Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Greece Protests; Anti-Austerity Violence Breaks Out
Topic Started: Oct 19 2012, 11:07 PM (1,086 Views)
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I'm sure Moolah is straightening everyone out with his vast knowledge of the sunglass industry and how it applies to Greece.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Neutral
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
LOL. Always resort to that when you get hit with facts Noclue.
You don't know sh8t about any country, including Canada. You just spew BS over and over and hope someone believes you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The people of the United States have to decide on a government that is conducive to a quest for individual and business opportunity versus the desire for government-granted security. The choice is not a new one. The quest for opportunity versus the desire for government-granted security has dominated the democratic process since the ancient Greeks. It still drives the process in contemporary Greece—and everywhere else.

For this election, that's what it has come down to. Can government benefits turn an election?


Quote:
 

Since World War II, the five incumbent presidents who were re-elected enjoyed an economy where the unemployment rate averaged 5.4% in September of their election year, real GDP growth was 5.9% in the second quarter, and the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence Index in August was 97. Today the unemployment rate is 7.8%, real GDP growth in the second quarter was 1.3%, and the Consumer Confidence Index in August was 74.


Based on these economic measures, President Obama's re-election would seem to be doomed.


But there is a new dynamic at work in 2012. Voter behavior in the past has been based on the performance of the private economy. Markedly different today is the dramatic growth of public-sector benefits.

Quote:
 
FACTS

In 1980 and 1992, only 3% of the American labor force drew disability benefits from the government. Today it is 6%. The number of workers qualifying for disability since the recession ended in 2009 has grown twice as fast as private employment.

Quote:
 
How would Presidents Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush have fared on their Election Day if 40% of the Americans who were unemployed had instead qualified for disability benefits? How would voters have reacted in 1980 or 1992 if food-stamp benefits had grown by 65% instead of an average of less than 25% during the first four years of their administrations? (Another vote for government-granted security and Obama)


During the past four years, the Obama administration's aggressive promotion of the food-stamp program has increased the number of recipients by 18.5 million. Do these people feel the same level of discontent about economic conditions as the rest of the voting population?
(Their vote will undoubtedly go to the candidate promoting those benefits. Carter and HW Bush did not have that vote population in their pocket. (Another vote for government-granted security))

Unemployment insurance that lasted no longer than 55 weeks in 1980 and 72 weeks in 1992 now can last 99 weeks. Does this ease the distress level of the 40% of unemployed workers who have been out of work for more than half a year? (Another vote for government-granted security... Obama)

The federal government's 120 means-tested programs today provide $1 trillion of benefits. The spending for these programs has grown 2½ times faster during the Obama presidency than in any other comparable period in American history. To what extent might these benefits not just foster dependency but also make the economy's performance seem less of a deciding factor in voters' choices? (And where can the votes of these beneficiaries be expectred to go? Another vote for government-granted security.... Obama)


If you are concerned about your well-being and worried about a failed recovery—but getting new help from the government—do you vote for the candidate who promises more jobs (individual and business opportunity) or do you support the candidate who promises more government benefits (government-granted security)? When tens of millions of people are gaining from the massive expansion of government programs in the past four years, the question is extremely relevant, especially when Mr. Obama's victory in 2008, widely described as a blowout, involved a national margin of only 10 million votes.

Quote:
 

Voters have historically set high standards and voted out incumbents not because they personally disliked them. Rather, they've elected a new president because they understood the importance of a strong economy to their jobs, their income and the future prospects of their children. (Yesterday on a CNN program a panel was discussing "contraceptives and abortion" for most of the half hour, not the economy, jobs, foreign affairs...... looking for the women's vote. Does that mean that most women will not vote according to national economy, jobs, foreign affairs but whether or not they can get free contraception or access to free abortion? Is the left counting on female shallow thinking?)

The choice is not a new one. The quest for opportunity versus the desire for government-granted security has dominated the democratic process since the ancient Greeks. It still drives the process in contemporary Greece—and everywhere else.

Yet if the desire for government benefits is now to drown out the economic aspirations that have guided voter choice for two-thirds of a century, something very significant must have happened in the past two years
.

Quote:
 
FACTS

On Election Day in 2010, unemployment was 9.5%, GDP growth was 2% and the Consumer Confidence Index was 71. The food-stamp rolls had already grown by 54% since the beginning of the Obama administration, an additional 20 weeks of unemployment benefits had been added, disability rolls had grown twice as fast as employment rolls, and spending on means-tested government benefits was in the stratosphere. And when Americans turned out to vote on Nov. 2, 2010, six Senate Democrats lost their seats and Republicans picked up a staggering 63 seats in the House.


Two years ago, voters were not willing to dismiss pocketbook issues in the face of a massive two-year expansion of government benefits. The question that will be answered in this election is whether two additional years have tilted the scales and reduced the expectations of prosperity that Americans have set for their nation, their leaders and themselves. (and whether our nation will be heading toward free, opportunistic business and individual enterprise and a private sector driven economy or a government-granted, dependent economy..... like Greece, Spain and Portugal.


Link
Edited by Banandangees, Oct 20 2012, 10:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
That's a true example of a Gish Gallop in action, and I'm not getting sucked into that.

I'll just make two points:

Yes, government benefits are at an all time high. And the reason is simple. Failed Bush economic plans shoved the US into the greatest economic crisis since the '30's, and more people needed help than ever before. The problem has been magnified by the Republicans' refusal to pass a rational budget.

You claim that Romney has promised more jobs - and that is true. But his only plan is the same old nonsense that got you nearly 10% unemployment in the first place. Why should anyone believe it will work this time? Remember the definition of insanity?
Edited by Brewster, Oct 20 2012, 10:28 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I do think a country has to live within its means. But, it also has to be able to levy enough taxes to invest in things that further the country economically.

If your family was spending to freely would an appropriate way to address that be to quit your job or cut back on your hours? That seems to be the management by crisis attitude that pervades politics (ie; starve the beast).

Seems to me you have to have a balanced approach.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Oct 20 2012, 10:27 PM
That's a true example of a Gish Gallop in action, and I'm not getting sucked into that.

I'll just make two points:

Yes, government benefits are at an all time high. And the reason is simple. Failed Bush economic plans shoved the US into the greatest economic crisis since the '30's, and more people needed help than ever before. The problem has been magnified by the Republicans' refusal to pass a rational budget.

You claim that Romney has promised more jobs - and that is true. But his only plan is the same old nonsense that got you nearly 10% unemployment in the first place. Why should anyone believe it will work this time? Remember the definition of insanity?
Yes! Ban, to his credit, went to some trouble to look up all those statistics, but statistics without context are meaningless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Very much to Ban's credit, he does tend to look things up and get accurate stats. That puts him well beyond most of the other Rightys, and about a mile beyond our two resident idiots who only regurgitate unsubstantiated crap from the Right Wing Echo Chamber.

Now if we can just get him to look at the whole picture...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Brewster
Oct 20 2012, 10:27 PM
That's a true example of a Gish Gallop in action, and I'm not getting sucked into that.

I'll just make two points:

Yes, government benefits are at an all time high. And the reason is simple. Failed Bush economic plans shoved the US into the greatest economic crisis since the '30's, and more people needed help than ever before. The problem has been magnified by the Republicans' refusal to pass a rational budget.

You claim that Romney has promised more jobs - and that is true. But his only plan is the same old nonsense that got you nearly 10% unemployment in the first place. Why should anyone believe it will work this time? Remember the definition of insanity?
So, you're saying the FACTS presented in the article are not true and not an influence in this election? Besides the jest of the article is what will determine the vote and will it change the nation (for the first time in 3/4 century to government-granted,dependent society or a private/business growth oriented society... one that built our nation.

Facts are facts. Numbers are what they are, no matter how anyone want's to spin it. We are becoming Greece, Spain and Portugal.

And, for God's sack, doesn't the left every get tired of blaming our economy on Bush and anything other that this administration.... even in foreign affairs others are to blame. IT's so old it's sickening. We need a leader not a complainer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sea Dog
No Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I wish that I could have spent some time in the Canada
that Ban knows so well,
The Canada where no one works and everything is free!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brewster
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Quote:
 
So, you're saying the FACTS presented in the article are not true and not an influence in this election? Besides the jest of the article is what will determine the vote and will it change the nation (for the first time in 3/4 century to government-granted,dependent society or a private/business growth oriented society... one that built our nation.
I said no such thing. The facts are accurate. It's your one sided interpretation, ignoring the root causes behind the facts, that's the problem.

Quote:
 
Facts are facts. Numbers are what they are, no matter how anyone want's to spin it. We are becoming Greece, Spain and Portugal.
Well, thats a bit of an exaggeration. At least the middle class in the U.S. is willing to pull its weight, unlike Greece. It's just the rich who are trying to avoid their responsibilities.

Quote:
 
And, for God's sack, doesn't the left every get tired of blaming our economy on Bush and anything other that this administration.... even in foreign affairs others are to blame. IT's so old it's sickening. We need a leader not a complainer.
No, I only blame Bush for starting it. I blame the Republican-led House and the filibustering Reps in the Senate for the ongoing situation.

You have a leader. You also have an anchor in Congress. And putting Romney back in will mean you have an anchor on both ends of the chain.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis