ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

The President Obama appreciation thread

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Mar. 25 2013, 5:57 pm

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:34 pm

>I get that people don't like unfairness or unevenness or disparity, winners and losers.
I don't understand the "everyone gets a trophy" and that nobody should win/lose ideology.

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 390

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 22 2013, 3:44 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 19 2013, 11:34 am

>

>

>Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?

>

It is both ridiculous and short-sighted.

The minimum wage should follow inflation, placing the minimum wage at (if I'm not mistaken) an average of about $10.50 per hour.

The minimum wage should directly reflect the cost of living. As such, it seems to me that, rather than raising the minimum wage, we should look into reducing the cost of living.


Elizabeth Warren was quoting a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

"Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 - a rate well above the average production worker wage."

In other words, the "job creators" and "wealth producers" are hoarding all the profits and every argument against raising the minimum wage is complete and utter bullsh!t.

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Mar. 27 2013, 7:06 pm

Right, companies hoard their profits and do nothing with them...


Actually, the arguement belies any change in the market, in supply and demand, economy upturns and downturns and the like. It assumes a constant state of increase, which is not real economics.


In addition, I would not rely on the government to make it right.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 11:00 am

Quote: fireproof78 @ Mar. 27 2013, 7:06 pm

>

>Right, companies hoard their profits and do nothing with them...

>Actually, the arguement belies any change in the market, in supply and demand, economy upturns and downturns and the like. It assumes a constant state of increase, which is not real economics.

>In addition, I would not rely on the government to make it right.

>
The socialists just don't understand basic economics and the value of money or cycles.  Someone cannot become "rich" by just hoarding what they've got.  People earn wealth by using their money to create products/services to earn even more money.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Mar. 28 2013, 8:06 pm

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 29 2013, 3:10 am

"Here's the thing, I have offered proof of my own, definitions of my own and research of my own. Every source that I have researched has boiled socialism down to central planning and state control.I have read articles, books and other sources, including Forbes calling Obama's policies "Marxist." Ok, not socialist, so you may have a point there


Please, if you don't like it or disagree with it, the provide examples to the contrary."


That's one problem with socialism... There are so many different definitions (as well as definitions within definitions), that it's difficult to pinpoint what type is which. I had hoped that my arguments would have given you basis for my definition.


"In addition, I am not for Romney's health care plan, Obama's plan or any other government health care plan as they are dysfunctional."


I wouldn't say "dysfunctional," so much as "not properly thought through."


"And yes, Obamacare will increase cost.The video link shows that between taxes, new regulations and government bureaucracy, costs will go up."


Ah, okay. We looked at "increasing costs" as something different. When you said that, you were thinking through taxes/social programs, whereas I was looking at as the potential results of private medical companies.


"Presidents go to war. It is up to Congress to allow it to continue."


No, it's up to Congress to allow it to happen in the first place; Article I, Section 8, Clause 11


"So, no, that isn't expansionist because it doesn't add power to the federal government."


So, yes, it is expansionist since it was done without the legal consent of the Congress.


"Also, we do not have a completely free market, nor do I believe in completely laissez faire economy. Some regulations are necessary, but not always strict government controls. As with many things in life, a balance must be achieved. The government doesn't doesn't always provide balance, as there is no competition to ensure government practices become better or more suited to the needs of its populations."


I believe that we are in agreement here. While I do believe in restrictions, I believe in fair (as opposed to strict) restrictions.


"I get that people don't like unfairness or unevenness or disparity, winners and losers. I understand that. I don't like the fact that people have no morals and do things that hurt other people."


That's the problem with modern corporatism. The "no morals" and "hurting other people" parts, that is.


"Unfortunately, I cannot legislate them to behave."


I see a difference between "behaving" and "following the rules."


"I cannot force fairness, whatever that means,"


Fairness is easiest to define at the lowest level; someone who works full time at the minimum wage should be able to provide for him or herself. Nothing more.


The further up the ladder they go, the harder it is to determine "fair."


"nor does removing capital or other private property eliminate inequality."


That us why I support a fair tax system just as much as I support a fair wage system.


"In fact, the Founding Fathers warned that to take one person's property and give it to another fosters greed, laziness and envy, not freedom."


They also warned about the slavery instituted by corporatism. Yet, in both cases, look at where we are. That is why we need to seek, fight for, and institute balance.


It's not an easy process, but it's also not impossible.


"I worry that the desire to create a more "fair" country will create those things and take away freedoms."


Probably because the focus on both of the large sides is what constitutes "fair."


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Mar. 29 2013, 3:13 am

Quote: darmokattanagra @ Mar. 27 2013, 11:11 am

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Mar. 22 2013, 3:44 am

Quote: Sehlat123 @ Mar. 19 2013, 11:34 am

>

>

>

>Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?

>

It is both ridiculous and short-sighted.

The minimum wage should follow inflation, placing the minimum wage at (if I'm not mistaken) an average of about $10.50 per hour.

The minimum wage should directly reflect the cost of living. As such, it seems to me that, rather than raising the minimum wage, we should look into reducing the cost of living.

Elizabeth Warren was quoting a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

"Between the end of World War II and 1968, the minimum wage tracked average productivity growth fairly closely. Since 1968, however, productivity growth has far outpaced the minimum wage. If the minimum wage had continued to move with average productivity after 1968, it would have reached $21.72 per hour in 2012 - a rate well above the average production worker wage."

In other words, the "job creators" and "wealth producers" are hoarding all the profits and every argument against raising the minimum wage is complete and utter bullsh!t.


I know what Warren was quoting. The problem with that is that productivity is not directly linked to wages.


Productivity, in the past half (or even full) century is linked to the abilities of the computer and/or automated machines that the workers operate, not the workers themselves.


Minimum wage, therefore, is linked directly to one thing, and one thing only; the livable wage. In other words, every argument based on "productivity" is complete and utter bullshit.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Apr. 01 2013, 9:59 am

Anyone want a good laugh?


 


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/29/presidential-proclamation-national-financial-capability-month-2013


 


 


They really should have posted it today....


 


 


fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Apr. 02 2013, 11:01 am

@Invader:


I appreciate your response and giving me more of an idea of where you are coming from.


One question I have regarding your post is how do you institute balance?


And I would ask anyone to offer an opinion. How do we balance it in a way that doesn't affect freedom or our Constitution (since this is a USA based question)?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Apr. 05 2013, 10:57 am

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Apr. 05 2013, 10:59 am

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

He'sDeadJim6400

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 113

Report this Apr. 09 2013, 12:19 pm

On this Obama Appreciation Thread, I'd just like to say Congrats to an outstanding President ! yay for the growing economy, YAY ! for more jobs ! and thank you Obama for tougher gun laws, we can now be proud of America ! 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Apr. 09 2013, 2:19 pm

Quote: He'sDeadJim6400 @ Apr. 09 2013, 12:19 pm

>

>On this Obama Appreciation Thread, I'd just like to say Congrats to an outstanding President ! yay for the growing economy, YAY ! for more jobs ! and thank you Obama for tougher gun laws, we can now be proud of America ! 

>
You must be Michelle Obama to believe all that.


 


Number of people in the work force continues to go down (according to BLS)...  Real inflation continues to rise...  More people on entitlement programs... Federal debt continues to rise... Massive new regulations... Even more taxation...  Attacking the Constitution....   Yea... so much to be proud of.

Kornula

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1676

Report this Apr. 09 2013, 6:57 pm

[quote]


[quote]


On this Obama Appreciation Thread, I'd just like to say Congrats to an outstanding President ! yay for the growing economy, YAY ! for more jobs ! and thank you Obama for tougher gun laws, we can now be proud of America ! 


[/quote]You must be Michelle Obama to believe all that.


 


Number of people in the work force continues to go down (according to BLS)...  Real inflation continues to rise...  More people on entitlement programs... Federal debt continues to rise... Massive new regulations... Even more taxation...  Attacking the Constitution....   Yea... so much to be proud of.


[/quote]


 


Congratulations, you just described the past 5 presidendcies.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46339

Report this Apr. 09 2013, 7:31 pm

Quote: Kornula @ Apr. 09 2013, 6:57 pm

>Congratulations, you just described the past 5 presidendcies.
To some degree, and in some parts, absolutely.  At least some knew to lower taxes, which increased revenues.  Of the last 5, one believed in the Constitution (although not always followed it.)  And one was able to cut some entitlement spending in one area...


 


And for those of us that study history, we can go back even further.

Post Reply

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9TREK, FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum