Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Come on, okie, even I have criticized Obama on many fronts. I also explained why I disagreed with his actions; and I do not use hyperbole.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Thats a pretty big assumption, that they dont work.
Can you provide any evidence that they dont work, or is that your bias speaking?

The top quintile . . . professional athletes, some entertainers and the bankers, business men, etc., who were saved by Obama . . . is well populated with people who don't work.

THose who live in the real world are generally without bias.

0 Replies

@okie,

I don't think anyone is asking you to stay quiet, okie. We all have opinions and we're all entitled to express the opinions we have. I think what's missing here is the willingness to read and understand where someone else may be coming from.

Maybe you jump all the way to Marxism a little quickly. Maybe CI jumps all the way to dismissive name calling a little quickly. It's up to you guys if that's where you want the discussion to end. My only point is that, from one observing from the sidelines, you both have valid and valuable ideas and opinions. Why not see where they might lead?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That's been the meme from people like okie. Taxing the rich is tantamount to stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Didn't you know that?

But when the poor could possibly be given an extra $1,000 or so during the few years that their children are in their minority, okie hits the roof.

BTW, my unemployed son lives me and I will earn around $22,000. Generally, at this time of year, my freezer would be stocked with frozen peaches, blueberries and sour cherries destined for winter pies. I couldn't afford to pick blueberries or buy sour cherries this year. I had perhaps two blueberry pies and no cherry pies. That is just one homely barometer of how little $22,000 buys today.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, okie, I said you didn't outright say you hated poor people. However, if you understand anything about inference, you would know what I'm talking about.

Okay, but then why do you make an illogical inference? I think it is illogical at at least. I addressed this rich poor issue in another post before this one, explaining that I am far from rich myself, plus other reasons why your inference is not correct.

Quote:

You say that taxing the rich is the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. * Wrong conclusion.

It is not the wrong conclusion at all. If the rich are paying most of the income tax, and most of more government spending goes to service people with less wealth, then that is effectively a transferal of wealth, by using the tax system. To me, it is simple common sense by seeing where the flow of wealth is going. Now, just because the poor may receive more money, it does not mean at all that they are making the appropriate decisions that will allow them to keep it. Essentially, you have a situation where the transfer of wealth doesn't work, but you have to understand that it never works. You cannot make a person rich by giving them money.

Quote:

You say that the poor don't pay any income taxes, but in fact get money back. * That was determined by both the republicans and democrats. If the republicans did not agree, they could have revoked that part of the IRS code. They had many chances to do just that. They didn't.

I have in fact said that Bush also carried on this policy, even expanded it. My point was always the fact that the poor do not pay much if any tax, to argue against the liberal argument that it is alwasy tax breaks for only the rich. My argument was totally correct.

Quote:

From your many statements about taxation, the inference is without question that you have no respect or empathy for the poor - even as you claim your own family was poor.
Most people in this country who have lived through the Great Depression knows about poor. You needn't preach to us about it. Most of us also understand that many Americans are sufffering from this Great Recession, and the government has the responsibility to help them keep food on the table and shelter over their heads. That's called "security at home."

We give billions away in foreign aid every year; charity begins at home for those in need.

Maybe it is a simple misinterpretation by you, ci, as I have no hate for the poor whatsoever. I think our disagreement here is over what will actually help the poor more. I maintain that giving them money or redistributing wealth does not help the poor, but you apparently do not agree and you persist in twisting what I say here into the idea that I somehow hate the poor. I frankly resent that, and I also resent that same argument used by Democrats for the past couple of decades at least. I consider it the worst type of demagoguery there is.

I have read opinions by black conservatives that LBJ's Great Society, which instituted welfare programs to ostensibly help the poor, that it actually expanded the inner city poverty and the problems of the poor. I have read those arguments and facts, and I happen to agree. Just because our solutions may differ for helping the poor, we could do without these demagogic accusations about the conservatives hating the poor and hating blacks and minorities and so forth. I think you can do better than that, ci, I think you need to explain why you think various programs will actually help people in the long term, and why.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

You have to tread carefully when telling okie anything. He automatically finds a reason to accuse liberals of herd mentality. Then he will lecture you on how great he is. I suspect that there is a mirror hung over his computer so that okie can admire himself while he types.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Interesting observations. I believe the thread would be much improved if folks quit using the sweeping generalities that too often appear here. Phrases like "The Left (or Right) is ...." Or"Lefties (Righties) are ...." ; or "The top quintile ..." and all the rest of thse categorical statements almost always involve unsupportable BS, and usually lead only to more of the same. That and the accusatory name calling that often results are the bane of interesting discorse.

2 Replies

@okie,

You seem to forget that you have mentioned ad nauseam that you stop paying into Social Security before the year ends, which provides a rough estimate of your income.

As for your not eating in what you call "pricey places," given that you hated Europe, hated New York and never mention cultural events, your taste is probably satisfied at McDonalds.

You have assumed that everyone who is not earning at your level is lazy. However, I have told you that you could not last through my work week.

0 Replies

@okie,

Your ideas about Marxism have no basis in reality, either the reality of 1899 or 1939 or 1959.

How do you explain Obama having appointed some of bush's retreads?

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I don't think anyone is asking you to stay quiet, okie. We all have opinions and we're all entitled to express the opinions we have. I think what's missing here is the willingness to read and understand where someone else may be coming from.

Maybe you jump all the way to Marxism a little quickly.

Well, I happen to wonder why Democrats are not at all concerned by Marxist friends and appointments of Obama. I happen to find that strange, JPB. Now, if you see nothing wrong with Marxism, then I could understand it, but otherwise I do not. After all, I think you would have to admit that if a Republican had regularly associated with and appointed people with very racial views, such as being KKKers, we would not be seeing the extraordinary attempts by people to dismiss it or pass it off as inconsequential. I think instead that the mainstream press would have beat up on that politician to the point that they would have simply disappeared out of politics, and I would say also good riddance. It is my opinion that everyone should also be doing the same thing with Marxists. After all, it is a failed idealogy that is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and unmeasured suffering around the world, yet we now get posts on this forum extolling the virtues of Marxists. I frankly do not get it, JPB.

Quote:

Maybe CI jumps all the way to dismissive name calling a little quickly. It's up to you guys if that's where you want the discussion to end. My only point is that, from one observing from the sidelines, you both have valid and valuable ideas and opinions. Why not see where they might lead?

I am willing to talk in a civil conversation, but I am not going to sacrifice reasonable common sense principles and plain outspoken truths. I do not believe I have ever gone into the gutter or called ci that bad of names. I admit to being sarcastic, but I think its been clean. If it helps any at all, ci, I do apologize for any sarcasm that may have been over the top. I don't remember every single thing I have said here. I do not apologize however for stating what I feel to be plain and outspoken trues.

If it would help any, I would also remind that I spoke out against a fellow apparent conservative that was calling Obama a few names. I expressed the opinion that no president should be subjected to those kinds of names. I think there is a difference between calling the man names and believing he is a bit radical, and that he has not always told us the truth, which I do believe to be a fact.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Interesting observations. I believe the thread would be much improved if folks quit using the sweeping generalities that too often appear here. Phrases like "The Left (or Right) is ...." Or"Lefties (Righties) are ...." ; or "The top quintile ..." and all the rest of thse categorical statements almost always involve unsupportable BS, and usually lead only to more of the same. That and the accusatory name calling that often results are the bane of interesting discorse.

I do not know for sure the answer to the polarization, George, but I doubt it will be solved by simply turning a blind eye and acting nice to each other. Some of the greatest statesmen in the history of the world, were actually very outspoken and even polarizing by their sheer bluntness of speech. What made them great was their recognition of what was right and what was wrong, and they said so. I could remind you of a good illustration of what I am talking about. Compare Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain used the play nice and talk things over, give a little and negotiate, all will be well, but Churchill did not practice that, he was outspoken and he was decisive. Another example was Ronald Reagan, when instead of being a buddy to Gorbachev, he plainly told him to "Tear down this wall."

In summary, I think everyone will just have to choose what they think is right and take their stand for it. Hopefully, right will win. Sometimes in politics, it comes down to beating the competition rather than negotiating with them. In our case, in this country, it is a matter of winning elections, and it all should be done totally and completely honestly. We should not practice corruption, even if the opposition does. If we lose, we can still feel right. As the old saying goes, it isn't whether you win or lose, its how you play the game. We have to know what we believe, know that it is right and why, and play the game fairly at the polling place, and then in Congress. If we lose, so be it. At least we can have a clear conscience.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

If any of you can defend okie on the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor based on income taxes, I'd like to hear it. What we are essentially doing is transferring current debt to our children and grandchildren.

Even Warren Buffet said he's willing to pay more in taxes, because he understands that the remaining 98% of Americans are having difficulty. Why does okie know better than one of the richest men in the US?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Well, I happen to wonder why Democrats are not at all concerned by Marxist friends and appointments of Obama. I happen to find that strange, JPB. Now, if you see nothing wrong with Marxism, then I could understand it, but otherwise I do not.

You've got me there, okie. I can't name a single Marxist friend or appointment of Obama's. Nor can I name a single KKKer that any front page Republican claims as a personal friend or political ally. If you equate the Dems with Marxism and the Dems equate Republicans with KKKers then where do we go from there? Is the line so clearly drawn that it's already us vs them, or are there places where we can talk and challenge our preconceptions?

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

okie wrote:
Well, I happen to wonder why Democrats are not at all concerned by Marxist friends and appointments of Obama. I happen to find that strange, JPB. Now, if you see nothing wrong with Marxism, then I could understand it, but otherwise I do not.
You've got me there, okie. I can't name a single Marxist friend or appointment of Obama's. Nor can I name a single KKKer that any front page Republican claims as a personal friend or political ally. If you equate the Dems with Marxism and the Dems equate Republicans with KKKers then where do we go from there? Is the line so clearly drawn that it's already us vs them, or are there places where we can talk and challenge our preconceptions?

Has all of that escaped you that completely, JPB? I could name more, but Obama friends Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrne hosted the kickoff of Obama's political career in their home. Ayers and Dohrne were members of the Weather Underground, a subversive anticapitalist or Marxist organization that had a mission of overthrowing the United States Government back in the 70s. Ayers is still a friend of Obama and serves on certain foundations together. I will mention a second important friend of Obama, that being the pastor Wright of the church in Chicago that converted Obama to Christianity. Study this church and you will find it is founded upon something called Black Liberation Theology, which is a Marxist leaning political philosophy also masquerading as a religion.

You can do a computer search of his appointments, as there have been several with Marxist leanings and ties, JPB. Also, go back to his childhood and you can read about his mentors and people in his family that had Marxist sympathies. None of this is deniable, it is all established history.

In regard to Republicans and KKKers, I do not draw a link at all, but that would be the Democrats tendency to do that. I only use that as a comparison to reason with you that the Republican would be kicked overboard quickly. Fact is, one of the most prominent politicians linked to the KKK in the last few years, was in fact a Democrat, Robert Byrd, but this was from earlier in his career and it was all whitewashed as meaningless and insignificant. I doubt it would have been treated that way if he had been a Republican.

This may seem very partisan to you, JPB, but what I am trying to explain is that conservatives have observed slanted reporting in regard to these types of matters for a very long time. I believe that is why the alternate media is thriving, but the mainstream media still does not get it.

2 Replies

@okie,

Check under your bed tonight. There may be a Marxist waiting to get you.

0 Replies

@okie,

Ah, yes, Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright.

Bill Ayers and many of his contemporaries had some pretty radical thoughts and did some pretty radical things in the '70s. I agree with you there. Bill Ayers deserved to serve some jail time for the things he did and the fact that his conviction was overturned on a technicality is disappointing, but it's a reflection of his current relationship with President Obama... how, exactly? I'm happy to inform you that none of my friends or contemporaries in the 70's blew up any buildings, but I think one or two of them may have wanted to take over a government building or two in an attempt to overthrow the government. It was fairly commonplace in that era. I don't believe Obama knew Bill Ayers in the 70s.

Reverend Wright represents a typical minister of the Black Liberation Theology, as you've stated. My own opinion is that President Obama did a greater disservice to Reverend Wright than Reverend Wright did to President Obama, but that might be a discussion for another time.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Ok... in rereading my response I can see how that may be perceived as dismissive. I understand the outrage and frustration of someone skirting justice and not serving an appropriate jail sentence for a crime committed at some point in the past. Bill Ayers deserved to do some jail time for the crimes he committed. I also see how one could question anyone who would associate with such an individual. I think it comes down to how we value someone's current life with their past. Obamo, imo, is willing to see past someone's past and see them for who they are today. I'd have to say he's better at that than I am.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

If any of you can defend okie on the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor based on income taxes, I'd like to hear it. What we are essentially doing is transferring current debt to our children and grandchildren.

Even Warren Buffet said he's willing to pay more in taxes, because he understands that the remaining 98% of Americans are having difficulty. Why does okie know better than one of the richest men in the US?

I don't believe that rich people are necessarily more reliable sources than poor folks or those of more modest means. I suspect that Warren Buffet will notice the effect of higher taxes far less than will a "rich" family taking in $275,000 per year.

Frankly I haven't followed your dispute with okie over this matter - too much invective and name calling for my taste. Our taxes do indeed involve wealth transfers both from rich to poor and from the yet unborn to the living. It isn't an either/or situation.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Ah, yes, Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright.

Bill Ayers and many of his contemporaries had some pretty radical thoughts and did some pretty radical things in the '70s. I agree with you there. Bill Ayers deserved to serve some jail time for the things he did and the fact that his conviction was overturned on a technicality is disappointing, but it's a reflection of his current relationship with President Obama... how, exactly?

I happen to think that the home you kick off your political career has some significance, even if it isn't much more than being symbolic. I think for example that any politician should recognize the political effect of kicking off ones career in the home of a known past terrorist? Maybe not, but that would speak more to the issue of ignorance than intent, which is still not very flattering to Obama, is it?

Quote:

I'm happy to inform you that none of my friends or contemporaries in the 70's blew up any buildings, but I think one or two of them may have wanted to take over a government building or two in an attempt to overthrow the government. It was fairly commonplace in that era.

Fairly commonplace to take over a government building or attempt to overthrow the government? You have to be kidding, I hope, JPB? I guess I came from a very conservative area. I attended Oklahoma State University, and I do not recall any demonstrations against the war, none at all, nor were any students taking over buildings. Most were more interested in partying or studying so that they could keep their student deferment.

Quote:

I don't believe Obama knew Bill Ayers in the 70s.

I don't think it matters. I think the important thing is that he knew him later, and he should have known or did know who he was and what he had done. I never knew of anyone that admired those people. I knew some guys in SDS, but they were kind of a couple of losers and so I never took the time to figure out what their organization was about.

Quote:

Reverend Wright represents a typical minister of the Black Liberation Theology, as you've stated. My own opinion is that President Obama did a greater disservice to Reverend Wright than Reverend Wright did to President Obama, but that might be a discussion for another time.

That seems an odd take on it, considering the rants of Wright. Have you seen some of his rants, in regard to Jews, rich white people, and admiration of guys like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Ok... in rereading my response I can see how that may be perceived as dismissive.

Yes, I think so, JPB.
I would like to cite an example, let us consider the events leading up to 9/11, with the flight schools and all of that. Following 9/11, there were many people criticizing the intelligence services, and rightly so, for not "connecting the dots." What happened was that significant red flags were the dots, and the authorities failed to connect them in time. So in regard to "dots," I do not believe we should make the mistake of being too dismissive of all of that stuff in regard to Obama.

As citizens, we are charged with the responsibility of judging the character and politics of our politicians, and often they do not always give us all of the information we need. We also need to be able to "connect the dots." That is why I sought to learn all I could about Obama when he was suddenly thrust into the limelight by the media. He certainly was largely an unknown quantity, and not an open book, so to speak. I therefore read his book very carefully, and I watched virtually all of the debates very carefully, in an effort to try to understand what kind of man he was and what he stood for. Initially, I was even somewhat elated when he gained the advantage over Hillary, as I was hopeful we would be rid of the Clintons for good.

To make a long story short, to this day I am not real sure what the man is totally about, although I think he harbors some fairly radical beliefs. That does not mean he will be able to get them instituted. So far, he hasn't been real successful in doing all that he has wanted to do. I am convinced Obamacare is no good, and I know cap and trade is a terrible policy. I remain hopeful that we can get through the next 2 years without any more real big flub ups, and maybe he will even learn more on the job. Maybe he will turn out better than the worst scenario feared.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know