|
|
|
|
|
Phone Expert
Nice!Originally Posted by member_fdic
.
Why yes, that is a bag phone
This is the post I was talking about. Why is it relelvant when discussing my political views for you to even mention my race? I choose not to own a television because I have no need for one. I have a pc with a good sized monitor and can watch netflix or whatever on that. Saves me about $800 a year for service I wouldn't use anyway so its not about being in this century or not.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using HowardForums
what is this new feature, and how can I manipulate it in order to make myself seem superior to those around me?
Phone Expert
It's not really. I was just reiterating everything that you'd told us so far. You could be racist against your own people for all I know but I really don't care. You brought up the fact that you are black to presumably prove a point about the authenticity of your political beliefs.
The Republican party is painting Obama as an "outsider, not one of us" through subtle and sometimes not so subtle means because they know they can't win an honest debate otherwise.They said he was born in Africa (even after they were presented with his legitimate birth certificate from Hawaii, ) and a lot of people believed it. They said he is Muslim, a Marxist, pals around with terrorist, taught to hate white people in his church, Islamic, Nazi,foreigner, appeaser... You get the picture and probably read this stuff everyday but you want to stick with the budget deficit, right? Well you've already lost that debate and don't even realize it How do you block all the name-calling out and just focus on the lies that the radical right-wing media tell you about the economy? One can only assume that you're either a racist or just dense. I know I'm not going to change your mind. I still only wish you nothing but the best and hope that you can one day step out of that ivory tower and see the light.
I have a blue tooth
When I was younger I used to think of politics in terms of good vs bad. Now that I've seen more and experienced more, I just see it it as bad vs bad. Different sides of a bad penny are still a bad penny. Just MHO.
Donald Newcomb
I have a blue tooth
I think it goes back to a lack of well-paying jobs. Remember that minimum-wage workers pay little or no income tax and may be eligible for an Earned Income Credit. The way our tax system works, when the workers are struggling the Treasury will be bleeding red ink.
Phone fan
I wouldn't have guessed you for a cynic. There are people trying to do some good in this world but there are always bad apples in every bunch. We all know the system of lobbying payoffs is wrong but to lump all public servants as bad is also wrong. It's the ones that deceive on both sides that we have to look out for. I remember Senator Dobbs being caught in a little white lie by CNN, I think it was Dana Bash who called his bluff and Clinton lying to the American people about his extramarital affair but the majority of big lies that have completely changed the direction of this country have been from the Republican side. From Nixon's Watergate break-ins to Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney manufacturing evidence out of thin air to start a war with Iraq. So the numbers aren't as even as you describe. Even member every1nosme said he didn't have "television service" but later admitted that he has television shows streaming to his computer. I believe that's referred to as a distinction without a difference, or in this case, a lie.
I've got more phones than fingers
Yes, we definitely need to be wise enough to tell which lies are important. Clinton was an excellent liar to save his own skin; even the grand jury thing (whatever) and being disbarred by his own student. Good thing Lewinsky wasn't al-Queda, lol. And while he did make that mess and diminish himself and the office, it didn't change the economy, foreign policy, etc. No major repercussions. JFK was a libertine. No major repercussions (except for Marilyn and the girl in the lake via Teddy). Jimmy Carter had lust in his heart, lol.
Iraq and Afghanistan and Viet Nam have had major repercussions. The Red Scare was Republican. I don't think we can blame either side but beware any of them trying to exploit our fears. People will lie in order to do this. That should be fought.
Why yes, that is a bag phone
I referred to not having televising service when it was stated I was watching a cable news channel. I later stated that I use netflix which does not give you access to cable news channels so in the context of the conversation intelligent parties would be able to infer the difference and not mistake either statement as a lie.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using HowardForums
Phone fan
I just went to Foxnews.com and watched a live stream of Your World Cavuto. At top of page you'll see "On Air Now" and then click on "From Main Street to Wall Street" There's a few minutes of time delay so it's not exactly live but close to it. Also, if a friend or family member gives you their email and password for their cable or satellite account then you can watch live streaming video from CNN. This also works for HBOGo and several other stations though I haven't given mine out to anybody because it could start a domino effect causing me to lose my service.
I have a blue tooth
Yep, died in the wool.
Don't forget the Tonkin Gulf Incident. That certainly changed the direction of the country and cost many thousands of American lives.but the majority of big lies that have completely changed the direction of this country have been from the Republican side.
No, I believe everything Limbaugh and his ilk say about Obama and I believe everything that Maher, Moore & their buddies say about Romney. Money has totally corrupted politics on both sides. Honest politicians are as rare as hen's teeth. It's almost impossible to be honest and get reelected.
