FlaSoxxJim Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 03:25 PM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 (edited) Tom the Dancing Bug has some great cartoons. His "Lucky Ducky" series is probably the best. Edited September 13, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 13, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) Tom the Dancing Bug has some great cartoons. His "Lucky Ducky" series is probably the best. Well, that wasn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Republicans finally admit that government spending actually can create jobs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) Republicans finally admit that government spending actually can create jobs: Of course it can. The issue, however, as with most government spending, is when one time money is used to create jobs, they are inevitability temporary jobs. Government investment into construction, however, can and will create jobs. The problem is, most of these are union jobs...which you can see on display right now if you drive down i55 to Central Ave. I pass by that area on my way to/from work, 3 days a week, and it's pretty common to see a few clusters of workers, and in each cluster, 2 are working and 3 are watching them work. If that's the kind of jobs we are creating, do we really need to create more of that kind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Of course it can. The issue, however, as with most government spending, is when one time money is used to create jobs, they are inevitability temporary jobs. Government investment into construction, however, can and will create jobs. The problem is, most of these are union jobs...which you can see on display right now if you drive down i55 to Central Ave. I pass by that area on my way to/from work, 3 days a week, and it's pretty common to see a few clusters of workers, and in each cluster, 2 are working and 3 are watching them work. If that's the kind of jobs we are creating, do we really need to create more of that kind? My question back in reply is...Do we have the type of infrastructure we need to run a 21st century economy? If we do, then no, we don't need those kind of jobs. If, OTOH, we have most of this nations sewers being 100 years old, dams that date back to the depression, rail lines that can't handle high speed transit, a power grid that can't handle distributed generation, schools in downtown Chicago that aren't air conditioned, and roads and bridges dating back to the 50's and earlier that are uniformly in disrepair...then every time you fix or update one of those, you're creating capacity that businesses can take advantage of, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of human capabilities. Just because the construction job ends doesn't mean that the economic benefits go away if there is useful work to be done. We're something like $2 trillion behind on standard upkeep right now, let alone developing new capabilities like high-speed-rail. The Stimulus put a whopping $35 billion into that $2 trillion hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Plus you're getting money back into the economy and giving people dignified work instead of the tragic waste of human potential we've been mired in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 08:33 AM) My question back in reply is...Do we have the type of infrastructure we need to run a 21st century economy? If we do, then no, we don't need those kind of jobs. If, OTOH, we have most of this nations sewers being 100 years old, dams that date back to the depression, rail lines that can't handle high speed transit, a power grid that can't handle distributed generation, schools in downtown Chicago that aren't air conditioned, and roads and bridges dating back to the 50's and earlier that are uniformly in disrepair...then every time you fix or update one of those, you're creating capacity that businesses can take advantage of, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of human capabilities. My point is I don't mind hiring additional workers when they're necessary. But when we have 2 of every 5 that don't do much work because of awesome union labor contracts, we don't need to hire more...we just need to get those others that do nothing to start doing something first...THEN hire more when necessary. We need to waste less across the board, and that includes wasting public labor. Take a look at McCormick place, a now near convention less abandoned hangar, almost 100% due to union contracts. Their ridiculous rules have made conventions go elsewhere. Edit: Hell, I deal with insane union rules at work -- and I'm not part of a union. But if, for some reason, my computer is unplugged...I'm supposed to call one of the electricians to come up and plug it back in for me...seriously. When you see and deal with rules like these, it's hard to be sympathetic to them...especially when you witness, on a daily basis, how they work...or don't work much at all. Edited September 14, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 My experience with non-union job sites in the south tells me it's not a union thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 14, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) My experience with non-union job sites in the south tells me it's not a union thing. Ironic that you posted in another thread an article that implied that unions were the reason that Northern Schools were better than Southern Schools. I guess its not that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 15, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) Ironic that you posted in another thread an article that implied that unions were the reason that Northern Schools were better than Southern Schools. I guess its not that simple. That article did no such thing. It claimed that there was no causal evidence that unions are the problem, not that they are the solution. edit: I'm not sure what you thought was ironic, anyway. I was saying that workers milling about a job site is a job site thing, not a union thing. Edited September 15, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Couldn't be more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Mother Jones got their hands on a Romney rich-person fundraiser video. Nothing truly awful in it, but you might be able to turn some of this into a "cling to their guns" (from 08) level annoyance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) Mother Jones got their hands on a Romney rich-person fundraiser video. Nothing truly awful in it, but you might be able to turn some of this into a "cling to their guns" (from 08) level annoyance. Do they really believe that the 47-49% of Americans who pay no net FIT are hardcore Obama/Democrat voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) Do they really believe that the 47-49% of Americans who pay no net FIT are hardcore Obama/Democrat voters? And there's nothing that can be done to get them to take personal responsibility for their lives. Lazy bums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) He also didn't inherit anything! Except a wealthy upbringing full of connections and a bunch of money that paid for his multiple Harvard degrees. I wonder if he really does buy his own "bootstraps" bulls*** and really can't fathom why everyone couldn't make as much money as he did if they just applied themselves. Edited September 17, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Isn't a significant portion of the non-FIT payers made up of the elderly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Obama will win by a landslide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 05:59 PM) Obama will win by a landslide No. He's correct about one thing. Putting an "R" after a guy's name in the Presidential race will guarantee him 47% unless he turns out to be Jerry Sandusky. Same thing for a D. Unless you count 2008 as a "landslide", which I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 05:32 PM) Isn't a significant portion of the non-FIT payers made up of the elderly? Don't you pay FIT on Social Security income? I thought that was one of the Greenspan reforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No. He's correct about one thing. Putting an "R" after a guy's name in the Presidential race will guarantee him 47% unless he turns out to be Jerry Sandusky. Same thing for a D. Unless you count 2008 as a "landslide", which I don't. Obama will win the popular vote something like 52-47, which isn't a landslide, but the electoral count will be in the range of 304-234, which is substantial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOXOBAMA Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 No. He's correct about one thing. Putting an "R" after a guy's name in the Presidential race will guarantee him 47% unless he turns out to be Jerry Sandusky. Same thing for a D. Unless you count 2008 as a "landslide", which I don't. I believe Obama will have about 340 electoral votes, that's why I see this as a landslide. The popular vote don't mean a damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I believe Obama will have about 340 electoral votes, that's why I see this as a landslide. The popular vote don't mean a damn thing. Obama will win, but I'd definitely bet the under on 340. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 17, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) He also didn't inherit anything! Except a wealthy upbringing full of connections and a bunch of money that paid for his multiple Harvard degrees. I wonder if he really does buy his own "bootstraps" bulls*** and really can't fathom why everyone couldn't make as much money as he did if they just applied themselves. OF course, he could be playing to his audience there just as much as anywhere else. The problem of course is that his audience/donors/supporters...really believe that...which is why he's saying this to that audience. The minorities have it so easy, they all had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get into Harvard, they didn't have the advantages that those "lucky-duckies" who don't have to pay income tax get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts