Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey

Page 6 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

18 Oct 2012, 5:36 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
You know, it's not even really about having a heart.... I mean even if we ignore all the moral and ethical reasons to help poor folks, smart economics demand that we help the poor.

Business, currently high on the economic crack of Asian near-slave labor, has forgotten that a consumer driven economy won't work if consumers don't have the money to buy things.

Right now we have record corporate profits, huge income disparity between the rich and poor and puny growth. The "job creators" need to face facts--unless consumers get some money to consume the system will fail.

There are two ways to get money to consumers. Give them good, decent paying jobs so they can spend more. This will mean less profits for business. Or continue to pay low wages and cut benefits and let government subsidies to the working poor make up the difference and prop up consumption. This is what we've done for decades now. This is what has caused the deficit to explode. This is an option we can no longer exercise unless we raise more revenue with higher taxes. Since the poor don't have any money, being poor, the rich will have to foot the bill....

One way or another, we need to get money back into the hands of consumers.

I'll say it again:

The two most efficient ways to do this are higher wages or increased government subsidies to the poor. Since deficit spending is rapidly becoming no longer an option, it means business/the rich are going to have to accept lower profits or higher taxes to get the economy growing again. That's the bottom line.

One way or another, all that money that's pooled at the top has to get flushed back into the economy or we're doomed.

Right now, the real problem is, the rich are too damn rich, and too damn greedy, and too damn dumb to reinvest in the markets (and consumers) that give them their money.

The rich don't need a heart transplant--they need a brain transplant.


It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Oct 2012, 6:24 pm

marshall wrote:
It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


The economy is a train wreck due to Government forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The economy isn't improving due to an explosion of new regulations and threatened tax hikes.

The poor should be helped, but the problem is that things like welfare doesn't help the poor, it just makes them dependent on Government handouts.

Despite what people have been brainwashed into believing, Conservatives actually do care about the poor. However, Conservatives have reached the conclusion that government welfare programs actually hurt people in poverty by making them dependent on government. Before people start saying that is ridiculous or something of that nature, Conservatives actually can make a very strong case to back up their conclusion.

Local charities often have more face-to-face interactions with people they are trying to help, Government just sends you a check in the mail. I would say local charities are better in the fact that you have volunteers donating their time and money to help people in poverty and work to help them get themselves out of poverty. Government welfare just gets people to start feeling entitled to get those monthly checks, instead of trying to get out of poverty on their own.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

18 Oct 2012, 6:54 pm

marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

18 Oct 2012, 7:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn

The problem is in a capitalist economy people have to get paid enough to afford the basic essentials regardless of others luxury consumption habits.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

18 Oct 2012, 8:08 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


The economy is a train wreck due to Government forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The economy isn't improving due to an explosion of new regulations and threatened tax hikes.

The poor should be helped, but the problem is that things like welfare doesn't help the poor, it just makes them dependent on Government handouts.

Despite what people have been brainwashed into believing, Conservatives actually do care about the poor. However, Conservatives have reached the conclusion that government welfare programs actually hurt people in poverty by making them dependent on government. Before people start saying that is ridiculous or something of that nature, Conservatives actually can make a very strong case to back up their conclusion.

Stop being such a tool. I'm tired of hearing nothing but talking points from you.

Quote:
Local charities often have more face-to-face interactions with people they are trying to help, Government just sends you a check in the mail. I would say local charities are better in the fact that you have volunteers donating their time and money to help people in poverty and work to help them get themselves out of poverty. Government welfare just gets people to start feeling entitled to get those monthly checks, instead of trying to get out of poverty on their own.


If some people can't find work through the "free market" it is societies job to give them work to do and allow them enough to live. Forcing people to be charity cases is an insult to human dignity. Despite what the right-wing tools tell you, we don't live in a time of real scarcity. If we did I wouldn't have to recycle pages and pages of unwanted junk advertisements that get thrown in my mailbox. The real problem is this societies f****d up priorities.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

18 Oct 2012, 8:16 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn

The problem is in a capitalist economy people have to get paid enough to afford the basic essentials regardless of others luxury consumption habits.


If you're a smart capitalist you'll use that efficiency to help offset the hit to your profits as you increase wages for your workers. Then your workers can afford their basics plus they'll have the ability to buy a few of the luxuries you're selling etc.

In the short term it might mean your personal fortune is $25 billion instead of $40 billion, but long term you have a steady, stable , growing market thanks to the multiplier effect...

Too bad there are no smart capitalists around anymore.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

18 Oct 2012, 8:28 pm

marshall wrote:

If some people can't find work through the "free market" it is societies job to give them work to do and allow them enough to live. Forcing people to be charity cases is an insult to human dignity. Despite what the right-wing tools tell you, we don't live in a time of real scarcity. If we did I wouldn't have to recycle pages and pages of unwanted junk advertisements that get thrown in my mailbox. The real problem is this societies f**** up priorities.


Absolutely.

Can anyone really, morally argue that the Walton family is being deprived if they're taxed at a rate that gives them $90 million in income rather than $100 million/year so that the children who live in their back yard have access to medical care and a full belly when they go to sleep?

We live in a post scarcity economy. The problem here is greed.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Last edited by GoonSquad on 19 Oct 2012, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

18 Oct 2012, 8:35 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn

The problem is in a capitalist economy people have to get paid enough to afford the basic essentials regardless of others luxury consumption habits.


If you're a smart capitalist you'll use that efficiency to help offset the hit to your profits as you increase wages for your workers. Then your workers can afford their basics plus they'll have the ability to buy a few of the luxuries you're selling etc.

In the short term it might mean your personal fortune is $25 billion instead of $40 billion, but long term you have a steady, stable , growing market thanks to the multiplier effect...

Too bad there are no smart capitalists around anymore.


I would say that makes a lot of sense but the problem is the Nash equilibrium doesn't allow it. The current modus operandi is compete or die. The companies that rise to the top are the ones that work off the Walmart paradigm. Of course it's a paradox that low prices would normally be a good thing, but when they reach beyond a certain limit all they're doing is collectively destabilizing the economy by killing living wage jobs and making more and more people dependent on government, exactly what conservatives like to blame liberals for. Despite what people like Inuyasha think, nobody in their right mind wants to be dependent on government these days, especially with the hostile teabag nutters ranting on about the deficit and threatening to throw the poor to the curb.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,959
Location: International House of Paincakes...

19 Oct 2012, 8:32 am

marshall wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn

The problem is in a capitalist economy people have to get paid enough to afford the basic essentials regardless of others luxury consumption habits.


If you're a smart capitalist you'll use that efficiency to help offset the hit to your profits as you increase wages for your workers. Then your workers can afford their basics plus they'll have the ability to buy a few of the luxuries you're selling etc.

In the short term it might mean your personal fortune is $25 billion instead of $40 billion, but long term you have a steady, stable , growing market thanks to the multiplier effect...

Too bad there are no smart capitalists around anymore.


I would say that makes a lot of sense but the problem is the Nash equilibrium doesn't allow it. The current modus operandi is compete or die. The companies that rise to the top are the ones that work off the Walmart paradigm. Of course it's a paradox that low prices would normally be a good thing, but when they reach beyond a certain limit all they're doing is collectively destabilizing the economy by killing living wage jobs and making more and more people dependent on government, exactly what conservatives like to blame liberals for. Despite what people like Inuyasha think, nobody in their right mind wants to be dependent on government these days, especially with the hostile teabag nutters ranting on about the deficit and threatening to throw the poor to the curb.


Yeah, I get what you're saying.

And the problem is exactly that low prices/low wage model is driving more and more to be dependant on government subsidies. So, in effect, government is borrowing money to give to low wage workers to spend on goods and services and this money ends up in the pockets of the people at the top.

This is not a sustainable model.

In the end one of two things must happen.

1. Wages must rise.

2. Taxes must rise.

It seems to me that one way or another, all those deficit funded record profits have to go back into the general economy.

I know the 1% would rather sit on their billions and let the proles starve but ultimately the proles are also their consumers and they must get their money from somewhere.

maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how this works any other way......


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ALADDIN_1978
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

19 Oct 2012, 9:15 am

Accurate predictor of the election

Bickers and Berry are very accurate, the outcome is not in doubt, I am slightly surprised by the margin of the win.


Close states/districts

Obama will definitely lose Nebraska 2nd district, Indiana, North Carolina is probably lost to Obama, Obama won by 0.32%, the unemployment in North Carolina is a sky high 9.2%. Next target. Florida (the 2nd most important state, the almost definite decider). Obama won by 2.8%, not a lot, Florida unemployment, 8.8%, losing Florida means, a very likely loss of the White House.

Next target Ohio (the most important state), Obama only by 4.59%. Romney needs Virginia and Colarado to win. If Florida falls then Ohio, Colorado and Virginia will probably fall.

The incumbent is said to gain electoral states or lose, based on that principle Obama will lose.

There are voter registration rules targetting, young, poor and minority voters hurting the Democrat voter chances.



Gallup Survey



White support dwindles: Obama lost the white vote in 2008 by 12 percentage points, but that was more than offset by a 72-point lead among nonwhites. Today, Obama has a more daunting 22-point deficit among whites, while his margin over Romney among nonwhites is essentially unchanged.


Obama needs minority voters who will vote in smaller numbers. He has a big defecit amongst white voters, costing him 6% - 7% of the while vote, based on the fact 2/3 of voters are white.

I hate Romney, but I think will at least scrape through.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2012, 11:58 am

GoonSquad wrote:
marshall wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:

It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


Would you prefer an economy where only the barest essentials for survival are available and nothing else?

ruveyn

The problem is in a capitalist economy people have to get paid enough to afford the basic essentials regardless of others luxury consumption habits.


If you're a smart capitalist you'll use that efficiency to help offset the hit to your profits as you increase wages for your workers. Then your workers can afford their basics plus they'll have the ability to buy a few of the luxuries you're selling etc.

In the short term it might mean your personal fortune is $25 billion instead of $40 billion, but long term you have a steady, stable , growing market thanks to the multiplier effect...

Too bad there are no smart capitalists around anymore.


I would say that makes a lot of sense but the problem is the Nash equilibrium doesn't allow it. The current modus operandi is compete or die. The companies that rise to the top are the ones that work off the Walmart paradigm. Of course it's a paradox that low prices would normally be a good thing, but when they reach beyond a certain limit all they're doing is collectively destabilizing the economy by killing living wage jobs and making more and more people dependent on government, exactly what conservatives like to blame liberals for. Despite what people like Inuyasha think, nobody in their right mind wants to be dependent on government these days, especially with the hostile teabag nutters ranting on about the deficit and threatening to throw the poor to the curb.


Yeah, I get what you're saying.

And the problem is exactly that low prices/low wage model is driving more and more to be dependant on government subsidies. So, in effect, government is borrowing money to give to low wage workers to spend on goods and services and this money ends up in the pockets of the people at the top.

This is not a sustainable model.

In the end one of two things must happen.

1. Wages must rise.

2. Taxes must rise.

It seems to me that one way or another, all those deficit funded record profits have to go back into the general economy.

I know the 1% would rather sit on their billions and let the proles starve but ultimately the proles are also their consumers and they must get their money from somewhere.

maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how this works any other way......


Well, the problem is the market fundamentalists have their religion that tells them that competition and the laws of supply and demand always drive markets into the ideal equilibrium. Nevermind the fact that they have no hard mathematical proof that prices can ever be in equilibrium. There are actually mathematical proofs that the economy cannot be in equilibrium except under very special conditions, but that kind of math is too hard for neoclassical economists so they dismiss it and wave their hands around a lot.

Anyways, I think the big multinational corporations aren't concerned as long as they can benefit off still-growing markets in the developing world. Of course there are early signs of stagnation in China now as they are over-reliant on exports and the fraction of their population that actually have enough money to participate in the economy is not growing fast enough. That and their paranoid corrupt mass-censoring government is stifling for creative people to live under and most want to get the f*** out.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Oct 2012, 12:16 pm

marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
It only makes sense that advanced economies become inherently fragile when they're too damn efficient for their own good. The supply for basic living necessities comprises such a small fraction of the economy. A ton of jobs are predicated on discretionary spending, i.e. luxury spending. It only makes sense that luxury spending will be highly sensitive to income loss.


