Is Mitt Romney on crack??

Ranger50 wrote: ... I never have understood the "You make enough, fork it over for someone else" mentality. Who says that IF he DOES hire that new employee that they contribute to increased productivity and therefore more profit to the business owner. You do know that a 30k/yr employee can cost an easy 50k to an employer before they even work one minute, right?

That's not really what I was trying to say and I specifically noted that the person he hired did not increase productivity.

Generally when you hire someone it is because you are doing more business, which of course should cover that expense (or it's just doesn't make sense to hire). What I was getting to here, is that he wants to hire someone that will cost him money (because apparently the business's money and his are the same ?! ). The only reason why this "should" be is so is that that person just takes workload off him (e.g. assistant etc.) but not generate business, otherwise his point is mute (which I suspect it is anyway of course).

Hey, I know it is silly arguing pundit and party talking points, but I honestly believe a lot of people fall for these things without thinking them through (as the post I was commenting on seemed to indicate).

carguy123 wrote: "This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your president," Romney said. "You have that president today." He does have a point. There's spending and then there's SPENDING! Pres. Hope has been SPENDING. And if you wait until the problem exists you don't have the hardware, the people or the training to counter said problem. A weaker America means more attacks on it's soil and less of an ability to counter any attacks. Where will the next problem arise. I too feel it's China. But with all that said, it doesn't take SPENDING to keep us strong - that is as long as the infrastructure already exists. Now if they dismantle most of it then we simply won't have the time or the money to counter any real threats. We don't need Cold War spending but military does create jobs and helps the economy. If it stopped or was decreased dramatically, while my neck of the woods wouldn't be a ghost town we would at least have several more candidates for large autocross courses or old school race courses like Sebring.

So Obama's spending adds to the defecit but what Romney would want spend doesn't? Is that what you are saying?

And how do we deal with the fact that we are actually borrowing money from China to buy guns to point at....China. And that they will let us do that?

Under the Constitution the job of the government IS military spending and not what they've been doing lately.

I never said that either wouldn't add to the deficit, all I said is that a certain amount of govt. spending on the military is necessary and that it will take less to maintain it than to recreate it.

I also said that military spending does create jobs and if you really want to see the recession spread then just cut the military spending more.

As to where the money has gone from Pres. Hope, it's been to the very big corps and not the people. I'm people so I want some of that to come my way.

BTW Mr. Hope has spent/obligated us more than all other Presidents combined in the whole history of the country.

carguy123 wrote: We don't need Cold War spending but military does create jobs and helps the economy. If it stopped or was decreased dramatically, while my neck of the woods wouldn't be a ghost town we would at least have several more candidates for large autocross courses or old school race courses like Sebring.

Well, any government hiring does create jobs. But currently we're cutting government jobs. In principal, I agree with what you are saying, but the military isn't a unique case. It's the worst possible time to be cutting government spending - and I say that as someone who has complained about too much spending and not enough taxes for a very long while. But here's the situation. We need jobs right now. What is it, 2/3rds of the economy is fueled by consumer spending? We need to get that motor working however we can. Cutting government jobs right now is bad.

But there's more- look at bond rates. The money we're borrowing is cheaper than ever. As much as I'm concerned about the debt (and I am very concerned about the debt) this isn't the time to address it in a dramatic way. We need people working, so they can stimulate the economy, so they can create more jobs, so people can pay taxes and pay down the debt.

The time to cut debt is when the economy is doing well. We squandered a fantastic opportunity for almost a decade. Now it's too late until we get things moving forward again.

Not to mention our infrastructure is crumbling. We're going to pay for it one way or another. Would be cheaper to hire people now and fix things than it would be to wait until they get much worse. Ad that to all the benefits above and I see a pretty good path forward.

As for Romney, he doesn't care a twit one way or the other. He's looking to shore up votes.

carguy123 wrote: Under the Constitution the job of the government IS military spending and not what they've been doing lately. I never said that either wouldn't add to the deficit, all I said is that a certain amount of govt. spending on the military is necessary and that it will take less to maintain it than to recreate it. I also said that military spending does create jobs and if you really want to see the recession spread then just cut the military spending more. As to where the money has gone from Pres. Hope, it's been to the very big corps and not the people. I'm people so I want some of that to come my way. BTW Mr. Hope has spent/obligated us more than all other Presidents combined in the whole history of the country.

It's funny how President Hope has accomplished in two years what President Bush couldn't do in eight when it comes to the war on terror. Apparently he's doing something right considering the number of dead terrorist leaders that have been turning up lately...

Historically speaking (not that it really means much since it is mostly circumstancial), Democrats start wars, Republicans end them. Not the case anymore...

Cone_Junky wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Trickle down economics has never worked but it's a great way to fatten your donors pockets while pretending that you care about anyone who's not rich.

That old "trickle-up" theory has worked so well.......

Where has it been applied?

Where?

Here, in the USA, since the advent of The Great Society programs intended to address poverty, lack of education and on, and on. We have implemented necessary programs to assist those in need, spent trillions of dollars yet the number of people living below the poverty line has decreased less than four percent.

All accomplished under the auspices of government, the same entity so many believe is the answer to our problems.

Then again, maybe it is a success after all since those who receive the funds reward their politicians with the votes to keep them in office. Which is just as corrupt a system as the one you rail against.

Just an observation from one not blinded to the failures of both sides.

carguy123 wrote: Under the Constitution the job of the government IS military spending and not what they've been doing lately. I never said that either wouldn't add to the deficit, all I said is that a certain amount of govt. spending on the military is necessary and that it will take less to maintain it than to recreate it. I also said that military spending does create jobs and if you really want to see the recession spread then just cut the military spending more. As to where the money has gone from Pres. Hope, it's been to the very big corps and not the people. I'm people so I want some of that to come my way. BTW Mr. Hope has spent/obligated us more than all other Presidents combined in the whole history of the country.

Regardless of what the constitution says, if we don't have the money, we can't spend it. This isn't about Obama. This is about us arming against the Chinese. If we had the cash to do it that would be different, but we don't and worse yet, we are dependent on them financially.

Here is the scenario. We start a military buildup against the Chinese and they dump all of our Treasury Bills hurting their own economy but causing a nice big depression in our country and they stop loaning us money. This is a chess game and the Chinese already have our King cornered. It doesn't matter how we move our pawns. Romney is still playing checkers.

" but military does create jobs and helps the economy"

But wait, the mantra has been that the gov't CANNOT create jobs. Which one is it?

Joshua wrote: It's funny how President Hope has accomplished in two years what President Bush couldn't do in eight when it comes to the war on terror. Apparently he's doing something right considering the number of dead terrorist leaders that have been turning up lately... Historically speaking (not that it really means much since it is mostly circumstancial), Democrats start wars, Republicans end them. Not the case anymore...

Joshua, he's done it by escalating the policies enacted by his predecessor. If Bush43 had done the same thing, you'd have been all for it, right?

carguy123 wrote: I also said that military spending does create jobs

Military spending creates jobs in the same way that setting fires stimulates the construction industry. I'd much rather have that money spent in our own country revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure, educating our kids, and keeping our citizens healthy so that we might have some hope of maintaining a decent standard of living and economic competitiveness with the rest of the first world.

Josh wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I also said that military spending does create jobs

Military spending creates jobs in the same way that setting fires stimulates the construction industry. I'd much rather have that money spent in our own country revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure, educating our kids, and keeping our citizens healthy so that we might have some hope of maintaining a decent standard of living and economic competitiveness with the rest of the first world.

SOCIALISM!!!!!

How can you possibly believe that having a healthier, better educated society is the best way to improve our country? Crazy talk!

We need more things that go bang and boom. Maybe we can implant explosives in all the sick and poor and fling them at our enemies.

Cone_Junky wrote: We need more things that go bang and boom. Maybe we can implant explosives in all the sick and poor and fling them at our enemies.

You forgot the old. Not many iceflows down south to stick em on like we do up here.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Josh wrote:

carguy123 wrote: I also said that military spending does create jobs

Military spending creates jobs in the same way that setting fires stimulates the construction industry. I'd much rather have that money spent in our own country revitalizing our crumbling infrastructure, educating our kids, and keeping our citizens healthy so that we might have some hope of maintaining a decent standard of living and economic competitiveness with the rest of the first world.

SOCIALISM!!!!! How can you possibly believe that having a healthier, better educated society is the best way to improve our country? Crazy talk! We need more things that go bang and boom. Maybe we can implant explosives in all the sick and poor and fling them at our enemies.

We need to take of the sick, educate the poor and motivate them off the welfare state.

There are plenty of useful idiots we can use to fling at the "enemy". Perhaps we can start with those who use hyperbole instead of offering reasoned responses?

damn... to think we made it about a week without a political thread...

I wish I could vote for a good solid crack addict.

TRoglodyte wrote: I wish I could vote for a good solid crack addict.

or a prostitute... at least ya know they're a whore up front

Joshua wrote: It's funny how President Hope has accomplished in two years what President Bush couldn't do in eight when it comes to the war on terror. Apparently he's doing something right considering the number of dead terrorist leaders that have been turning up lately... Historically speaking (not that it really means much since it is mostly circumstancial), Democrats start wars, Republicans end them. Not the case anymore...

Nevermind that he's using info gathered in the previous administration, or how well it would have been recieved had the govt killed american citizens when Bush was in office.

Or, lets point out even better stuff, like how the ATF has been running guns into mexico in order to puff up their stats, and how some of those guns are responsible for killing civilians and govt officials on both sides of the border. And if the Attorney General is complicit, guess who else is?

Screw you guys. I'm having one of these.

fasted58 wrote:

TRoglodyte wrote: I wish I could vote for a good solid crack addict.

or a prostitute... at least ya know they're a whore up front

Hookers have too much respect for them selves to become politicians.

Xceler8x wrote: Screw you guys. I'm having one of these.

I've been having those. Well, Yeungling and Blue Moon.

ShinerBock is good stuff.

It's funny how President Hope has accomplished in two years what President Bush couldn't do in eight when it comes to the war on terror. Apparently he's doing something right considering the number of dead terrorist leaders that have been turning up lately... Historically speaking (not that it really means much since it is mostly circumstancial), Democrats start wars, Republicans end them. Not the case anymore...

President Hope wanted to cut all the people put in place by Bush. The results you see were started under Bush. Hope would have never put them in the field.

We need to take of the sick, educate the poor and motivate them off the welfare state.

There is no way to get them off the welfare rolls if they don't want to go. That is the problem. Welfare is for generations not just until you have time to get on your feet.

I don't who has been saying the govt can't create jobs, because they can. It's just at what price? You'd be amazed at how many people are employed under the military spending that don't do things that go pop.

A lot of my customers are employed under that military spending budget so if that is cut so is my income.

carguy123 wrote: You'd be amazed at how many people are employed under the military spending that don't do things that go pop. A lot of my customers are employed under that military spending budget so if that is cut so is my income.

True, but compared with other Federal employees, military service comes at a very high financial cost. The cost per serviceman in Iraq is $685,000 / year and for Afghanistan it's $1.2 million / year : http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/22/am-the-cost-of-a-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan

If we could shift the conservative paradigm from stating "what's good for our country is being strong on defense", to "what's good for our country is developing the largest possible middle class and plenty of infrastructure" I think we'd be in a better place. Of course, then they'd be democrats

And if we could shift the idea of national service from being only about military service and broaden the definition to include education, the sciences, even laying fiber optic cable then we'd be in a much better place.