that's why they hate free enterprise so much

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/

rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

And now, RongWingTom and Mr. Pissnut are gone...

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/

rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

And yet, we now see this sophomoric claptrap about "income inequality" and "fairness" as if, AGAIN, what one person earns has any effect, other than potentially positive, on what another individual can earn. Symbolism over substance, More empty rhetoric about Hopey Changey, more correctly All Hype and Loose Change.

You really want to help the "poor" in this country and around the world? Remove the barriers to free enterprise and job creation. Allow the entrepreneurs and businesses to put their capital to work and perhaps even encourage that good behavior.
Discourage the bad behavior such as extending false sense of security measures like endless unemployment benefits, barriers to entry and advancement such as the laughable minimum wage and for goodness sake, get this disastrous job destroyer known as zerOcare out of our effing lives!

Business is in the business of doing business, presumably making money for their efforts and putting people to work- Hey! why don't we try that for a change we can believe in?

I could easily live off of $7.25 an hour. Scratch that, I could live off of $5.15 an hour if I had to. I could work part time at $8.90 an hour and still afford a smart phone and internet. People complain needing $15 an hour or whatever; why don't they try living somewhere with a lower cost of living? Or they could forgo a smart phone data plan and use the extra $40 a month to help pay for insurance?

Zero's idea of economic policy and jobs policy is to "think positive thoughts." So no matter how many times he witnesses the economy crashing and burning he is not going to do anything different. Zero does not understand limits, as long as his financial interests are taken care of, as long as he can spend other people's money, on vacation or whatever, as long as he can continue to print money, he does not care. It is disgusting to see a highly educated person act in such a foolish manner.

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/

rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:

The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.

A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.

If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.

As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.

The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/

rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:

The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.

A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.

If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.

As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.

The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

(01-07-2014 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/
rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:
The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.
A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.
If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.
As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.
The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

And I agree likewise. But to me this prompts an obvious question. Why don't/can't republicans make this an issue? Seems to me that it would be a useful and productive one for them, much better than abortion or gay rights. Is it really evil party versus stupid party?

Remove the viable host, and the parasites do not thrive. Quit feeding the stray cat., and it learns to not depend on others and develops its hunting skills. What you subsidize, expands. What you shun, finds another way.

(01-06-2014 06:47 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I could easily live off of $7.25 an hour. Scratch that, I could live off of $5.15 an hour if I had to. I could work part time at $8.90 an hour and still afford a smart phone and internet. People complain needing $15 an hour or whatever; why don't they try living somewhere with a lower cost of living? Or they could forgo a smart phone data plan and use the extra $40 a month to help pay for insurance?

Um. Where would you like people who don't have a car to move(ie. many in the big cities like Chicago or NY)? I am sure that there are many places in Mississippi or Alabama(and just to even things out a bit-Gary or E. St Louis) that are cheaper and it easier to afford but how do you get them there? Do they really want to go there(family in place you would have them move from-family values, ya know). I am sure it can be done at 5.15/hour. You would just need a house and a bunch of people living in it. Share utilities and cable/internet and share food(maybe each one in the house going to a food pantry to supplement their food). Then each getting a cell phone of their choice based on their needs. I still maintain that the $15 is mostly just a negotiating tool(when you negotiate, you start high and compromise lower). Even I don't think that is reasonable for a starting wage. I would also bet it was done for shock value(to get on the news). A single person making about $10/hour can have housing(studio/one bed), transportation(car/public transport) and food in many areas of the country outside maybe NY City, Hawaii and Alaska possibly SF.

Robs, you ever mowed lawns? washed dishes or dug a ditch?

why on earth would you advocate that for someone trying to raise a family? Those are child's jobs. Just like Mcdonalds or other fast food, bagging groceries, stocking shelves or being a bellhop. You expect that to now be the new normal for how the American Family is raised and perceived?

Set your goals as low as you can stomach... you'll never be disappointed!

(01-07-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/
rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:
The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.
A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.
If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.
As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.
The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

And I agree likewise. But to me this prompts an obvious question. Why don't/can't republicans make this an issue? Seems to me that it would be a useful and productive one for them, much better than abortion or gay rights. Is it really evil party versus stupid party?

You answered your own question Owl. They lack any sense of vision in regard to issues that would actually help them with votes that they now can not garner. The social issues are more important to them. The fear that the religious right might get upset is overwhelming.

(01-08-2014 01:25 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 06:47 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  I could easily live off of $7.25 an hour. Scratch that, I could live off of $5.15 an hour if I had to. I could work part time at $8.90 an hour and still afford a smart phone and internet. People complain needing $15 an hour or whatever; why don't they try living somewhere with a lower cost of living? Or they could forgo a smart phone data plan and use the extra $40 a month to help pay for insurance?

Um. Where would you like people who don't have a car to move(ie. many in the big cities like Chicago or NY)? I am sure that there are many places in Mississippi or Alabama(and just to even things out a bit-Gary or E. St Louis) that are cheaper and it easier to afford but how do you get them there? Do they really want to go there(family in place you would have them move from-family values, ya know). I am sure it can be done at 5.15/hour. You would just need a house and a bunch of people living in it. Share utilities and cable/internet and share food(maybe each one in the house going to a food pantry to supplement their food). Then each getting a cell phone of their choice based on their needs. I still maintain that the $15 is mostly just a negotiating tool(when you negotiate, you start high and compromise lower). Even I don't think that is reasonable for a starting wage. I would also bet it was done for shock value(to get on the news). A single person making about $10/hour can have housing(studio/one bed), transportation(car/public transport) and food in many areas of the country outside maybe NY City, Hawaii and Alaska possibly SF.

One of our problems is lack of willingness to go where the jobs are. People are just lazy. There are jobs...you just have to go where they are. I just had a friend that was out of work for over a year move to Denver. He found a good gig within 3 weeks of landing.

(01-08-2014 06:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/
rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:
The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.
A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.
If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.
As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.
The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

And I agree likewise. But to me this prompts an obvious question. Why don't/can't republicans make this an issue? Seems to me that it would be a useful and productive one for them, much better than abortion or gay rights. Is it really evil party versus stupid party?

You answered your own question Owl. They lack any sense of vision in regard to issues that would actually help them with votes that they now can not garner. The social issues are more important to them. The fear that the religious right might get upset is overwhelming.

That's what I'm afraid of.

(01-08-2014 06:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-06-2014 01:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  that's why they hate free enterprise so much
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/12/chart-o...ard-about/
rwt and his love for OWS, peanut and his adoration of fascism, imbizzle and the rest who keep championing the destruction of free markets...they despise the poor.

My lunchtime thought on this:
The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.
A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.
If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.
As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.
The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

And I agree likewise. But to me this prompts an obvious question. Why don't/can't republicans make this an issue? Seems to me that it would be a useful and productive one for them, much better than abortion or gay rights. Is it really evil party versus stupid party?

You answered your own question Owl. They lack any sense of vision in regard to issues that would actually help them with votes that they now can not garner. The social issues are more important to them. The fear that the religious right might get upset is overwhelming.

But you both are ignoring the facts that social conservatives do well. It is a winning platform when handled correctly. To be blunt, Owl 69 set up a false dichotomy.

I'd answer Owl 69's question by saying that the GOP has powerbrokers who have no vested interest in seeing young people pursue entrepreneurship. There are too many who are rooted in big business that competes largely on rent seeking other approaches that stifle innovation.

(01-08-2014 08:06 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But you both are ignoring the facts that social conservatives do well. It is a winning platform when handled correctly. To be blunt, Owl 69 set up a false dichotomy.
I'd answer Owl 69's question by saying that the GOP has powerbrokers who have no vested interest in seeing young people pursue entrepreneurship. There are too many who are rooted in big business that competes largely on rent seeking other approaches that stifle innovation.

When's the last time a social conservative carried New York? Or California?

Social conservatives do well in some areas, not in others. So run social conservatives where social conservatives can win. But don't punt half the electorate by leading with issues that can't win in half the country.

(01-08-2014 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:06 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But you both are ignoring the facts that social conservatives do well. It is a winning platform when handled correctly. To be blunt, Owl 69 set up a false dichotomy.
I'd answer Owl 69's question by saying that the GOP has powerbrokers who have no vested interest in seeing young people pursue entrepreneurship. There are too many who are rooted in big business that competes largely on rent seeking other approaches that stifle innovation.

When's the last time a social conservative carried New York? Or California?

Social conservatives do well in some areas, not in others. So run social conservatives where social conservatives can win. But don't punt half the electorate by leading with issues that can't win in half the country.

Agreed. The "purity" litmus tests are getting a little tiresome. I have my own personal beliefs and value system, whatever one would prefer to call it, others have theirs. So long as theirs does not necessarily infringe on mine I frankly don't give a rip what they do in their private lives. Making public policy or public posturing over what will be private issues 90% of the time really turns off a lot of otherwise "normal " folks.

Time to give it a rest. Concentrate on Government, governing. As in making the trains run on time, not social engineering. That most certainly extends to BOTH sides of the aisle.

(01-08-2014 09:53 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:06 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But you both are ignoring the facts that social conservatives do well. It is a winning platform when handled correctly. To be blunt, Owl 69 set up a false dichotomy.
I'd answer Owl 69's question by saying that the GOP has powerbrokers who have no vested interest in seeing young people pursue entrepreneurship. There are too many who are rooted in big business that competes largely on rent seeking other approaches that stifle innovation.

When's the last time a social conservative carried New York? Or California?

Social conservatives do well in some areas, not in others. So run social conservatives where social conservatives can win. But don't punt half the electorate by leading with issues that can't win in half the country.

Agreed. The "purity" litmus tests are getting a little tiresome. I have my own personal beliefs and value system, whatever one would prefer to call it, others have theirs. So long as theirs does not necessarily infringe on mine I frankly don't give a rip what they do in their private lives. Making public policy or public posturing over what will be private issues 90% of the time really turns off a lot of otherwise "normal " folks.

Time to give it a rest. Concentrate on Government, governing. As in making the trains run on time, not social engineering. That most certainly extends to BOTH sides of the aisle.

However, obviously Republicans are DENSE because almost universally they allow the Democrat they are running against to "set the narrative" which always goes back to the social areas of abortion, gay marriage, womens rights, etc, etc, etc. Why do the Democrats do this - because it's a winning strategy to stay away from what is REALLY important to this country as their ideas suck. That, and the media aids the Dems. in forcing the narrative to be social issues driven.............all while we fiscally drive off a cliff.

(01-08-2014 08:06 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 06:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 01:10 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:50 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  My lunchtime thought on this:
The Democratic machine in this country does a good job of creating their own voter base.
A new generation of small-potatoes entrepreneurs could become less interested in government-side guarantees and more interested in avenues for future growth. The Democratic machine does not like seeing our US youth (18-36) becoming fiscally empowered - as it would jeopardize their future voting base. Therefore, they have a few talking heads set up in this country to "persuade" people OF ALL POLITICAL LEANINGS that there is a dire need for extended government assistance - and that the Democratic machine is what can provide them with such.
If you empower people to even small-potatoes status, it will become apparent to them that you don't need ALL of these safety nets and encumbrances to economic development - but rather just a few temporary ones to keep people on their feet.
As long as the Democratic machine continues to pull the majority of the youth into the "dependent mentality", then there will be further continuation and expansion of policies that prevent entrepreneurial growth. The truth of the matter is that neither the poor nor the young actually need the Democratic machine - as there are other ways to help people that DON'T follow their mantra.
The Democratic machine creates a "false need" for their existence by getting in the way of entrepreneurship and promoting dependency. Free enterprise fricks with their voter constituency.

I'd have to agree w/ you on this 100%

And I agree likewise. But to me this prompts an obvious question. Why don't/can't republicans make this an issue? Seems to me that it would be a useful and productive one for them, much better than abortion or gay rights. Is it really evil party versus stupid party?

You answered your own question Owl. They lack any sense of vision in regard to issues that would actually help them with votes that they now can not garner. The social issues are more important to them. The fear that the religious right might get upset is overwhelming.

But you both are ignoring the facts that social conservatives do well. It is a winning platform when handled correctly. To be blunt, Owl 69 set up a false dichotomy.

I'd answer Owl 69's question by saying that the GOP has powerbrokers who have no vested interest in seeing young people pursue entrepreneurship. There are too many who are rooted in big business that competes largely on rent seeking other approaches that stifle innovation.

Are social conservatives winning independent and blue dog democrat votes? We have to concede that these are the two demographics that win and lose the elections. Nearly a 1/3 of the electorate considers itself independent and many of them are fiscal conservatives that get turned off by the incessant bible thumping. Don't ignore the religious right...just tone it down a shade.

We've lost the war on poverty.

"LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10...on_LEADTop