Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Originally Posted by pat mccarthy

now how the hell can you say Romney is not that popular ? hell he neck n neck with the clown in the big white house and there has not been one debate?

This is just going off the news's broadcasts. A lot of people are not voting 'for' Romney, but rather, they are voting against Obama. I'm kind of in the middle. Some things Romney does I don't agree with, but others I do.. Many don't like the fact he has been successful, some are stuck on his tax returns. I think, with a more likable candidate, they wouldn't be neck in neck, and republicans would take office, end of story..

I haven't drank the Koolaid

Originally Posted by Matt167

This is just going off the news's broadcasts. A lot of people are not voting 'for' Romney, but rather, they are voting against Obama. I'm kind of in the middle. Some things Romney does I don't agree with, but others I do.. Many don't like the fact he has been successful, some are stuck on his tax returns. I think, with a more likable candidate, they wouldn't be neck in neck, and republicans would take office, end of story..

I haven't drank the Koolaid

Like or dislike doesn't have thing to do with unless you're talking about a popularity contest. I'm not into communism or socialism or whatever tack the clown in the White House is proposing. And I sure am getting sick and tired of the rich versus the poor BS. How many people have ever been offered a well paying job from someone that is poor? That's what Capitalism is all about, you want to be successful get off your butt and work for it.

And you think "O" can fix it in 4 more??? He hasn't fixed anything in the last 4. Give me and everyone else a break.

Hey!!! We are all passionate with whats going on!! Each one of us is affected differently!! Each one of us has an opinion!!(right or wrong) If I offended any one I apologies!! A couple of beers and I have my computer muscles on!! We do have one thing in common, CARS!!, we may not agree on what type of cars but they are cars!! Pete

Not sure if this changed any but I was in the carpenters union for a lot of years. The only benny was wage there are no paid vac. no hospital benny it was all on you. So I tend to agree Unions have run there course Chicago just proved that in my eyes.

Originally Posted by cffisher

Not sure if this changed any but I was in the carpenters union for a lot of years. The only benny was wage there are no paid vac. no hospital benny it was all on you. So I tend to agree Unions have run there course Chicago just proved that in my eyes.

In Philadelphia we get a hourly wage in our pay check,a hourly benefit (pension,medical),hourly annuity,vacation hour goes to the union hall (they manage the money),My union officials get the same pension and benefit per hour that i get no more no less,if the invest badly they lose also.My point was to express that if a non-union worker was to lose the prevailing wage on government jobs why would they vote for the person who is taking that away! Just like every thing else there are good unions and bad unions-good company's and bad company's-good people bad people!! I got in the carpenters union in 1973(very slow time for construction)our present president of the Philadelphia Carpenters was a carpenter turned business agent. I was very lucky and worked for 33 years and got to retire at 52 years of age(I worked!! the union does not keep you working they manage the benefit money and collect from the company per quarter.) My union officials were smart enough to for see the future and invest wisely!! There are 10,000 active carpenters and 5,000 on pension,over a billion dollars in the fund,if the carpenters can do it, would you not think others could(greed gets in the way) And to add to this all three contractors i worked for in 33 years are self made millionaires!! I personally would like every one to have a good paying job and to live comfortably and retire at 50!! Some may call it communist or socialistic. There is way to much money out there,yes its capitalism and you worked hard for it but come on what is better one person to win 100 million or 100 people to win a million each? A hundred millionaires would spend more of that money to keep the economy moving rather than one person with 100 in the bank. Pete

this is america . land of the free . that means you are free to become a millionaire or some deadass living in your truck . your choice. to vote against obama because he is a failure is acceptable even if you dont like romney. but to vote against a man because he is successful is ridiculous . all we can do is read what is out there and even then you have to be careful the source. kennedy was rich but everyone loved him even though he was worse than clinton.
i want a man in office who understands the economy and can lead us out of this hole. increasing welfare and food stamps wont get it done although it did get obama elected. jobs are the answer and the only answer.

by the way china owns only slightly over 8% of our debt.

Originally Posted by shine

this is america . land of the free . that means you are free to become a millionaire or some deadass living in your truck . your choice. to vote against obama because he is a failure is acceptable even if you dont like romney. but to vote against a man because he is successful is ridiculous . all we can do is read what is out there and even then you have to be careful the source. kennedy was rich but everyone loved him even though he was worse than clinton.
i want a man in office who understands the economy and can lead us out of this hole. increasing welfare and food stamps wont get it done although it did get obama elected. jobs are the answer and the only answer.

by the way china owns only slightly over 8% of our debt.

I here ya!! I'm not saying to vote against Romney because he is successful! I's he really successful or is his Dad successful? did Romney start out with a lemon aid stand, deliver papers,cut grass,put himself thru college or pay off college debt? The question is Romney the Man he's portrait to be? He did not become a millionaire he was born a millionaire!! I believe Japan holds alot of our debt.(China and Japan don't get along at all)could get ugly!! Pete

Originally Posted by prpmmp

There is way to much money out there,yes its capitalism and you worked hard for it but come on what is better one person to win 100 million or 100 people to win a million each? A hundred millionaires would spend more of that money to keep the economy moving rather than one person with 100 in the bank. Pete

The real answer to your question as stated is NEITHER. I've gone over the discussion of what money is several times so won't do the long version again, but the synopsis is...........money has no intrinsic value, it only represents the value created by an exchange between two or more willing partners in trade. To say that "...there is too much money out there....." in the context you constructed is to imply that money itself is the value rather than a representation, or IOU if you will. That's where a lot of folks go wrong and why we elect economic morons who either believe the same thing, or tell lies to support the uninformed view. If money had intrinsic value then printing a second dollar bill would double wealth. In reality, printing a second dollar bill cuts the underlying value of both bills in half...........one of the causes of inflation, and why current Federal Reserve policy is very dangerous.

The second implied error in your construct is that "...putting money in the bank...." is less valuable than spending it. Perhaps you're confusing a bank with a mattress. When money is put in the hands of bankers they put that money to work by lending it to creative/reliable people who in tern increase it's value. It's a part of the mecahnism that grows a successful economy and leads to higher worth societies. In reality, if the money (or actually the underlying earned value it represents) it redistributed to someone who gave no value in exchange then that underlying value is diminished, even if that someone spends it. By redistributing value without a willingly agreed to exchange of mutual value you shrink an economy. That's the insidious nature of wellfare, it devalues an economy as well as the individual. That errosion is very slight, moves very slowly, which is why so many don't see it, but decline occurs. That's why Europe is in such trouble today, and why every society in history that's tried to be redistributionist has ultimately failed. All of this goes to the old parable "if you give a man a fish you feed him once, if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is not to denegrate charity (which is one of the more honorable human traits), but extorting money for political advantage by redistributing it to ultimately buy votes is not charity....................it's theft.

BTW, Mitt Romney gave all of the money he inherited from his parents to charity. If you're unaware of that then you're not getting your info from a reliable source. That's not to say he didn't have advantage in having a good education provided by a well to do family, but as others have said in different ways, he didn't just sit on his butt, he did something with that education. You're free to disagree with how he applied his learning, but to criticize it as unearned is typical leftist slander.

As for that insane notion that "....so and so doesn't understand the working man's plight.....(or whatever version is spewed)" that's pure, unadulterated BS. If you're going to try that game be prepared to point out what in Pres. Obama's life qualified him for that. He too was raised in a life of privelege (different perhaps than that of Romney, but still priveleged).............so in saying that Romney is disqualifed for that reason, so too is Obama....................just a silly, silly notion.............

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

The real answer to your question as stated is NEITHER. I've gone over the discussion of what money is several times so won't do the long version again, but the synopsis is...........money has no intrinsic value, it only represents the value created by an exchange between two or more willing partners in trade. To say that "...there is too much money out there....." in the context you constructed is to imply that money itself is the value rather than a representation, or IOU if you will. That's where a lot of folks go wrong and why we elect economic morons who either believe the same thing, or tell lies to support the uninformed view. If money had intrinsic value then printing a second dollar bill would double wealth. In reality, printing a second dollar bill cuts the underlying value of both bills in half...........one of the causes of inflation, and why current Federal Reserve policy is very dangerous.

The second implied error in your construct is that "...putting money in the bank...." is less valuable than spending it. Perhaps you're confusing a bank with a mattress. When money is put in the hands of bankers they put that money to work by lending it to creative/reliable people who in tern increase it's value. It's a part of the mecahnism that grows a successful economy and leads to higher worth societies. In reality, if the money (or actually the underlying earned value it represents) it redistributed to someone who gave no value in exchange then that underlying value is diminished, even if that someone spends it. By redistributing value without a willingly agreed to exchange of mutual value you shrink an economy. That's the insidious nature of wellfare, it devalues an economy as well as the individual. That errosion is very slight, moves very slowly, which is why so many don't see it, but decline occurs. That's why Europe is in such trouble today, and why every society in history that's tried to be redistributionist has ultimately failed. All of this goes to the old parable "if you give a man a fish you feed him once, if you teach him to fish you feed him for life." This is not to denegrate charity (which is one of the more honorable human traits), but extorting money for political advantage by redistributing it to ultimately buy votes is not charity....................it's theft.

BTW, Mitt Romney gave all of the money he inherited from his parents to charity. If you're unaware of that then you're not getting your info from a reliable source. That's not to say he didn't have advantage in having a good education provided by a well to do family, but as others have said in different ways, he didn't just sit on his butt, he did something with that education. You're free to disagree with how he applied his learning, but to criticize it as unearned is typical leftist slander.

As for that insane notion that "....so and so doesn't understand the working man's plight.....(or whatever version is spewed)" that's pure, unadulterated BS. If you're going to try that game be prepared to point out what in Pres. Obama's life qualified him for that. He too was raised in a life of privelege (different perhaps than that of Romney, but still priveleged).............so in saying that Romney is disqualifed for that reason, so too is Obama....................just a silly, silly notion.............

Yeah Rush er Bob your right!! Physco Babble always works!! The money I;m talking about is what a person earns working then spending it to survive(not your 5 guys playing poker with the worlds wealth and when one wins it all he gets to loan it back the the other four just to keep playing!!)you can call it anything you want but people need it to survive!!I never said I was pro Obama!! I was asking what does Romney have to offer and is he the man!! So he gave it to Charity!! Pocket change!! Pete

Originally Posted by prpmmp

yeah rush er bob your right!! Physco babble always works!! The money i;m talking about is what a person earns working then spending it to survive(not your 5 guys playing poker with the worlds wealth and when one wins it all he gets to loan it back the the other four just to keep playing!!)you can call it anything you want but people need it to survive!!i never said i was pro obama!! I was asking what does romney have to offer and is he the man!! So he gave it to charity!! Pocket change!! Pete

... :lol::lol::lol: ....

There is nothing in Romney' or the republican's agenda that understands the working man's life. Or in my case,a retired man's life. The way it goes with them is it sounds like a company who is planning to cancel the pension of workers after yrs of service.
It's been many,many yrs since the Republicans has had anyone good. I mean 10's of yrs.

You can't say Romney understands the economy any better than a president who has served the office for four yrs. With him you can expect the rich to get richer and it stops there. The mess inherited by the current president is going to take more than fours yrs to straighten out. And it is that mess you want to elect??. Well none for me thank you.

While I think about it. Sure, all presidents before a election do go through a lame duck period in every election. But this president has said along the compromises are on the table. There is little doubt who has been holding the people and the country hostage. For that that party should be trialed and convicted of treason. Well at the very least it's leader should. Do we really want to reward the Republicans after what they have done by electing their guy??.

Originally Posted by 1gary

There is nothing in Romney' or the republican's agenda that understands the working man's life. Or in my case,a retired man's life. The way it goes with them is it sounds like a company who is planning to cancel the pension of workers after yrs of service.
It's been many,many yrs since the Republicans has had anyone good. I mean 10's of yrs.

You can't say Romney understands the economy any better than a president who has served the office for four yrs. With him you can expect the rich to get richer and it stops there. The mess inherited by the current president is going to take more than fours yrs to straighten out. And it is that mess you want to elect??. Well none for me thank you.

While I think about it. Sure, all presidents before a election do go through a lame duck period in every election. But this president has said along the compromises are on the table. There is little doubt who has been holding the people and the country hostage. For that that party should be trialed and convicted of treason. Well at the very least it's leader should. Do we really want to reward the Republicans after what they have done by electing their guy??.

Your watching too much TV. President lies every day about what the GOP does. Yes they are signing ridiculous laws that change, street names and such, but their doing it because the cards on the table from the democrats is down right scary. They did the same with the health care law, but back then, Dems had power enough to use the filibuster.. Actually go to Mitt Romney for President | Mitt Romney for President of the United States of America in 2012 and read thru his policies

Originally Posted by 1gary

There is nothing in Romney' or the republican's agenda that understands the working man's life.

Gary, what exactly is your definition of a "working man"? Does it mean the same thing as a "union man"? Does "the working man's life" differ from that of a musician or a farmer or a salesman?

Every time a big union's contract with a company runs out we hear endless moaning and groaning and tales of woe about how the big corporations are giving the shaft to the poor "working man".

To hear them tell it they are the most overworked, underpaid, put-upon bunch of poor s.o.b.'s in the world.

Around here American Airlines crews are telling us all about it. American Airlines (for whatever reason) is in some state of bankruptcy and, take it from somebody who knows, it is possible that we may see some of those people working down at the car-wash in the future.

I can say that with a degree of certainty. I worked 20+ years for an airline that went kaput.

I have worked both union and non-union (I had to pay union dues to get the job). I
was a lousy member of the "brotherhood". I couldn't handle having some of those people doing my talking for me.

I was more comfortable doing aircraft repair work out of the back of a Chevy S10 for fifteen years.

While doing so I managed to keep my family fed, and I considered myself to be a working man.

Jim

Originally Posted by Big Tracks

Gary, what exactly is your definition of a "working man"? Does it mean the same thing as a "union man"? Does "the working man's life" differ from that of a musician or a farmer or a salesman?

Every time a big union's contract with a company runs out we hear endless moaning and groaning and tales of woe about how the big corporations are giving the shaft to the poor "working man".

To hear them tell it they are the most overworked, underpaid, put-upon bunch of poor s.o.b.'s in the world.

Around here American Airlines crews are telling us all about it. American Airlines (for whatever reason) is in some state of bankruptcy and, take it from somebody who knows, it is possible that we may see some of those people working down at the car-wash in the future.

I can say that with a degree of certainty. I worked 20+ years for an airline that went kaput.

I have worked both union and non-union (I had to pay union dues to get the job). I
was a lousy member of the "brotherhood". I couldn't handle having some of those people doing my talking for me.

I was more comfortable doing aircraft repair work out of the back of a Chevy S10 for fifteen years.

While doing so I managed to keep my family fed, and I considered myself to be a working man.

Jim

Yes you are a working man,as is the musician,farmer, salesman,coalminer,ect,ect!! I don't know how old you are but back in the 50's and 60's what I remember growing up is the man went to work and mom worked at home,we lived on one income,that has change,maybe a little greed but to make a living 2 people need to work! the definition of a working man is someone goes the work every day,every week,every month,everyyear,year after year after year!! These rich politicians really do not know or experienced working for someone else year after year!!Big Company's buy other Company's and lay off or close up for profits to shareholders(not illegal), There seems to be no pride any more just profits! Sunoco refinery in Philadelphia for years did not update to refine less quality crude and had to buy sweet crude to refine at a higher cost,they decided to sell or shut down.Brought in a new CEO she liquidated all there assets,laid off white and blue collar workers to the tune of 2 billion dollars,sold to Carlyle Group and got a 35 million dollar bonus!! Nice work if you can get it!! Pete