DRSmith Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The problem is lower and middle class people don't spend the money on goods that drive the economy Are you trying to make Sarah Palin seem like a genuis? The middle class with decent wages buy cars, houses and the needed up keep on those plus home furnishings They buy food and clothes and spend extra cash on vacation and recreation. Teh middle class drives the economy and the smaller it gets the worse your economy gets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The same attackers. The same defenders. The same utter and complete nincompoop of a vice president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Again, this is one of those options that only work in theory. The idea of it sounds good, but rarely do people ever have the willpower to do this. If it worked, gas wouldn't cost what it does, food wouldn't cost what it does, Walmart would have shut down last year when they cranked up their prices, etc. Getting a large enough group of people to commit to doing this is something we have proven we are not capable of doing. The power is in the hands of the people, we're just not smart enough to realize it.Again, something that doesn't realistically work. If you need the stuff, you need it, so you buy it wherever you can if prices are too absurd. In an economy like this, who is really able to save enough money to start up a business? If they were able to save that much money, do you really think they would use it to start a business, or save it just in case the bottom falls out and they are in danger of losing everything? Even if they did save the money for the purpose of starting a business, the wiser ones would wait until the economy has leveled out a lot more before making that leap. This isn't always the case. Walmart is a perfect example. There is a point where you have so much money, that no regulations or fines matter anymore. I recall just recently that Walmart was going to build on or right at the edge of a battlefield. People fought it and eventually won, but only because Walmart had a change of heart, not because they couldn't do whatever they wanted. Lots of people use to have mom and pop shops until they could not compete with the box stores. In an economy like this where everything has been focused on Wall Steet and getting a few rich you have what you have now, if an economy is kept properly watched over, good trade agreements are made then you have the chance to suucceed the problem is for the last decade things have been getting worse in fact since the early 90's wages and the middle class have really taken a hit. Again Walmart is an eample of labour laws being too friendly to one side then the others laws should be balanced to protect the interests the common good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Again Walmart is an eample of labour laws being too friendly to one side then the others laws should be balanced to protect the interests the common good If you want to pay more for consumer goods, by all means, go somewhere else. But I happen to think that getting everything you need at a great price, in the same place, is "the common good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 The same attackers. The same defenders. The same utter and complete nincompoop of a vice president.Despite Fox "News"'s ridiculous headline, which seems to be achieving some success inflaming witless readers, I don't see anything inappropriate in what Biden said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Despite Fox "News"'s ridiculous headline, which seems to be achieving some success inflaming witless readers, I don't see anything inappropriate in what Biden said. And with that, my previous statement is further confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I'm just completely fed up with both parties casting blame as to "who broke it" when we're all losers at this point. Unfortunately contemporary politics---as presently constituted,---only allow these guys to seemingly focus on the short term fix when longer term fixes are what we sorely need. With that said we can't print money indefinitely and look to July 1st as a big date for the markets as QE2 officially ends. Who's gonna buy our bonds then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 And with that, my previous statement is further confirmed. Please explain the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I'm just completely fed up with both parties casting blame as to "who broke it" when we're all losers at this point. Unfortunately contemporary politics---as presently constituted,---only allow these guys to seemingly focus on the short term fix when longer term fixes are what we sorely need. With that said we can't print money indefinitely and look to July 1st as a big date for the markets as QE2 officially ends. Who's gonna buy our bonds then? I actually agree with this. It's great and important to put things in context. Hopefully, it helps us from repeating history as quickly. However, when the finger pointing gets in the way of doing and solving... then we have a problem. More, I think we have so much finger pointing because there is no clear solution at least not an easy one and so both sides want to deflect, distract, and divide. It's a successful strategy bound to fail us all in the... gosh, I can't even say long run anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oversized Toddler Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 Despite Fox "News"'s ridiculous headline, which seems to be achieving some success inflaming witless readers, I don't see anything inappropriate in what Biden said. So you attack the headline? Will these do better? Joe Biden Invokes Rape In Criticizing Republicans - Huffington Post Biden Likens GOP Economic Strategy to Blaming Rape Victims - Free Republic Biden Compares GOP Budget Strategy to Blaming Rape Victims - Politicalforum.com It's almost exactly the same, so blame Joe Biden, not the headline writers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 What's "wrong" (re: the OP per forum rules) is creating a duplicate account to circumvent previous moderator actions. Any serious need to "opinionate" on a particular internet message board despite repeated ejection is unfortunate and suggests stunted personal development. Remember the option to seek professional help for such matters. Per topic, no Joe fan here, but he's hardly the total idiot some like to contend, even after acknowledging all his foot-in-mouth moments. It's especially amusing to read some poster's with what appears to be a fraction of his intelligence call him out as a doofus (judgment based on numerous things he's stated and numerous things said members have stated). I often am reminded that the same kind of idiot who defends Palin by bringing up Biden (a so so ****ing stupid exercise on several levels) is likely to be the same kind of idiot who thinks CNN is as biased (or as big a circus for the igwads) as Fox news. It's like their discernment and other critical thinking skills got stuck at the "Dick & Jane" level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 "1812?" http://www.worldfinancialblog.com/wp-content/uploads/us-public-debt-inflation-adjusted.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Its official Joe Biden has easily passed Dan Quayle as dumbest VP in history Between completely politicizing the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process (Bork '87), his comments about Indians working at 7-11's in Deleware, his stupid push for 2003 bankruptcy law, his hair brained scheme to split Iraq into 3, his statements on how the administration "underestimated the economic crises" and now this bit off buffoonery has me convinced he is either incredibly arrogant, stupid, or more probably both. I hope to God if President Obama does actually win a 2nd term that this asshat is as far away from the White House as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 [/color] Its officialJoe Biden has easily passed Dan Quayle as dumbest VP in history Between completely politicizing the Supreme Court Justice confirmation process (Bork '87), his comments about Indians working at 7-11's in Deleware, his stupid push for 2003 bankruptcy law, his hair brained scheme to split Iraq into 3, his statements on how the administration "underestimated the economic crises" and now this bit off buffoonery has me convinced he is either incredibly arrogant, stupid, or more probably both. I hope to God if President Obama does actually win a 2nd term that this asshat is as far away from the White House as possible One of the few times we have ever disagreed. And not by that much. As stated, I'm no Biden fan, but from what I have read of him, I just see him definitely less harshly (and nowheres near the <harmless> moron Qualye was) than some, even with his often PC-incorrect gaffes and of course some outright stupidity so common to many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Its officialJoe Biden has easily passed Dan Quayle as dumbest VP in history Without addressing the rest of your post, any "dumbest VP" discussion that omits Spiro Agnew is woefully misguided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 When people like Palin and Biden make so many gaffs... thats what they get. All the way to the bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Without addressing the rest of your post, any "dumbest VP" discussion that omits Spiro Agnew is woefully misguided. I used quite a bit of hyperbole there. Dumbest in my life time (Bush, Quayle, Gore, Cheney, Biden) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Please try not to turn this into a Right vs. Left fight. They both suck, and the sooner we can all accept this, the better off we'll be. QFT Republicans vs Democrats. Liberal vs. Conservatives. Right vs. Left. call it whatever you want, but they are all EQUALLY worthless. The biggest lie they have convinced us all of, is that we actually "control" the course of this country. Let me enlighten you all. "We" don't control ****. There are realities of our system, that won't be changed no matter how many of which side are holding office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 If you want to pay more for consumer goods, by all means, go somewhere else. But I happen to think that getting everything you need at a great price, in the same place, is "the common good." See that is the problem people have been taught that getting things for cheap was good, but what has it really meant for America. Par of the problem with the US is their debt and that debt who holds it has been fed by companies like Walmart More than 500 billion is imported from China per year the US is running a trade deficit with China that equal 5 percent of the GDP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 See that is the problem people have been taught that getting things for cheap was good, What the hell? Here is a fact of life: there are alot of people that CAN"T afford to pay more for the same things they can get cheaper at Walmart. What in the hell do you want them to do? Why in the hell should I pay $5.68 for a jug of Pet brand milk when the Walmart brand is $3.00? To keep up the Unions?? It's awfully easy to say pay more but .50 here a dollar there adds up. Just like Geraldo Rivera the other day saying he welcomed $5 a gallon gas. I guess when you're making a couple of mill a year, it doesn't bother you. What about Joe six pack trying to make ends meet? How the hell does he get to work or put any damn food on the table? And yes ive been drinking.......we still do that on sat night in freakin fly over country.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I think where DrSmith is correct is that short term cost cuts by businesses geared at increasing short term profits sometimes have hurt everyone in the long run. All the duct tape and all those short cuts eventually backfire. For example, our oil refineries are old and outdated. New ones would process more oil, do it more quickly, and get a higher rate of return, but no one wants to put out the initial expenditure on building a new refinery because they are too expensive. Instead, they keep patching up or tinkering with the old ones which leads to waste and ineffeciency. A more glaring example is that the builders of the World Trade Tower decided to forgo the use of a certain kind of fire retardant on their building's infrastructure. This substance would have cost them an additional 100,000 and when they evaluated the profit/risk they said, "no thanks" Sadly, they and no one envisioned someone ramming a plane into their building. According to what I read, that retardent would have stopped the building from coming down. Individuals make the same short term mistakes sometimes. Whether its eating fast food because we are tired and it's easy or buying a "cheap" product that we know will break down because it's what we can more easily afford today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 What the hell?Here is a fact of life: there are alot of people that CAN"T afford to pay more for the same things they can get cheaper at Walmart. What in the hell do you want them to do? Why in the hell should I pay $5.68 for a jug of Pet brand milk when the Walmart brand is $3.00? To keep up the Unions?? It's awfully easy to say pay more but .50 here a dollar there adds up. Just like Geraldo Rivera the other day saying he welcomed $5 a gallon gas. I guess when you're making a couple of mill a year, it doesn't bother you. What about Joe six pack trying to make ends meet? How the hell does he get to work or put any damn food on the table? And yes ive been drinking.......we still do that on sat night in freakin fly over country.......... Could they afford to pay more if their jobs had not been shipped over seas so goods could be made cheaper to fin into the Walmart price point? Do you know one of the ways Walmart will try to keep prices down, working in the grocery business I have spoken to farmer who have told me they will not deliver to Walmart anymore the reason, they get to the doors of the wharehouse and they are told they will only get x for their product and if they do not like it take it and leave, now that farmer is faced with cost of fuel and labour already used and then could be faced with added costs. So for instance a box containing 24 heads of lettuce they will only pay the farmer 7.50 for and then they will sell the heads in their stores for a dollar to a dollar 50 a head So you think you are getting a good deal but that farmer is now making less money and has less to spend The people working in the store who are not getting paid much do not have much to spend But those who are higher up are getting rewarded by the majority shareholders and those two groups have more money than they know what to do with and are complaining about taxes. Now if the farmer gets paid well then supports his family and does not need to sell out is farm to a large corporate farming operation and get the pride of owrking with his hand and owning land The people in the store and the logistics side are paid well they can own homes and have the pride in their work Sure they top may end up being multi millionaires instead of billionaires but if you feel bad about them we can take up a collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.