Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[Hallen]

Yeah, but it plays the heart strings of all those 60's hippies who are now feeling guilty about their financial success. They realize they failed to acheive all of the social change that they wanted in the 60's and now are in a position to do more about it. Scary.

It is also what I said before. He is buying votes from people who stupidly entered into ARM's without the financail wherewithall to deal with it.

I also don't have one whit of simpathy for the financial institutions who were making these loans. They were high risk loans and they should have known better. But they did get greedy (partially derived by their compensation structure for their employees).

The real problem was/is the horribly inflated property values. Those values were driven by (in my opinion) the lenders and the States turning a blind eye because of ever increasing property tax revenues. It was also driven by speculators. The idea that your house will always be worth more in 5 years than it is today is just as foolish as thinking that your stock purchase will always be worth more in 5 years. This is all greatly simplified btw and I am sure I don't understand most of the dynamics here.

[DarkWing6]

I did not want to bring this up cause I hate complaining like this, but does this kind of stuff piss people off as much as it does me?

Taken from the speech

"We're here because of the mother in San Antonio that I met just today, just this afternoon. She's got 2-year-old twins who are legally blind. She somehow entered into a predatory loan and saw her mortgage payments double in two weeks and has paid thousands in fees to try to stave off foreclosure.

She told me she was on the verge of packing and didn't know where her family would go next. She needed us to crack down on predatory lenders and give relief to struggling homeowners who were tricked out of their dream. She needs change today."


Could someone please take responsibility for their own actions!?!!? Does her having blind twins change anything about how she was dumb and didn't think past next month's payment? I'm not trying to single people out cause I do feel for her, but....really? That is where my tax dollars are going.

[Hallen]

Move to Sweden if you have a problem with the US here. The income disparity before redistribution is the same, but everyone is leveled out, no matter how smart/skilled/hard you work. The dumb lazy uneducated people will benefit from your success, YAY socialism. NOT

You guys are bringing a tear to my eyes. I am so proud... er... even though I don't really know any of you.

My son, who is probably about the same age as a lot of you, made me so proud last night. He equated Obama with socialism and said that socialism sucks. He just started paying taxes on his earnings and didn't like it too much.

I was so proud of him. I, am obviously pretty conservative, especially on financial / economics issues. But, I have never told my son that he has to vote republican or tried to force his position on anything. He just came up with this stuff on his own. I get the feeling that many of his friends feel the same way.

With no incentive to do better, to work hard, to achieve anything, what is the point? I don't want to be paid the same as some person who does not put out the effort that I do or achieves the results that I do. That is patently unjust. It would lead to either me moving on, or me lowering my standards because being good just doesn't pay.

Just look at a high percentage of your typical Government worker... there is very little incentive for them to do a good job and they are virtually impossible to fire. You end up with apathy.

I also don't understand this hatred of corporations. I don't know what the percentage is, but in the private sector I would bet that 80% of us work for some form of corporation. I don't want my company taxed into submission. That means I won't get raises. That means I will be over worked because we can't hire anybody else. It means that we will have to raise prices to compensate and we will sell less and contribute to inflation. Plus, it will get harder for us to compete against foreign companies... especially those socialized countries that subsidize their companies.

I will have to go read Obama's speech, but if what was written here is what he said, OMG. You see why he has stayed away from anything of substance. As soon as we get to his core ideas, we find just how much of a danger he is. He is trying to buy votes by telling people he will directly give them money by taking it away from those who have actually earned it. I simply do not understand the train of thought that actually leads people to believe that it is a good thing to do that.

[rwh11385]

I understand skill sets, but I was talking about physical work. It does take a certain amount of conditioning and knowledge to be an efficient 'ditch digger.'

What knowledge is required for being a ditch digger? How to use a shovel?
Compare that with the knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform skilled work and you can find out how there is a great premium for educated, experienced, and capable people. Giving people extra money for work most people can do isn't what markets are about.

I just feel like there should be some level of 'fairness' in some situations. That's why I support some government intervention.

Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. For something to be gained, something must also be lost. The problem is finding that middle ground.

Read Irene van Staveren's The Values of Economics. (Feminist Economist??) anyway, she discusses how people have a desire for liberty (freedom of market), justice (fairness of society), and care (interpersonal relationships). You'd connect well. And Stone's "The Market and the Polis" chapter wherever while you are at it.

We cannot as a nation confuse our desire to help others less fortunate with the needs for the economy to work efficiently through market transactions which should not be interfered with. Fucking up the economy and creating inflation to try to deal with price increases is stupid. That is no way to help anyone, let alone people not worth the little they are paid. Rich people will survive, but maybe they don't have as much as they though to give back any longer...

There is a middle ground. It is the market. Both parties agree to the deal. That is the middle ground.

EDIT - And if one party is too greedy (poor can be greedy too) then they wont agree to terms and wont get any supply for their demand. Supply and demand goes both ways.

teehee, it seems sooooo simple. what do people not understand about economics? and why are some of those people running for president?

[rwh11385]

Allow the market to decide where prices and other things should be set. If people are not willing to work for a certain rate businesses will either fail or raise the wage. People should not get paid more than they are worth and adding an outside party (the government) to set wages and set prices screws up how the market works.

ding ding ding ding

Are you telling me that we should have sweatshops and let people work for however low the company is willing to pay? There needs to be intervention because American citizens would be exploited. This was rampant all during the Industrial age. But hey, at least the fat cats were living good.

Are you in high school?

People accept work and pay, or leave it. The Industrial age is long gone, and safety has improved HERE. If min wage laws are hyped up more then jobs are just going to be sent more to China were people are exploited, the environment is destroyed, etc. etc.

What about the ditch diggers who work all day in 100 degree weather and get 6/hr? Are you saying they don't work hard, or deserve more?

If you are a ditch digger, you screw up in life somewhere and are only worth $6/hour. Any harder of a worker or smarter or more skilled... there would be a better job for him. Or probably the company would just use a machine.

Construction machines aren't used in India to break up boulders to create roads. Unskilled workers with hand tools are used because they are cheaper. The United States has more and more technology so either unskilled labor should GET SKILLED or live with minimum wage - NOT be artificially given higher wages they are not worth...

Should the government let their bosses pay them even less because it's the only thing they can get? I sure as hell don't think so.

YES.

The government is not supposed to run the economy here. This isn't mother USSR and you know how that turned out...

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

Move to Sweden if you have a problem with the US here. The income disparity before redistribution is the same, but everyone is leveled out, no matter how smart/skilled/hard you work. The dumb lazy uneducated people will benefit from your success, YAY socialism. NOT

[DarkWing6]

quick call griots so you can continue this conversation

[DarkWing6]

While the market should regulate itself to an extent, what if business was allowed to fully set it's own wages. What is the goal of a business? To make as much money as possible. This would no doubt lead to a decrease in wages.

Two points on this one.

1) Reread what I said. If people are not willing to work for what the business is willing to pay the business will have not workers. Without workers at all levels they cannot function and will go out of business.

2)You are not taking into account the other costs that a company encounters. In a lot of cases it is cheaper for a company to pay their employees more then it is to train a new employee, so high turnover will cost the company more than paying their employees an extra buck or two an hour.

These two points are working off of supply and demand. Businesses have a demand for jobs and a supply of money and workers vise versa. They come to an agreement that works for both parties. If one side is unhappy they discuss it and come to a new agreement or part ways. Again, if people are not willing to work for the amount of money the business will pay then the business will go under, find work elsewhere (which can ultimately be good for everyone, ask me about this later), or pay employees more to do that job.

I can see that if some companies were really exploiting their employees then they would just leave. However, there are only so many jobs to be had, and some people would have no choice but to stay, especially in poor where there aren't many opportunities.

Wouldn't this make the rich richer and the poor poorer? The rich would still be able to support markets, so I don't see how all of these companies would be going under. How does this balances out? (sorry, my HS economics class sucked)

The rich need the poor and the poor need the rich. If the government would butt out the market could actually work properly. The thing about rich people is they spend their money, which benefits the entire economy. The rich having money creates jobs. The more jobs, the less supply, the higher the demand, the higher paying the jobs are.

Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. For something to be gained, something must also be lost. The problem is finding that middle ground.

There is a middle ground. It is the market. Both parties agree to the deal. That is the middle ground.

EDIT - And if one party is too greedy (poor can be greedy too) then they wont agree to terms and wont get any supply for their demand. Supply and demand goes both ways.


My HS Econ class sucked too. Talking through econ with people helped me learn more. I enjoy discussing this. It makes me think and sharpens me.

[e30sd]

quick call griots so you can continue this conversation

[brandondan1]

You're confusing wages paid with direct hard work; not skill set. Anyone can dig a ditch. Can you perform brain surgery? I sure as hell can't. It's a rare skill, so it gets compensated handsomely. Pound for pound, the ditch digger works twice are hard; but in reality his job is 1/10th as stressful and requires virtually no pre-requisite knowledge in comparison.

It's logic like this that drives doctors out of business, and decreases enrolement in medical schools.

EDIT: which becomes an even more amplified problem when our population is becoming older rapidly (i.e. baby boomers retiring and needing doctors to provide services)

SECOND EDIT: Just to re-state this: The popcorn costing six dollars is directly related to the guy ripping tix getting paid 9$ an hour. you want a trickle down effect? think of it this way - The popcorn costs six dollars because the guy who is packaging the popcorn has to get paid $8.00 in X state for handling the boxes. Then, the dock worker gets paid $12.00 because he is unionized and all he does is move freight all day. Then, you have to pay the guy who fills soda/sweeps the floors/washes the toilet at least minimum wage $9.00 an hour (in this example). So what happens? All of this gets passed on to you; the end consumer.

What is the result? You go to the movies a little less. They have a little less revenue, they end up laying people off, and the cycle repeats itself as the minimum wage increases.

See how that is not good for anyone?

That's a good example, thanks for clearing it up. I was referring to a Minimum minimum wage all of this time.

The reason why I started arguing about 'hard work' was because it was earlier said that low income people don't do shit. This obviously isn't always true. I understand skill sets, but I was talking about physical work. It does take a certain amount of conditioning and knowledge to be an efficient 'ditch digger.' There can even be a high level of stress if they have impossible deadlines to meet, and I doubt a lot of people could do it. Are profits being passed down to them when the company's profit margins rise? I doubt it, because most owners are greedy. I just feel like there should be some level of 'fairness' in some situations. That's why I support some government intervention. But I guess there is no 'right or wrong, but only the way it is'

[e30sd]

I know we have it, I'm saying it's not used. We also have enough nukes to blow up the world 10x. We probably have shit that you and I don't even have any clue exists. I was waiting for you to jump on that one ;)

yea, right now under START I we are hovering near 6,000 MIRV equipped warheads, with another 10,000 warheads in inactive reserve, stashed at places like Pantex. Just in case.

[DarkWing6]

Does someone have a link to Barrack's speech? I can't seem to find the above information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us...ewanted=1&_r=1



Working on responding to your post Brandon. I am at work making money. ;)

[dinanm3atl]

Does someone have a link to Barrack's speech? I can't seem to find the above information.

[uofom3]

you're thinking of El Al, the Israeli airline.

Exactly - I couldn't remember specifics, just what their policies are. They take it very seriously.

[uofom3]

wrong, the BWC has been subverted by proxy through National Security Presidential Directive 33, and the CWC deadline conveniently gets extended another 6 years. so, yeah, we still do mess around with anthrax and vx. it doesnt really matter anyway, the US is not subject to the ICC, so even if we say accidentally used them (oops we killed thousands of people sorry) the consequences would be minor.

I know we have it, I'm saying it's not used. We also have enough nukes to blow up the world 10x. We probably have shit that you and I don't even have any clue exists. I was waiting for you to jump on that one ;)

[e30sd]

"actually used to destroy plant life" - that's what I said, HERBICIDE :).

We'll never just start nuking people. Diplomacy does exist - if it didn't, the Iraq thing would have been handled a long time ago.

Wreckless warefare is not what I'm advocating, but NO action is not a solution either. We aren't using their tactics currently, I view this ultimately as a matter of containment. It's just like the border - how can we grant amnesty (which I agree with) when the border isn't secure? You lock down the border, then grant amnesty; The same should be done with defense - but it has to be done backwards to a degree. We are geographically isolated from most all of our immediate threats militarily. So, we don't need to "lock it down" perse. Rather, we DID start locking it down with the TSA (Which is a fatally flawed system - look at the lebaneese (sp?) airline (Al AIl or something like that, can't remember the name) They are SERIOUS about it and do it right)) Ultimately, it will be global problem - we just happen to be the one seriously spearheading it.

you're thinking of El Al, the Israeli airline.