Why yes, that is a bag phone
That was my whole point to start with before some folks decided to try and belittle my opinion by questioning who I watch or listen too. Neither side is actually willing to make the tough stands and sacrifice their political futures for the sake of the country. And too many voters are worried about voting for a guy who will stop the handout to them. The rich guy isn't going to vote for the guy saying tax the rich and the poor guy isn't going to vote for the guy saying he will take away whichever government handout program he collects from. As long as the people aren't willing to vote against their own personal interests for the betterment of the country we will continue to go further down the path of self destruction we find ourselves on now. Look at how hard it way for them to pass the spending cuts they did pass. They saved a whole $2trillion dollars from being added to the defecit. The key to it is that is over a 10 year period so at the pace we are on now we will only be about $30 trillion in debt in 2022 instead of $32 trillion. And these guys are patting themselves on the back for this! Way to go guys you held off financial ruin for our children for an extra year! I hope I'm wrong but I don't think the reality off this will really hit home with this nation until it is too late. Happened to Greece .and it can happen to us it just will take a little longer.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using HowardForums
Phone fan
You are. The answer to your concerns were addressed by the OP on the first page of this thread.
Good solid Republican talking points though with just a smidgen of faux bipartisanship thrown in to make it all seem easier to swallow. BTW, were your grandparents the Ingalls family from Little House on the Prairie?, just kidding. I guess we could all live like the Amish as you previously suggested and probably won't have a choice once the fossil fuels run out.
Phone Expert
Indeed, everyone would have an equal opportunity IF the circumstances were the same so your reasoning is slightly twisted in a kind of tortured way. Here's a quote from Nobel Prize Winner Jodeph E. Stiglitz speaking on Current Tv.
"The sad fact of course is that the United States is not only the country with the most inequality in outcomes, its also the country with the least equality of opportunity. A kid's life prospect is more dependent on the education and income of his parents than in any other advanced industrialized country."
He elaborates here in an excerpt from his book, The Price of Inequality: "As higher education becomes more important—not just for individuals but for the future of the whole U.S. economy—those at the top push for university budget cuts and tuition hikes, on the one hand, and cutbacks in guaranteed student loans, on the other. To the extent that they advocate student loans at all, it’s as another opportunity for rent seeking: loans to for-profit schools, without standards; loans that are non-dischargeable even in bankruptcy; loans designed as another way for those at the top to exploit those aspiring to get out of the bottom.
Many, if not most, Americans possess a limited understanding of the nature of the inequality in our society. They know that something has gone wrong, but they underestimate the harm that inequality does even as they overestimate the cost of taking action. These mistaken beliefs, which have been reinforced by ideological rhetoric, are having a catastrophic effect on politics and economic policy.
There is no good reason why the 1 percent, with their good educations, their ranks of advisers, and their much-vaunted business acumen, should be so misinformed. The 1 percent in generations past often knew better. They knew that there would be no top of the pyramid if there wasn’t a solid base—that their own position was precarious if society itself was unsound. Henry Ford, not remembered as one of history’s softies, understood that the best thing he could do for himself and his company was to pay his workers a decent wage, because he wanted them to work hard and he wanted them to be able to buy his cars. Franklin D. Roosevelt, a purebred patrician, understood that the only way to save an essentially capitalist America was not only to spread the wealth, through taxation and social programs, but to put restraints on capitalism itself, through regulation. Roosevelt and the economist John Maynard Keynes, while reviled by the capitalists, succeeded in saving capitalism from the capitalists. Richard Nixon, known to this day as a manipulative cynic, concluded that social peace and economic stability could best be secured by investment—and invest he did, heavily, in Medicare, Head Start, Social Security, and efforts to clean up the environment. Nixon even floated the idea of a guaranteed annual income."
Phone Expert
You are right on the mark on this. Here's another excerpt from Stiglitz's book addressing the issue.
"When too much money is concentrated at the top of society, spending by the average American is necessarily reduced—or at least it will be in the absence of some artificial prop. Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher-income individuals consume, as a fraction of their income, less than lower-income individuals do.
In our imaginations, it doesn’t always seem as if this is the case, because spending by the wealthy is so conspicuous. Just look at the color photographs in the back pages of the weekend Wall Street Journal of houses for sale. But the phenomenon makes sense when you do the math. Consider someone like Mitt Romney, whose income in 2010 was $21.7 million. Even if Romney chose to live a much more indulgent lifestyle, he would spend only a fraction of that sum in a typical year to support himself and his wife in their several homes. But take the same amount of money and divide it among 500 people—say, in the form of jobs paying $43,400 apiece—and you’ll find that almost all of the money gets spent.
The relationship is straightforward and ironclad: as more money becomes concentrated at the top, aggregate demand goes into a decline. Unless something else happens by way of intervention, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying—and that means that there will be growing unemployment, which will dampen demand even further. In the 1990s that “something else” was the tech bubble. In the first decade of the 21st century, it was the housing bubble. Today, the only recourse, amid deep recession, is government spending—which is exactly what those at the top are now hoping to curb."
Mobile Pro
The transition has already started but not for the reasons you stated. It's because greedy corporations like Bain are closing down companies and sending jobs overseas.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks