The GOPs Best Hope in 2012

[GwynnInTheHall]

i'll take that wager

Shhhh Jason will scold us for gambling.

I bet it'd be pretty damn close.

oops.

[Mithrandir]

Yes, you are reading in too much.

For starters, when you say things like "three steps below what I feel people are entitled", I have to ask "by whom"? By that standard, I am entitled to more. It is not "one less thing I have to pay for", it is "You should be paying me."

I advocate cutting spending on social programs, not because they are no good, but because we cannot afford to borrow money to pay for them. I also believe that earned is better than entitled.

More than that, I am irritated that you take a glance at a social program that works well, and want to discard it.

J

Then i assume you are 100% behind AMERICAN COMPANIES KEEPING THE F**CKING JOBS IN AMERICA. So more people can earn a living wage and not need social programs to aid them.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yes, you are reading in too much.

For starters, when you say things like "three steps below what I feel people are entitled", I have to ask "by whom"? By that standard, I am entitled to more. It is not "one less thing I have to pay for", it is "You should be paying me."

I advocate cutting spending on social programs, not because they are no good, but because we cannot afford to borrow money to pay for them. I also believe that earned is better than entitled.

More than that, I am irritated that you take a glance at a social program that works well, and want to discard it.

J

LMAO at you feigning indignation, it really honestly made me laugh out loud.

Min wage is a good starting point--I said that-you're ignoring that i did-I said your applauding it while advocating cuts in the programs designed to make up for the gap in min wage and cost of living makes you a hypocrite.

It's like saying I'm glad you have medicine to cure your terminal disease, then cutting that same persons access to the professionals and equipment they need to administer it.

You obviously completely disregard any social contract we have with our fellow human beings and/or countrymen.

BTW you never answered any of my questions, but then you might be too--irritated to do so.


I don't know WHAT I was thinking trying to talk sense to you in the first place.

[onejayhawk]

LMAO at you feigning indignation, it really honestly made me laugh out loud.

Min wage is a good starting point--I said that-you're ignoring that i did-I said your applauding it while advocating cuts in the programs designed to make up for the gap in min wage and cost of living makes you a hypocrite.

It's like saying I'm glad you have medicine to cure your terminal disease, then cutting that same persons access to the professionals and equipment they need to administer it.

You obviously completely disregard any social contract we have with our fellow human beings and/or countrymen.

BTW you never answered any of my questions, but then you might be too--irritated to do so.


I don't know WHAT I was thinking trying to talk sense to you in the first place.

There is no feigned indignation. You pithed me off. Claiming to be one of the deserving poor does not help your case. Sorry.

We did find something to agree on. I dont know why you think you are talking sense either.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

There is no feigned indignation. You pithed me off. Claiming to be one of the deserving poor does not help your case. Sorry.

We did find something to agree on. I dont know why you think you are talking sense either.

J

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

[onejayhawk]

Then i assume you are 100% behind AMERICAN COMPANIES KEEPING THE F**CKING JOBS IN AMERICA. So more people can earn a living wage and not need social programs to aid them.

Surprising to many, I am more concerned that the profits stay here. We can take the competition. When we get protective of jobs, so do other countries. Also, small businesses are the job creators, and they rarely export the workload.

J

[onejayhawk]

We did find something to agree on. I dont know why you think you are talking sense either.

J

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

And you speak of me being disconnected.:wtf:

J

[chancellor]

Surprising to many, I am more concerned that the profits stay here. We can take the competition. When we get protective of jobs, so do other countries. Also, small businesses are the job creators, and they rarely export the workload.

Hmmm...not entirely true. Mid to large businesses provide 33-45% of the jobs, depending on whose numbers you believe.

I have little to no issue with protecting jobs in industries that are clearly facing companies backed by countries that dump. I'll just remind the last president to do this for any significant industry was GWBush for the steel industry.

[onejayhawk]

Hmmm...not entirely true. Mid to large businesses provide 33-45% of the jobs, depending on whose numbers you believe.

I have little to no issue with protecting jobs in industries that are clearly facing companies backed by countries that dump. I'll just remind the last president to do this for any significant industry was GWBush for the steel industry.

While not disagreeing, job creation is runs heavily to smaller companies. By job creation, I mean jobs which must be done up from scratch, as apposed to vacancies that must be filled.

[chancellor]

While not disagreeing, job creation is runs heavily to smaller companies. By job creation, I mean jobs which must be done up from scratch, as apposed to vacancies that must be filled.

There's a lot of debate relative to job creation vs. company size of late from pretty reputable business PhDs.

It certainly drives worthwhile debate as to what should be the areas government can actually influence positively vis a vis job creation. If you believe small business will drive the biggest bang for the buck relative to job creation, we need to get even more serious about regulatory streamlining. And while I'd have loved to have seen more from the Obama administration in this regard, their latest was still a positive step.

If you believe mid-sized businesses will drive the biggest bang for the buck, then fair trade policies need to get on the table. Both Clinton and GWBush did much more than the present administration in this area, which is certainly counter-intuitive to me.

[onejayhawk]

Perhaps that is because both were better at the job than the current President.

In any event, new jobs come when businesses expand. Businesses expand when they are making money. It apints a bleak picture of the coming months, for the job market.

J

[Wonderboy]

Perhaps that is because both were better at the job than the current President.

Oh please. That's like saying Aaron Hill is a better hitter than Pujols by only comparing Hill's AB's against Chan Ho Park and Puljols when he hits against Halladay. The economy and the situation faced by Clinton and Bush were far different that the one Obama took over. And I won't even get into Bush doing so well because he corked his bat.

[onejayhawk]

Oh please. That's like saying Aaron Hill is a better hitter than Pujols by only comparing Hill's AB's against Chan Ho Park and Puljols when he hits against Halladay. The economy and the situation faced by Clinton and Bush were far different that the one Obama took over. And I won't even get into Bush doing so well because he corked his bat.

Even you would agree with half of the statement, that the Clinton Adminstration was better than the Obama Adminstration. Further, I think you believe that Clinton was a better President than Obama. For what that is worth.

Dont get cause and effect confused. The effect is also a tiny piece of evidence of the cause, but that is not the point here. The GBA was more on top of the issue because his was a better run administration. GW Bush was also a better President, but that is a different argument.

Also, the economy that Obama took over was not vastly different than the one Bush took over. Both inherited recessions. Clinton was more fortunate.

J

[Wonderboy]

I think Clinton was a good president and maybe better than Obama will turn out to be. But it's an unfair comparison to compare the problems Clinton faced with the ones Obama faced, which was a massive economic melt down, literally of historical proportions.

And to compare the economic situation when Bush took over to the one that faced Obama when he took over is ludicrous. Hell, didn't Bush start with a surplus or close to it? His wars, tax reductions and lax business regulation put this country in the toilet. And that's what Obama started with, which was a far worse situation than either Clinton or Bush started with.

It is an unfair comparison, again, comparing what one batter does against an average college pitcher to one facing Randy Johnson in his prime.

[Mithrandir]

One Jay is either a practical joker or completely out of touch with reality.