stimulus did not work. Even Obama admitted that the shovel ready jobs he anticipated, we're not really shovel ready. Much of the stimulus went to states which allowed them to pay down some of their debt and pay their union members. The unions benefited greatly from the stimulus package. Obama told Americans that if the stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. We went well above 10%.

Obama did not lower taxes, he raised taxes. You never raise taxes in the midst of an economic downturn. And his regulations in many cases overwhelmed businesses and hurt job creation. Even Chuck Schumer the liberal Democrat from New York said that the Dodd Frank regulations went too far.

And Obama's decision to destroy fossil fuel jobs while trying to create green energy jobs was a failure. Many green energy companies went bankrupt costing US taxpayers into the billions of dollars.

Lastly, Obamacare has been a disaster. If forced companies to create part time rather than full-time jobs. Cost of medical insurance went up rather than down. Deductibles went through the roof and of course the famous lies about keeping your doctor and keeping your plan were simply that lies.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,175
3,227
113
Do you really see your vision of politics as American? Healthcare has been an issue in the election cycle since I was a kid! At least the man DID something and tried to get millions of Americans covered. There are good points in the Act too. Even Obama stated that's it's a "starter house".
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He lost the support of the right because it was seen what a calamity this was and all of the concerns the right raised have come to fruition. Except the the death panels. Hahaha

I still believe only 1 of 2 things here.

1) and most likely, he was determined to ram "something" through and gambled he had the congressional majority to massage it into something useful.

2) this was the first step towards single payer gov't run healthcare. Effectively designing something to fail the industry.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
At least now Oklahoma is on our schedule, and we got to figure out how to beat them.

(LOL) really Boomer?

I'd prefer actually beating those bastards than "talking" about it, or having good "intentions" by putting them on our schedule!

As far as the ACA, when we finally do repeal it, once we put patients and health care providers in charge of delivery systems and remove Government or other big 3rd party payers who only inflate the actual costs of delivering care...choosing instead through market competition and consumers deciding what to buy and at what price...watch health care costs come down, quality go up, and more people being able to have exactly what they need.

If we can figure out how to buy bread or other foods at low cost in free markets, why not health care?
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
As even the liberal economist Paul Krugman said the Obama stimulus did not work. Even Obama admitted that the shovel ready jobs he anticipated, we're not really shovel ready. Much of the stimulus went to states which allowed them to pay down some of their debt and pay their union members. The unions benefited greatly from the stimulus package. Obama told Americans that if the stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8%. We went well above 10%.

Obama did not lower taxes, he raised taxes. You never raise taxes in the midst of an economic downturn. And his regulations in many cases overwhelmed businesses and hurt job creation. Even Chuck Schumer the liberal Democrat from New York said that the Dodd Frank regulations went too far.

And Obama's decision to destroy fossil fuel jobs while trying to create green energy jobs was a failure. Many green energy companies went bankrupt costing US taxpayers into the billions of dollars.

Lastly, Obamacare has been a disaster. If forced companies to create part time rather than full-time jobs. Cost of medical insurance went up rather than down. Deductibles went through the roof and of course the famous lies about keeping your doctor and keeping your plan were simply that lies.

All 100% correct, and still more proof of the original point in this thread. The Left always is working against its own stated objectives in whatever policy they promote or pursue. Their results are almost always opposite of their intentions. They argue against their own stated interests, objectives or desires. Left vs Left.

WVPATX has just illustrated more of it in this post.
 
Last edited:

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,175
3,227
113
Your delusional about businesses. Once transportation costs were manageable and foreign governments were stable, businesses were going overseas. That's like saying businesses wouldn't automate either
And then they were leaving because of the increased labor costs demanded at the hands of the unions. The labor unions killed their own jobs. Again, a company is not in business for the employees benefit. This notion is one of the most absurd arguments from the left.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He lost the support of the right because it was seen what a calamity this was and all of the concerns the right raised have come to fruition. Except the the death panels. Hahaha

I still believe only 1 of 2 things here.

1) and most likely, he was determined to ram "something" through and gambled he had the congressional majority to massage it into something useful.

2) this was the first step towards single payer gov't run healthcare. Effectively designing something to fail the industry.

Both true. Double bonus points DvlDog4WVU!
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Another example of the Left (in this case Unions) working against their own interest.
And I thought I had an idealistic vision of a glorious utopia paradise. Business? Big business should be our leader. Guess we were all alright back at the turn of the century?
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
I agree society's priorities are screwed up on the emphasis placed towards what and who is important. I can only control myself and my family though. We don't watch E or Entertainment Tonight or any of the other celebrity shows. My kids don't even know who the Kardashians are and I wish I didn't. I don't watch the voice, Dancing with the Stars etc.

Money is not what drives me or makes me happy. It's a tool to achieve what does. I have my kids in very nice private schools, their educational upbringing and educational success makes me happy. Taking them all over the world to see and experience different cultures makes me happy.

My children spending time with their family is important to me. Owning a plane enables me to cover the 5/7/9 hr drives in a lot less time to enable them to spend a weekend with their cousins and grandparents more frequently. Considering my wife and I average about 60 hrs a week working, it was a necessary purchase to buy time and flexibility that enables us to go and see things we ordinarily wouldn't have the time for. Simply owning a plane doesn't make me happy, it too is a tool and only achieved with increased money.

My boat, well, that one is for me. It's waste of money but I do love to fish in the bay and compete in tournaments. That's all hobby related for my own enjoyment. I'll give you that one is excessive though. Hahhaha

Money isn't the driver, it's the enabler. If all I wanted was money, I'd just play the lottery.


You do realize that many on the Left think you are "selfish" "greedy" "have too much" and you can afford to "pay your fair share" beyond that which you are already paying because of your obvious wealth at the expense of the poor and middle class?

Shame on you DvlDog4WVU! Why don't you feel more guilty?
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
And I thought I had an idealistic vision of a glorious utopia paradise. Business? Big business should be our leader. Guess we were all alright back at the turn of the century?

Boomer can a poor person hire you?
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,175
3,227
113
Employers don't have to uber wealthy either
Employees don't have to work for that company either. They can "choose" to go elsewhere. As I've told several of my problem children who do nothing but *****, no one is forcing them to stay there. They are free to leave at any time.
 

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,208
5,697
113
Employers don't have to uber wealthy either

My point is though Boomer a person with no money can't help another one without any. What amazes me about the Left is how they seriously attempt to argue from both sides of this equation supposedly in favor of both sides.

So OK, if you have too much wealth you should pay half or more of it in taxes to help out people who don't have as much. Yet, if you somehow manage to make more trying to better yourself, you're being 'greedy' or 'selfish' because you have so much more that you don't really need while so many more have nothing...ostensibly at your expense for being "greedy".

So you say employers don't have to be 'uber' wealthy? Well then how can they help (hire) anyone or even help anymore folks who need help or have no money? The Left wants (needs) wealthy people in order to have something to offer to those who lack resources, yet they tell those same people who are able to make or earn more, that they shouldn't desire to pursue it because then they'd have too much when someone else could use it instead?o_O
 
Last edited: