Well, we all know the old "trickle-down economics" of the past admnistrations has not worked,

• THere is one glaring fact here.... - the stimulus package........sm
  • OMG! Contraception! - Truthseeker
  • FYI, Obama has requested the - family planning portion
    • While I am glad - Crabbyolebroad
      • Well, we all know the old "trickle-down economics" of the past admnistrations has not worked, - Cyndiee

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I doubt there are many posting here who would have money taken from them to give to the "poor." 

I wonder how many MTs working today know what it was like in the 70s and 80s when you could literally write your own ticket?  It wasn't unusual to get calls trying to hire good MTs away from their employer.  It wasn't hard for a good MT to knock down $100,000 annually WITH full benefits, including medical insurance that was paid by the employer for the employee with reasonable cost for family coverage.  Downtime, vacation and sick time was paid at your average production rate rather than some $10/hour cr@p.  Do you think the mega MTSO companies are any less profitable today than they were then?  No, actually they are more profitable.  That is usually the case when any business operates on slave labor, the conditions MTs work under now days.  The company that I worked for most in those days was Transcriptions Limited.  Guess what they became? 

http://ca.youtube.com/user/weneedmccain

This video explains Obama's economic policies better than I can...

Finally - someone who can describe what's going on/happening that I can understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djgH9wA-JSU

The poster is correct. I don't know why you insist on living in a dream world. I used to respect your comments but I see you really don't understand how supply and emand and/or government really works.

You think everything is a joke. Well, are you going to be laughing when taxes are so high you have a choice to eat or pay taxes?

Are you going to laugh when the country is broke (whopps - that has already happened) and they can't even guarantee FDIC backing for any money you have in the back or IRAs?

Are you going to laugh when other countries commit terrorist attacks on our country; i.e., N. Korea, Iran, etc.?

Are you going to laugh when this country finally crosses into fascism whereas you will seriously have no rights?

Keep laughing BB. The joke will be on you sooner or later, as the country slowly goes down the tubes unless you start boning up on the reality happening right under your nose and start fighting against it.

There are many different ideas or systems of how an economy should be run. The two most common are capitalism and socialism. They are very different in how they view who runs the economy. Most economies have ideas from both systems, but tend to be more of one than the other.

Capitalism is the economic system based on private or corporate ownership of, production and distribution of goods. It has always existed to some extent in all civilizations but was written about formally by Adam Smith in his book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. Capitalists favor a system of free enterprise which means the government should not interfere in the economy - that the laws of supply and demand will make sure that the ecnomy runs most efficiently in meeting people's needs. Capitalism is characterized by competition in which there is rivalry in supplying or getting an economic service or good. Sellers compete with other sellers, and buyers with other buyers. The buyers seek the best possible deal in purchasing goods and the sellers look to make the best possible sale allowing them the most profit.

Socialism is an economic theory or idea that states that the government or the state should be in charge of economic planning, production and distribution of goods. This contrasts with capitalism where free markets predonimate and property is privately owned. Socielism tends to favor cooperation whereas capitalism is characterized by competition.

The theories of socialism first arose in the late eighteenth century in response to the Industrial Revolution where factory owners were becoming wealthy and the workers impoverished. Thus, workers wanted a greater share in the wealth that factories were making. Later a form of socialism called communism sprang up based on the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Communism advocates class struggle and revolution to establish a society of cooperation with strong government control. Communism predominated in the former Soviet Union and much of Eastern Europe at one time. Today it predominates in China and Cuba, but its influence has lessened.

http://www.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/CapSoc.html

We aren't living high on the hog, and we've opened our home to those less fortunate. Over the past 25 years, we've had 10 people (friends not strangers) live with us until they could get back on their feet, rent-free, taking none of the money they could make, all meals provided.

Yes, welfare is very backwards, but if I knew of anyone abusing the system, I  would report them.  I don't know anyone on welfare or living in Section 8 housing since I now live in the country. If other people would do that, it would soon straighten out.

at the polling place yesterday.  Then we had a party.  There were only 4 present who voted for Obama and my husband and I were 2 of them.  We had an enjoyable time and on one thing all of us agreed.  ALL of us must get involved if we want to save this country.

I'm glad it's over.

who neatly solved that problem. 

He owned the company and he when quit smoking (or more accurately, he quit buying) any time he wanted a cigarette, he would 'bum' it from one of his employees.  Since O cannot nip out and get a pack of smokes now, maybe he gets by this way.  Would some secret service guy or Whitehouse domestic employee refuse him? 

My old boss should have run for Congress, so out of touch was he with his 'little people.'  Payday was Friday and the checks were locked in his desk until 4:30 Friday afternoon.  (This was to prevent someone from going to the bank at lunch and never returning, I guess.)  And I might add this was back when bankers hours were truly that, not open until 6 on Friday, and until noon Saturday. 

Trouble was, sometimes he would not return from lunch, or at all on Friday, so we did not get paid until Monday.  But he helpfully said that nobody should be living so hand-to-mouth that they absolutely needed their 2-week check before the weekend.  I mean, if you can't go to the grocery and therefore cannot feed your kids, you obviously are not budgeting properly.  Another neat solution, don't you think?  If only I had listened to this man, I would be wealthy today.

at McDonald's for 4 1/2 years? He couldn't get another job and wanted to know what O was going to do about it. I was absolutely shocked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TptsP4ryido&feature=related

and collects SSD for his "mental illness." He checks himself into a state hospital when it comes close to the time when he has a review coming up. This is what I heard from my son, so I don't know how true it is, but I do know that he is healthy and doesn't seem to have any mental health issues.

His one brother is on disability because he was on the drugs so much, they fried his brain and another brother had cirrhosis. He couldn't get help and died.

So why do you keep trying to demonize the Democrats.  Both parties made compromises - I believe the Democrats initially wanted about $20 billion more for the program, but they negotiated with the Republicans to secure their votes.

You seem so worried about the cigarette tax not covering the program, and yet what we spend in Iraq in a day would cover the S-CHIP program for a year.  The money is there, but people don't want to make it a priority.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that Democrats that voted yes on the bill (and don't forgot some Republicans did too) actually CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN?  Is it so hard to believe that they actually want to do something to help kids?  I'm glad they are getting headlines, not because they are against Bush, because really - could public opinion get any worse for him?  I am glad because this is an issue that needs TONS of attention drawn to it.  I don't really care if more people dislike Bush over this issue.  People who like him will continue to and people who don't will continue not to like him.  I see bad headlines about him every week, but that is not my concern.  My concern is affordable healthcare for all children, no matter how high or low their parents' income level is.

that we have and WE should decide who to give it to, not Nobama. We are living the American Dream and will be penalized for it. If your child got all A's in school and the teacher told you that some kids got C's and B's and your child would have to give up some of their A's so the others would be on equal ground, would you object? Probably so. There is no incentive in socialism to work hard to acheive things when you can have the gov't provide everything for you. Don't you people know that you are playing right into the hand's of more gov't? You are being fed a bunch of lies and you won't even realize it until it is too late.

for 30 years at GM.  He was a salvage worker so he wasn't one of those guys who sat on his butt all day long making a ridiculous amount of money.  My dad retired in his 60s because his health didn't allow him to continue working or he would have.  I know how unions work and how they "protect" the employees.  I've also seen the proven statistics about how non-union states are more production and have higher job growth and as far as protecting your job.....no ones job is protected especially nowadays.  People are getting fired left and right so where is the protection.  What good was that auto bailout when all that money pretty much went to pay off the unions.  Unions are nothing but democratic pushed BS. 

Here is a tad bit on unions:

The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and industries they control. The essential goal of the unions is to compel the payment of higher wages for the performance of less work and less productive work. Unions are notorious for their hostility to labor saving machinery and to any form of competition among workers, for featherbedding practices, indeed, for “making work” by deliberately and arbitrarily increasing the number of workers required to accomplish a given task and sometimes even by compelling the disassembly or destruction of products already produced.

It should be no wonder that the percentage of the labor force controlled by unions tends progressively to decline. Where the unions hold sway, companies cannot compete. Their market share falls and they ultimately go bankrupt. The only way that unions can maintain any given share of the labor force is by finding new victims to replace the ones they have sucked dry. The finding of new victims, by means of new government intervention is the unstated agenda of  Mr. Stern, Ms. Milkman, and The New York Times.

The actual effects of labor unions are arbitrary inequalities in wage rates, mass unemployment, and substantially lower real wages for the average worker. Labor unions are aptly described as a leading vehicle of what von Mises called “destructionism.”

Whenever a union succeeds in obtaining above market wage rates for its members, it also reduces  the number of workers who can be employed in its field. This is because of the operation of one of the best established principles of economics: Namely, the higher the price of anything, including the wage of any kind of labor, the smaller is the quantity demanded of that good or labor service.

Thus, workers who could have been employed in the lines controlled by labor unions are instead displaced and forced to seek work elsewhere. The added competition of these workers in other lines then serves either to depress wage rates in those other lines, thereby resulting in an arbitrary, union-imposed inequality in wage rates, or, if those other lines are also unionized or are forced to pay union wages in order to avoid becoming unionized (which is often the case), to cause still other workers to be displaced. It should be clear that to the extent that the effect of union activity is to depress wage rates in other fields, the union slogan “Live Better, Work Union” turns out to mean “Live Better by Forcing Other Workers to Live Worse.”

If wage rates in all lines of work are forced above the free-market level either because labor unions are able to impose their wage scales everywhere, or because upward union pressure on wage rates is joined by minimum-wage legislation, the effect is mass unemployment. In this case, there is simply no branch of the economic system that is allowed to pay wage rates low enough to make possible the absorption of workers displaced from elsewhere by the imposition of union wages. The result is the kind of situation presently existing in France and Germany, where unemployment is in excess of ten percent. And, of course, the cost of supporting the masses of unemployed falls mainly on the workers who manage to keep their jobs. Here higher taxes are their reward for “working union.”

For the full article:  http://mises.org/story/1861