Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?
Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
Ryan - Romneys' V.P. choice - thoughts?
Most Popular Reply
Mark UpdegraffBusiness Member
Real Estate Broker · Rochester, NY · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 690 votesRon Paul is the clear choice for president. But since we're stuck with Romney, at least give us Paul Ryan!
Give us Liberty, or Death!
Updegraff Group Realty4.746 Reviews
71 Replies
- Residential Real Estate Agent · Costa Mesa, CA · Member since 2008 · 1k+ posts · 380 votes14y
You are all missing the point. Romney HAD to go with Paul Ryan. This is not an issue of ideology, tactics, or shrewd political strategy. It is not the manipulation of our citizens into believing in an us vs. them mentality. It is not a slight of Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio.
It is simply that Mitt Romney needed balance. After all, if you were a man with zero first names, you would have no choice but to pick a VP with two first names, in order to restore balance.
I'm sure J Scott will agree with me here.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
However; with all our flaws, our country is the greatest on the planet...I guess it depends on your definition of greatest...
This country USED to be the greatest (in my opinion) and COULD be the greatest again (no doubt), but over the past 30 years, things have gone pretty far downhill, and statistically, we're far from the greatest in most areas that people would say are important.
Think about it -- how would you define the things that make a society great?
In terms of people being happy, we're not the greatest. In terms of education, we're not the greatest. In terms of crime, we're not the greatest. In terms of life expectancy, we're not the greatest. In terms access to basic components of health (health care, food, etc), we're not the greatest. In terms of political corruption, we're not the greatest. In terms of personal and government debt, we're not the greatest.
Those are the things I find most important -- the things I wish for my kids to have as they're growing up.
Perhaps you're talking about in terms of opportunity to acquire wealth -- if that's the case, and your definition of greatest is solely based on the ability to make money -- then you can argue we're in the top 2 or 3. But, it's pretty sad if you determine the value of a society based solely on the ability of the citizens to earn money in that society.
I'm not saying it's not important, but it's certainly not the single ideal you should hold up to define the greatest of a nation (in my opinion).
Or maybe you're talking about our Constitution and system of government? No doubt, in theory it's the best. But, if you think what's going on with our political system and the divisiveness it's causing amongst our citizens is something we should be holding up in pride, that's nuts. In reality, I'd rather have a government that cared about its people regardless of the form than a government that cares more about itself, it's ideologies and big business, even within a well-formed Constitution.
Again, there's no doubt that our country USED to be the greatest country on the planet by most measures. Unfortunately, the fact that so many people buy into the "American exceptionalism" crap in this country has turned us into a bunch of lazy idiots who don't feel the need to actually be exceptional anymore.And before any tells me, "If you don't like it here, move somewhere else," keep in mind that I never said I don't like it here. My life is great, I have pretty much everything I want, and I'm extremely lucky to have been born in the right place, the right time and with the right color skin. But that doesn't mean I have to delude myself into believing the country is still the greatest when all evidence indicates that it no longer is.
Which is sad, because it could be.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Jake Kucheck:
I'm sure J Scott will agree with me here.Agree 100%. Politics has become a game in this country, and strategically, that was the optimal move on Romney's part.
I'm pretty sure Bobby Jindal would have gotten it had he been better looking.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Karen M.:
Though I don't agree with the Mormon religion...What? You don't believe God lives on the planet Kolub?
For what it's worth, I'll likely vote for the guy...Mormon beliefs are no crazier than any other religion...
Not sure about that, they follow a prophet who was riding a horse west of Missouri where he was kicked out of town for being a con-artist having nothing to do with religion. Mr. Smith would be amazed I'm sure at how things have turned out. But I have no problem with any christian based cult.
What I know is that the current adminstration has had the greatest rate of job growth in the past under an obstructionist congress in the history of any first term....fact! That's because it was a negative going in losing jobs. I know to that many jobs have been saved, or at least not lost. That our military is strong and finished the job bagan and abandonded by the previouse adminstration.