The economy is a train wreck due to Government forcing banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford them. The economy isn't improving due to an explosion of new regulations and threatened tax hikes.

The poor should be helped, but the problem is that things like welfare doesn't help the poor, it just makes them dependent on Government handouts.

Despite what people have been brainwashed into believing, Conservatives actually do care about the poor. However, Conservatives have reached the conclusion that government welfare programs actually hurt people in poverty by making them dependent on government. Before people start saying that is ridiculous or something of that nature, Conservatives actually can make a very strong case to back up their conclusion.

Stop being such a tool. I'm tired of hearing nothing but talking points from you.


I'm not the one using talking points here, so stop projecting.

marshall wrote:
Quote:
Local charities often have more face-to-face interactions with people they are trying to help, Government just sends you a check in the mail. I would say local charities are better in the fact that you have volunteers donating their time and money to help people in poverty and work to help them get themselves out of poverty. Government welfare just gets people to start feeling entitled to get those monthly checks, instead of trying to get out of poverty on their own.


If some people can't find work through the "free market" it is societies job to give them work to do and allow them enough to live. Forcing people to be charity cases is an insult to human dignity. Despite what the right-wing tools tell you, we don't live in a time of real scarcity. If we did I wouldn't have to recycle pages and pages of unwanted junk advertisements that get thrown in my mailbox. The real problem is this societies f**** up priorities.


While just handing them a welfare check isn't an insult to human dignity? I'm not saying we live in a time of scarcity, Republicans haven't said we live in a time of scarcity. How about you stop drinking the Kool-aid, and learn to think for yourself.

When you have so many new government regulations that you have to hire a lawyer just to run a small business, then Government is the problem, not rich people.

When you have a President that constantly demonizes small business owners and retirees as greedy rich people that "aren't paying their fair share," then Government is the problem, not "the rich."

marshall, you and others rail about Mitt Romney's 47% comment, well seems to me, you were offended by the fact someone told the truth.

Are there people that legitimately need help, yes; however there are also people that abuse the system.

The thing is, I don't view myself as a helpless infant that needs "nanny government" to take care of me. Does being on the spectrum present challenges, yes; but I believe I'm capable of dealing with those challenges as is just about everyone else here if they would stop believing they are helpless or need handouts and start trying to haul themselves out of poverty.

I am lucky I kept my part-time job cause the economy is a disaster, do you know how draining being a part-time sales associate can be, especially for someone on the spectrum? How incredibly tempting it would be to give up cause it is challenging? Thing is, I've stuck with it because I'm not going to give up, and I have some self-respect!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2012, 1:07 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

marshall, you and others rail about Mitt Romney's 47% comment, well seems to me, you were offended by the fact someone told the truth.

Are there people that legitimately need help, yes; however there are also people that abuse the system.



Most of the 47 percent are social security recipients who for FORCED to pay into the system. In order to recover some of the money stolen from them they must sign up for the "benefits". Generally speaking the people receiving such money from the government are not parasites. More truly they are victims.

Gov. Romney misspoke when he implied the 47 percent receiving government benefits (mostly social security payments) were some how piggies feeding at the trough.

Romney is not the brightest bulb on the Xmas Tree and it would be better if he guarded his tongue. If Romney had been quieter he would have Obama on the ropes, especially after the first "debate" when Obama showed so poorly.

The way I see it, the election is Romney's to win unless he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by utter stupidity.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,000
Location: Turkey

19 Oct 2012, 1:19 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm not the one using talking points here, so stop projecting.


Image

I've made up my mind that I'm not going to bother responding to you because you've proven yourself incapable of rational debate.

I have an article for you to read...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop



Last edited by marshall on 19 Oct 2012, 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2012, 1:30 pm

marshall wrote:

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

And the problem is exactly that low prices/low wage model is driving more and more to be dependant on government subsidies. So, in effect, government is borrowing money to give to low wage workers to spend on goods and services and this money ends up in the pockets of the people at the top.

This is not a sustainable model.




Any model that assumes unending exponential growth is not sustainable. Eventually we must bet to a point of dynamic equilibrium where we can live comfortably or crash to another kind of equilibrium (wreckage) where most of us will be miserable.

ruveyn