Getting America Back on Track

[BTs_Mysterio]

Hurraah for timeline B.

[Saberian 3000]

Well, living in the Capital of Texas as well I can see where Cossack comes from in that sense.  He is absolutely right by saying that this has been bad from the get-go with the Bush administration.  His politics here have left a ton of people homeless and they are literally on every corner begging for money trying to feed themselves and their families.  As for GS, well, I just dont see how you can blame your success in the Auto business with politics.  i just dont really see the correlation.  Before I moved here I was also running an auto store in Buffalo NY and I can say that the reason that the business wasn't doing so well was more because of the politics of the Auto business over the politics of the government.  It almost makes sense because you are saying that you went back to work as a salesman in 2001.  Right around the time most of these car companies were offering 0% financing on new car sales.  That right there stole a lot of the business from the other retail chains selling aftermarket replacement parts for their cars went under because of all the auto sales companies making their move to take the money from the parts businesses and putting it back into their own pockets.  Basically duping people to buy cars from dealerships instead of fixing the cars that they have.  Not that that issue really bothers me but, I dont see how that is related to governmental politics.  It had nothing to do with Bush, let alone his obvious dis-concern with the welfare of the populus of this nation.  I am not sure where you live in the nation GS, but I was in NY during the 9/11 issue and to be honest I can tell you for a fact that Bush did nothing to help the people in that state other then take the focus off of the real issues with unemployment and whatnot and put their focus on 3rd world countries.  He talked a lot about all these things that he was going to do but in reality he hasnt done much to change anything in that case.  So as you might be a Bush supporter I have to say that I hope that isnt the reason for your decision because there is over 75% of the population of this nation that think otherwise. Relating one good thing in your life to the government in that sense isnt the way I would vote for a president.

:MoD:Saberian
FYI = Al Gore = Hired by Steve Jobs for Apple and now is on the board of Directors.
         Steve Jobs = Hired by John Kerry as the Marketing and relations manager for the        John Kerry campaign

[BTs_GhostSniper]

As for GS, well, I just dont see how you can blame your success in the Auto business with politics.  i just dont really see the correlation.It almost makes sense because you are saying that you went back to work as a salesman in 2001.  Right around the time most of these car companies were offering 0% financing on new car sales.

The auto companies would not have been able to offer 0% financing without the ultra low interest rates and tax breaks that Bush was promising them....and that he delivered on, by the way.  That is how politics helped me out directly.[/size]

[c| Spetsnaz.]

         Steve Jobs = Hired by John Kerry as the Marketing and relations manager for the        John Kerry campaign

Where'd you hear about this?

[Saberian 3000]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aIzb2nc.YIIE

Srry you got to copy and paste this whole link to get the exact article guys, sorry about that =(

Here it states that Warren Buffett and Steve Jobs get taken on as advisors.  Plus it's all around here at my work.  Let's just say I get good info on this stuff.  i wont go into details but you can at least check out this article for yourself about this issue with these two characters.  Although the Swarzenegger backing by buffet I have no comment on hehe.

:MoD:Saberian

["Sixhits"]

The auto companies would not have been able to offer 0% financing without the ultra low interest rates and tax breaks that Bush was promising them....and that he delivered on, by the way.  That is how politics helped me out directly.[/size]

Low rates were a Greenspan thing. They are a byproduct of a down swinging economy. You cut the rate so that ppl are encouraged to spend more money, cause money is "cheaper".

Tax cuts are a byproduct of an UPSWINGING economy. You're taking in more revenue, so you can afford to cut taxes.

Worse, the Bush tax cuts are not incentive tax cuts, they're structural reductions. Incentive tax cuts are designed to target at risk individuals and businesses, helping them afford the cost of living while allowing them enough cash to spend, thus putting something back into the economy. Bush's tax cuts do neither. The cuts he gave went mostly to the wealthy, who pocketed the profit. That money would be better handled if it went into the middle class and the working poor. They spend nearly every dime they take in. If you give them more, they are likely to spend it -- imeadiately.

There's another aspect of the Bush economy - Big Federal Spending. I don't think there's an honest fiscial conservative left in the Republican Party.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

There's another aspect of the Bush economy - Big Federal Spending. I don't think there's an honest fiscial conservative left in the Republican Party.

My point exactly....you can't praise Bush for anything he does to help the country, and then you go and beat him up for acting more like your liberal democrat buddies.  Man, you sure do live a double standard.

["Sixhits"]

There's another aspect of the Bush economy - Big Federal Spending. I don't think there's an honest fiscial conservative left in the Republican Party.

My point exactly....you can't praise Bush for anything he does to help the country, and then you go and beat him up for acting more like your liberal democrat buddies.  Man, you sure do live a double standard.

It's not like I'm pro-big spending. Come on, no one wants to see the Feds spend like a drunken sailor.

I'm pro smart spending, and also smart cutting. Whatever is appropriate.

I'm also against ideological dishonesty. And right now a lot of Repubs should be anti Bush, cause the man has duped them. But they don't care.

Sorta how ppl who are patriots don't get upset when those in thier party plot ways to delay the election. That shit is anti-American if I ever heard.

[westamastaflash]

With the selection of John Edwards as the vice presidential candidate it looks like the Dems have shaped up a great ticket.
Strong foreign policy leadership backed by a brilliant and hopeful domestic message.

Whats so brilliant and hopeful about suing the pants of everybody so prices skyrocket? Medical costs are rising by leaps and bounds thanks to the Tort lawyers, people like John Edwards (hereafter called the puppy). Strong foreign policy leadership? What, 1 term on the senate intel committee and a 3 month term of service in vietnam? I suppose those "unnamed foreign leaders" will help right? And whats so brillant and hopeful about saying that this is the worst economy since the great depression? (btw, look at the numbers, and this is such a fiction i can't believe even the media is swallowing it)

Kerry picked the Puppy because he LOOKS good - and thats what 50% of america votes for - who looks good.

I'm not a huge bush fan either - he keeps growing the government and spending MY money on people who won't get a job.

Oh and on the tax cuts thing - what do you think the rich do with this money that they earned and wasn't taken by the government?

What the left calls "stashing" their money is what is known as "saving" or "investment." Say a rich person gets 500k less money taken by the government. That 500,000 dollars that goes into the bank is 500,000 dollars that the bank can now lend out as capital for business and personal loans - capital that will be used! Instead of buying groceries, this money will be used to BUILD a grocery store! Or allow a small business to invest in equipment and supplies, as well as the initial labor investment! Money moves. Unless that wealthy person takes the money and places it under his couch, any money he doesn't use is used to fuel the economy. And what does his money do if it is taken by the government? It goes to a select few, the politically well-connected groups, who use this unearned income for their own benefit. Its the PRODUCERS vs the LOOTERS. Say you take 500k from the richest 10k people in the country. "So what's 500k to them anyway?" and then you spend that 5 billion dollars on a new greenhouse in Iowa, Subsidies so farmers don't farm, "support" for the sad weasel-breeders who lost their jobs can sit around without a job, etc etc. You get an aristrocracy of PULL - whoever can convince congress to give them money thats been taken from someone else gets it.  How is this MORAL? How is this ETHICAL? Its friggin stealing, plain and simple.

And right now, the looters are in control, and all of your peoples vaunted hatred for bush should be just the opposite - he's spent more every year on social programs than CLINTON did!

I have major problems with him for his Prescription drug benefit, his massive spending on "mercury" protections and other crap - face it, 99% of us are going to die of something like cancer (caused from getting old / smoking, not from these "pollutants"), heart disease, or an accident.

WESTAMASTAFLASH'S ECONOMIC LAW #1: THE WEALTHY DON'T HAVE A GIANT MONEY VALUT WHERE THEY GO AND SWIM IN THEIR GOLD COINS LIKE SCROOGE MCDUCK!

[BTs_GhostSniper]

WESTAMASTAFLASH'S ECONOMIC LAW #1: THE WEALTHY DON'T HAVE A GIANT MONEY VALUT WHERE THEY GO AND SWIM IN THEIR GOLD COINS LIKE SCROOGE MCDUCK!

You are correct.  When Bush's tax cuts neted me an extra $45,000 a year in income, I went out and spent it!

[BTs_Mysterio]

And this my friends, is why I may move to America if I get a high high (you get the point) paying job.

[Croosch]

But on the other hand Average to poor families get screwed (probably because they don't spend as much) and the government feels "why help people who are in most need when the money won't come right back to our country?"

[westamastaflash]

Krush - those poor families didn't pay any taxes in the first place! And making need the basis of government handouts is ludicrous - you sound like marx now. Remember - THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY IS the TAXPAYERS money. Thus all spending must pass the "Would you put grandma into a prison if she didn't pay for this" test, because that is what you are doing when you tax people - point a gun to their head and say give me your money. Giving money to poor people does not pass the put grandma in prison test. Philanthropic organizations exist for a reason, but MOST require that the poor people work hard and try to better themselves - and many, frankly, don't. Why do you think obesity is such a problem amongst the POOR - not the middle class or rich? Poor fiscal management, getting themselves into huge debt, etc. Learn to LIVE WITH LESS. Food is cheap - there is a company that makes freeze dried food products - waltonfeed.net - 400 dollars for a YEARS supply of all the nutrients one person needs. You can't tell me that its impossible for a person to make 400 dollars in America. Instead, they're buying MacDonalds, getting cable television, drinking, smoking, etc etc.

[Croosch]

those poor families didn't pay any taxes in the first place!

You're telling me that no poor families ever payed taxes? so what you're saying is screw all the poor american families and help the rich out even more? and they expect us to be patriots to a country who doesn't even help many of its own people. (must be a republican way of thinking)
btw: in many cases it's actually the rich who are drinking, smoking and doing drugs on account of their money.

[westamastaflash]

Dude, you missed my point -

and they expect us to be patriots to a country who doesn't even help many of its own people.

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ALLOW A FREE PERSON TO SUCCEED OR FAIL ON THEIR OWN MERITS, FREE FROM FORCE OR FRAUD OF OTHERS.

It is not to "help" people - REMEMBER - government money is the TAXPAYERS money.

A person is entitled to ONLY what they HAVE intrinsically - their RIGHT to life, their RIGHT to liberty, and their RIGHT to their own persuit of happiness. All other true rights derive from their RIGHT to CONTROLLING their own life.

It is their job to then life that life, provide for themsevles using their body and mind, and seek their own happiness. Nowhere does it say that they have to "help" others, that somehow their work and productive ability should be SACRIFICED to allow others to freeload off them.

Charity is all fine when IT IS DONE FREELY WITHOUT COERCION. Forcing someone to "be charitable" by taking money from them and giving it to others is MORALLY wrong.

[westamastaflash]

Oh and you said

so what you're saying is screw all the poor american families and help the rich out even more?

No. I'm saying let the "rich" keep what they've earned to to their productive ability - and let the "poor" keep what they've earned. Let them be free - help neither!

[Croosch]

But it is the governments job to provide enough jobs for the people of the United States (enough good jobs) the more money we lose the less jobs we have . . . I highly doubt that most of our money lost is caused by poor families of the U.S. How does the poor get back on track when it is nearly impossible to find a good job or in some cases no job at all (after losing jobs in the lay-off streak we had)

[westamastaflash]

Oh my god. How is it the governments job to "provide jobs"? Dude, listen to reason! Like i said in another post -  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT.

People who start businesses create jobs - not government. Government makes people LOSE jobs - with minimum wage laws, with envirnomental regulations, with OSHA regulations, etc.

How does the poor get back on track when it is nearly impossible to find a good job or in some cases no job at all (after losing jobs in the lay-off streak we had)

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs. Additionally, if you want a "good" job, you need to have SKILLS - and many people DON't - and refuse to go back to school or training to get skills. I looked in the paper today - hundreds of jobs are being advertised - and several only require manual labor! The jobs are there - and if they weren't, I'd still say that it is not government's job. Start a business, find a niche. Thats what being free is all about.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I suppose you haven't seen the straight 10 month growth in jobs. Additionally, if you want a "good" job, you need to have SKILLS - and many people DON't - and refuse to go back to school or training to get skills. I looked in the paper today - hundreds of jobs are being advertised - and several only require manual labor! The jobs are there - and if they weren't, I'd still say that it is not government's job. Start a business, find a niche. Thats what being free is all about.

Absolutely.

[Mr. Lothario]

     On this point, I have to agree with Flash. The government's only proper role in "producing jobs" is standing at the head of the chain and proving education. The better the education, the more jobs there will be (eventually).