What I don't know is what a new adminstration would do. I know Ryan wants a voucher system for health care, very bad idea, but that would be a great corporate welfare system for insurance companies paying a set amount and allowing premiums to increase while keeping the government contribution as appropriated funds, subject to congress increasing its portion. I know they want to get rid of the Dept. of Education, putting it back to the states to determine how schools are run, sorat like in the 40s and 50s, how did that turn out? I know they want the EPA of the face of the earth, not sure I want to wear a gas mask or need to buy water.
I know that BO put a jobs act up and it was blocked, can't let him succeed at anything you know. Fact is that if people were out digging ditches along a highway, they would pay rent, buy things and spend. So where is the Romney approach? Trsut me I know how to, but can't tell any specifics yet, just wait and trust me.....Really? Time to give me some facts of how, not blue sky.....
We have a guy here who is running for the Senate, he wants to do away with the minimum wage, Dept. of Ed and EPA, Section 8, turn medicare and medicad over to insurance companies, limit law suits to corporations, injury and medical malpractice and allow 18yr olds to carry guns and put a doctor in jail for doing any abortion under any circumstance. And people here are drinking his kool aid....just amazing! So my concern is not so much this nut, but others in a position to sign off on such insanity.
This old Republican is very concerned about the NEW Republicans, not the same bunch any more at all. I think they got really ticked off with BO being sworn in, that they see the country going toward the "minorities" and it scares them, that now the best thing to do is to strip the country and funnel as much as possible to the 1 or 1/2% upper class, go global and to heck with the country. I don't see evidence to the contrary. While my grandkids may have other opportunities I'm sure they will not have the same, at least in business, as the entry will be so high in most every aspect that any average person just won't be making it. 5 grandkids to date and a few MM won't go so far any more, I think of in terms of years, like 450 years worth of increasing expenses. Maybe their best shot would be in politics. Oh well......
- 14yMark UpdegraffBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · Rochester, NY · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 690 votes
You can't put a value on Freedom
Updegraff Group Realty4.746 Reviews - Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
I think they got really ticked off with BO being sworn in, that they see the country going toward the "minorities" and it scares them, that now the best thing to do is to strip the country and funnel as much as possible to the 1 or 1/2% upper class, go global and to heck with the country.Of course. People are all for freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality when it's their speech, their religion and equality for people of their color and beliefs. People scream this is a Christian nation, completely ignoring the fact that the reason this nation was formed in the first place was because our forefathers were forced to adhere to a particular religion and decided that was wrong. To argue that it's a Christian nation because the founding fathers were Christian would be like arguing this is a white, male and slave-owning nation because our forefathers were white males who owned slaves. I've yet to hear anyone make that claim.
Speaking of Christianity, the funny things is that Christianity was created by an upper class who wanted to keep the lower class in check to avoid uprising and disruption of the class system. Here we are 1500 years later and it's being used the same way again and people don't even realize they are being brainwashed and controlled.
The Republicans have convinced the masses that we need "less government" when it comes to business regulation and then at the same time convince the same people that we need more government when it comes to social regulation. Hmmmm, I wonder why they'd want to do that? The only reason I can think of is to make the rich richer and the poor more oppressed and controlled.
It's hilarious hearing people scream "LESS GOVERNEMENT" and then scream that we need more laws to restrict speech, drugs, sex, marriage, travel, etc. Brainwashing at its best.
Think about it -- the Republicans have convinced those making the least money that those making the most money are the ones who need the tax cuts, the subsidies, the legal loopholes, etc.
It's F****** brilliant how the ultra-rich in this country have gotten the underclass to serve their whims. I wish I was half that brilliant...
It's time to wake up people. There's nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism (we shouldn't be spending more than we bring in) and there's nothing wrong with less government (including less legislation of morality by one group's standards), but to vote for what's good for a small group of people vs what is good for the nation as a whole is just ridiculous.
For those who honestly believe that this is a land of equal opportunity for all, I have this question: Why aren't you ultra-rich? Is it because you don't work hard enough? Because you're not smart enough? If I have more money than you do, does it mean that I am smarter and harder working than you are? If not, then the equal opportunity argument doesn't hold.
And before anyone starts telling me that I'm just a jealous socialist, keep in mind that I'm probably part of (or close to) the "1%"...socalism would result in me having less than I currently do. But, I'm okay having a little less to ensure that everyone has at least the very basics. That's not socialism...that's humanity.
Wake up people.
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes14y
J Scott Everything you've listed is relative, and depends on an individuals specific circumstances as to how they feel (money, education, etc.) Though, those in the worst of circumstances in the U.S. are still far above those in other countries.
Bill Gulley We have over 12 MILLION people unemployed in the country. In order to generate growth we need 400-600,000 jobs being added PER MONTH, we are nowhere near that. The jobs bill is BO code for sucking up more tax dollars to give to the largest road contractors in the country, police departments, teachers, etc. to employ the multitude of union workers that vote Democrat.
The point is, the U.S. is out of money. We borrow .60 of every $1 we spend, and all the social welfare programs are unstainable. MANY of those on the programs are capable of working, but refused (when there wre actually jobs) Now, there are no jobs, and no plan to allow businesses to get going again by cutting out burdensome regulations, and lower the tax burden on small business.
As for the Democrat lines about fear of people with colored skin, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Being a conservative, wanting people to keep more money in their pockets and allowing families to use their money as they choose (and most people generously donate to charity), pursue the American dream, buy homes, etc. once the government gets out of the way and allows business to once again thrive, benefits ALL citizens, no matter what their skin color.
Once again Bill, I ask, what happens when the average worker realizes that they can make as much money staying home and collecting money from the government as they do going to their jobs? Then, the tax burden, gets larger, and larger for the 20% of the people that have to carry it, and next, the burden becomes to large, and the system collapses. In addition the companies that depended on those workers have to pay more and more for workers, and prices of commodities go higher and higher, until soon we are like those countries that pay $3 million dollars for a loaf of bread!
America is at a tipping point. Ignoring the facts and thinking we can continue spending and spending forever is crazy. The largest countries are already moving to get away from the tax burden, as are many of the wealthiest in America. We will become like Greece and the other European countries that are collapsing if we don't stand up and make the tough choices now.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a plan. Barrack Obamas plan is to ask the few left working to pay more and more... and then extract what they can from higher income individuals to pay more and more.. but soon, the balance will tip, and the taxpayers won't make enough to carry those not paying taxes... and it's getting close to that now.
We need a plan to get businesses going again, which will create more jobs and a larger tax base. That's the only hope. Barrack Obama isn't the one to do it. He had both houses for two years, no opposition, and failed.... there's no excuse other than he doesn't know how to do it! Obviously most of you disagree with me...
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Mark Updegraff:
You can't put a value on FreedomAgreed.
But, you can certainly say that MORE FREEDOM is MORE VALUABLE and LESS FREEDOM is LESS VALUABLE.
We have a lot less freedom in this country than we did 30 years ago, therefore the country/government is providing less value than it used to. Which, again, is why we've gone from being the greatest nation on the planet to not.
And everyday people are voting for less and less freedom, not more freedom. Which just blows my mind.
Remember, freedom is sacrifice. It doesn't mean having the ability to do what you want -- it means giving others the ability to do what they want, even if (and especially when) you don't like it.
Sound familiar?
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
J Scott Everything you've listed is relative, and depends on an individuals specific circumstances as to how they feel (money, education, etc.) Though, those in the worst of circumstances in the U.S. are still far above those in other countries.Really? You really believe that?
Okay, on the following list, where does the U.S. rank as #1 (meaning the best) these days:
- Happiness
- Education
- Crime
- Life Expectancy
- Poverty
- Corruption
- Median Net Worth
- Social FreedomsIf you think there are more important things to be giving to our children than those things on the list above, feel free to add them. And tell me which of these we're #1...
Btw, if you think any of the things on that list aren't ultra-important to be providing to your kids, then clearly we just have different goals for our children...and there's no reason to continue this discussion.
As for those in the worst circumstances in this country having it better than other countries, please show me ANY evidence that the most poor in this country are better-off than the most poor in countries such as Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Turkey, Italy, France, etc.
Hint: You can't.
Though I do understand it probably helps you sleep better at night thinking it's true.
- Property Manager · Dublin, OH · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 291 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Karen M.:
COME TRY OUT SOCIALISM IN CALIFORNIA...We have huge areas of unemployment where the "real" numbers are 20%, or more.If California were truly socialist, the unemployment rate would be lower than the rest of the country (not higher). In addition, there wouldn't be the huge divide between the rich and the poor within the state -- one of the largest divides of any state in the nation.
Here I will agree with J Scott, in East Germany (GDR) we had no unemployment only 0.4% was not at work in these times.
-Uwe
- Real Estate Broker · Canton, GA · Member since 2010 · 15k+ posts · 11k+ votes14y
We might as well end this discussion.I have seen this over many forums for years and years and it never gets resolved.
Compared to other countries we are still a great nation but not at our ideal.
Still many people long for our worst than the BEST of where they are living now.At least here they can have a dream if they work hard for it.
The job of those creating a better life for themselves isn't to pay higher taxes through the government for those who can't cut the mustard.
I want to see Congress writing those checks out of their own pockets to pay for all these programs they want to implement.
Have you seen fiscal government?? Why give them 1 million when they can't effectively manage 1 dollar ?? In that scenario nothing changes but the amount of damage created and the budget increases.
Government just says "I don't know what happened to the money but just give me more so i can pay this stuff !"
We had a vote on state splost here for a 1 percent tax for the roads.it was voted down.Might have something to do with over 100 million unaccounted for and they do not know where it went and road crews standing around picking their nose looking like a stump.
We have to fix the system FIRST so that every dollar used is maximized and only then increase the budget if needed.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Uwe S.:
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Karen M.:
COME TRY OUT SOCIALISM IN CALIFORNIA...We have huge areas of unemployment where the "real" numbers are 20%, or more.If California were truly socialist, the unemployment rate would be lower than the rest of the country (not higher). In addition, there wouldn't be the huge divide between the rich and the poor within the state -- one of the largest divides of any state in the nation.
Here I will agree with J Scott, in East Germany (GDR) we had no unemployment only 0.4% was not at work in these times.
Yup. Unfortunately, too many people hear idiot talk show hosts (both liberal and conservative) using various terms like "socialism" and parrot it back as if they truly understand what it means. All the while not realizing that the politicians they support are just as much in favor of "socialism" as the rest of the politicians, just in different ways.
In other words, too many Americans getting their "education" by watching Fox News and MSNBC as opposed to getting a real education. Part of the problem in this country.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
True Uwe, the problem is that Americans are not well rounded, worldly informed citizens, we usually gravitate toward what we believe and surround ourselves with people like us more so than europeans do, IMO. We generally like to pick a team and tend to agree with anything the team seems fit.
Karen, you said Romney has a plan, where is it? I know what Ryan proposed, pretty much plays straight into private sector taking on public needs for a profit. How's the post office doing anyway, stripping money from them during the Bush years, are they under yet and ready to sell out to UPS or FedX.?
Karen, workers want to work I believe. 3 million bucks for a loaf of bread, what country is that? It's not that high even in Greece.
I'm already sick of hearing slogans and political deceptions forming opinions for many who simply don't want to make the effort to look at facts or look at things objectively, it's so much easier repeating the slogans and distorted hype of our team media players orchestrated by the puppet masters and spun in a way for more simple minded folks to understand. People just don't vote in their own best interests, they vote for where they would like to see themselves, not where they are.
Back to Ryan, he wants to tie spending to GDP. That would mean that your medical insurance voucher would be tied to GDP in the future. If medical expenses increas more than GDP, which they have for 20 some years, that means your voucher allowance will not keep up with increased costs. You will get X dollars to pay for fee paid services or take a standard or other insurance policy and the premiums of the policies go up with costs. It won't be long that the gap between the voucher allowance and the real costs of insurance will increase, costing more to be insured. This only kicks in for those under 55, but in ten years the gap can be significant for those 65. This is certainly not a cure for our health system and I doubt it's intended to be as much as it is a welfare system for insurance companies, getting voucher funds and being able to increase premiums.....ah, the best of both worlds.
How about lowering the tax rates and doing away with all corporate welfare, we could all have the same health plan that Ryan has!
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes14y
Uwe S. Bill Gulley What I find amazing is that when someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they're accused of being ignorant or unable to think for themselves, having to rely on news networks in order to form their opinions, which by the way is incorrect. Only those that agree with you are considered intelligent, informed and able to have an opinion worthy of considering. THAT is what is the problem with politics.
California isn't a socialist state nor is America.. yet. Actually I think it's more of a Marxist philosophy the Dems are moving towards. However; as California is failing, so will America if that track is what we continue down. Drastic changes are needed, to make the government more efficient, not larger.
Joel Owens You're right, there is no resolution to these conversations.
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes14y
J Scott Americans are the most generous people in the world. There's not another country that donates more money personally or as a nation to helping others. If government programs weren't sucking up so much of our tax dollars, individuals and churches would be able to care for those in need, as we always have. I believe in the goodness of Americans, not our government.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Karen, as is the assumption that was directed at you personally, which it was not, it's our "team" approach. Having lived in Europe for only 4 years, I got to meet all kinds, even the kids were more "open minded" than most American adults. We really get a large dose of the red, white and blue, especially when I was a kid, it just takes a long time to catch on. Don't get me wrong, I'm a military type, and would be the first in line for a just conflict, probelm is I don't really trust our politicians to define that any longer.....like we use to say in the military, what if they had a war and no one came? Now, I'd always be looking at who would benefit from a conflict, the oil companies, banking, maybe industry, who (?) would it really be about freedom or opportunity?
Back to Mr. Ryan, you know the guy has not held a real job in his life....he inherited money, was an intern, politics and has a family business which he really has not participated in, just picks up his checks so to speak. So now I can see why the guy thinks there should be no grants for kids to go to college and why he says go get a job and pay for your eduction....because he never had to do that!
BTW, my education began under a social program called VA benefits, I like to beleive I earned them along with the lousy pay I got. LOL
BTW, Karen, your thinking of charity goes back centuries, the latest being the English orphanage, church homes and soup kitchens of the 30s. That puts us back a hundred + years, as not all organizations in all communities can cope with the problems. Just ask Oliver.
It's pretty easy for those who have never worked with non-profits or very low income families to say get a job, they just don't have a clue what that entails and how the government really says one thing, but does another to ensure the prblems are not solved in some ways, as it means profits in another area or becomes a social football. Most don't want to solve problems, they just want them to go away. Speaking as a past HUD/PHA type.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
Uwe S. Bill Gulley What I find amazing is that when someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they're accused of being ignorant or unable to think for themselves, having to rely on news networks in order to form their opinions...Karen M. -
I can't speak for Uwe and Bill, but my criticism of several of your statements here has nothing to do with you disagreeing with my point of view. It has to do with you making emotional and/or opinion-based statements that are factually incorrect.
Here are two of them:
Originally posted by Karen M.:
COME TRY OUT SOCIALISM IN CALIFORNIA...We have huge areas of unemployment...Originally posted by Karen M.:
Though, those in the worst of circumstances in the U.S. are still far above those in other countries.Those statements are not supported in fact. The first one shows an ignorance of the definition of the very notion of your whole argument. The second doesn't even pass the common-sense test, let alone is supported by any factual evidence.
And when discussing something as important as our political system and the future of our country, to start throwing out lies indicates that you either don't know enough about the facts to make a logical argument or don't care enough about the facts to make a logical argument.
Either way, that is the basis for my accusations of ignorance.
For what it's worth, I disagree with several things Bill has said as well. But, he's clear about what is his opinion and what is fact, and his facts are, in-fact, accurate. If your facts were accurate, I wouldn't be arguing with them.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
J Scott Americans are the most generous people in the world. There's not another country that donates more money personally or as a nation to helping others.Karen M. -
I don't disagree with the fact that, quantitatively speaking, Americans are the most generous in the world.
But, I assume this is in support of your argument that we're the greatest nation, and if that's true, there are several holes in your logic:
- First, it can be argued that in countries where there isn't nearly as much disparity between rich and poor, there isn't as much need for charity, as those in the lowest rung are still getting the basics they need to live. So, maybe there is less giving in other countries because there is less need. I don't know if that's true or not, but if I were testing the theory scientifically, this would be one of my most first controls.
- Second, to argue that we're the greatest nation because we give so much would be analogous to arguing that we're the worst nation because we have the highest criminal incarceration rate in the world. Both statements are ridiculous. You don't rank the greatness of a nation by a single metric, and even if you did, I'm guessing most people wouldn't choose the metric of "most generous."
But, if you want to claim that it's your opinion that we're the greatest nation on the planet because we're the most generous, that's absolutely your prerogative. Though I expect most people wouldn't agree with the criteria you've chosen.
- Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2011 · 475 posts · 211 votes14y
I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation
Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987
British politician (1925 - ) - Property Manager · Dublin, OH · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 291 votes14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
Uwe S. Bill Gulley What I find amazing is that when someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they're accused of being ignorant or unable to think for themselves, having to rely on news networks in order to form their opinions, which by the way is incorrect. Only those that agree with you are considered intelligent, informed and able to have an opinion worthy of considering. THAT is what is the problem with politics.Karen M.,
Sorry but I don't understand your statement against me.
I lived in GDR 19 years, your note about high unemployment in CA is socialism is flat wrong. This was my input in this topic. I corrected your note thats all.-Uwe
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
And before anyone starts telling me that I'm just a jealous socialist, keep in mind that I'm probably part of (or close to) the "1%"...socalism would result in me having less than I currently do. But, I'm okay having a little less to ensure that everyone has at least the very basics. That's not socialism...that's humanity.
Wake up people.
I'd rather think of it as the trickle up economy, which actually works, I pay $30 more in taxes for the teacher or cop to keep their job and they pay me $300 in cash flow for rents or in interest. If half my town is unemployed who do I sell to?
I can't really think of any society on earth that does not provide in some manner for its citizens, only in America would you have a bunch who would think everyone should be totally self sufficent or just drop dead.
J Scott, I can't believe you don't agree with me 100%....LOL
- Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2011 · 475 posts · 211 votes14y
Other pertinent quotes:
"It has been said theat democracy is the worst form of government, except compared to all the others that have tried"
- Winston Churchill"A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have"
-Thomas Jefferson - Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
Karen M., what you may be calling our generousity as a nation many call payoffs for political influence, if you look deeper into what we pay the Afgans for example is not charity, it's payoffs for us to do things, conduct business, have access to our holdings and now for our troops.
Why is it that east Africa has gotten so little aid from the US, if we placed the contributions of charity on needs, they would be alot better off, but as they said in the movie, no one cares about Africa. IMO, there is very little charity about it, our money goes to pay for influence to allow our corporations to do business in other countries, buy off politicians, pay their militaries, build infrustructure and provide health programs for which we have receive benefit. Bill Gates wouldn't have started his charitable work or Clinton, if it were all done out of the goodness of our hearts, as the govt. would like us to believe.
Every dollar that goes out has a purpose, it's not charity from our government. IMO
- 14yMark UpdegraffBusiness MemberReal Estate Broker · Rochester, NY · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 690 votes
CSPAN for forming opinions.
Milton Friedman for articulated debate on government's effects on the economy.Updegraff Group Realty4.746 Reviews - Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Dennis Tierney:
I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society.I certainly believe the entitlement mentality is way too rampant. But, not just with individual citizens, but with big business also...
Take a look at the recent press around Papa John's founder John Schnatter. He publicly complained that the mandatory health coverage the government is imposing will raise his prices by $.15, and is passing those extra costs onto the customer.
Yet, he failed to mention that the corn and grain subsidies provided by the government to Papa Johns suppliers has decreased the cost of each pizza by approximately $.60.
Funny how when the government adds costs he's quick to go to the media, but he fails to mention all the savings the government is providing.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.