The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='UncleBob']If someone said that they wanted the government to pass stricter regulations regarding gas guzzling vehicles while driving around in their full size Hummer, yes - that's pretty much the definition of hypocrite.

myke - You do realize that there are entire communities of people who manage to get by virtually self-sustaining themselves, without relying on cell phones, iPads and 360s, right?

Just because you're too pampered and weak to get by without electrical gadgets, it doesn't mean it can't be done by those who are actually willing to do it.[/QUOTE]
You first bob, at the very least you'd be without a computer and could no longer grace us with your presence.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can see DD's will now. In it, he demands his tombstone read "Here lies DD - Persecuted by Uncle Bob and the moderators of CAG."[/QUOTE]

Are you lumping yourself in with moderates?

Is that what you are - a self-proclaimed moderate?
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I am not here to explain it to you. Look it up yourself. But I will help you a little....[/quote]

If you want to debate an issue, it's kinda on you to produce facts that support your view. Telling me to look it up myself is lazy and defeats the entire concept of having a debate on an issue. You have been making claims in this thread but haven't backed them up with anything more than generalizations and anecdotes.

[quote name='Pliskin101']Here are some hints and a good place for you to start...

1. How do public unions get paid? How do their demands and packages get paid for?
2. How do they get paid even during hard economic times and the same money is not there?
Hint taxes is one robbing other programs is a second one for starters.
3. Many states have been doing it especially as of late also the fed did it to help the states with it. Some robbed programs that help the "real" poor and disadvantaged just to meet these golden packages. Why is it that this happens?
4. Hint because public unions and their unrealistic selfishness even in hard times over their true employer john q and the PEOPLE they are supposed to be serving. [/quote]

1. Public unions get paid by their members who pay dues.
2. The workers trade their labor to the government in exchange for cash, which is from local/state taxes. The union negotiates with the state on contracts, both sides end up agreeing after concessions are made to the initial proposal.
3. What states and what programs have been slashed to help pay for public employees?
4. What unrealistic selfish proposals have public unions been making? Keep in mind its a negotiation and the state is not forced into accepting into whatever the union wants.
5. Are public employees taxpayers as well?

[quote name='Pliskin101']Here is another hint....
If a business is in a slump or on hard times do private sector unions keep on making unreasonable demands THAT CANNOT be met without harming the business more or until the business is dead (Okay that may be a bad example as some actually do because they are to blinded by their own selfishness)? So why should public unions be allowed to do so over their employers?[/quote]

Like I said in a negotiation both sides want the best deal as possible and a compromise is made in the middle to appease both parties. Once again I'll ask for specific examples on when public unions have forced a local government into accepting a new contract that bankrupted the state.

How are wages and benefits in the private sector? Are they consistent with what is being offered to public employees? Have public employees made concessions by accepted lower wages, pay freezes, paying more into their benefits in order to help the state fix budget problems? Public employees offer valuable services to help the public. Are firefighters, police, infrastructure workers, teachers, transportation workers, etc not vital to a functioning society?

According to cbpp.org... http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3410
"Studies find that public workers are paid 4 to 11 percent less than private-sector workers with similar education, job tenure, and other characteristics.[1] This wage disadvantage is greatest for higher-wage public workers. The typical middle-wage worker earns about 4 percent less in the public sector than the private sector. [2] Low-wage state and local workers, by contrast, receive a small wage premium. While the average pay for all public employees exceeds that of all private workers, this reflects the fact that public-sector jobs are much more likely to require higher education; teaching positions require a college or master’s degree, for example. State and local employees are twice as likely as private-sector workers to have a college or advanced degree.[3]

Public-sector workers also earn less than their private-sector counterparts when one counts both their wages and benefits such as pensions and health insurance. Benefits are typically more generous and secure for public employees than for most private-sector workers, but factoring in the value of these benefits does not eliminate the gap between state and local employees and their counterparts in comparable private-sector jobs. [4]

[quote name='Pliskin101']Hints....Why do public unions (not all but most) and certain political leanings look at their employer (the people and the taxpayer that they are supposed to be serving) as some kind of endless bank (or magical money cabinet where money magically appears) that they can just keep demanding and expecting more and more no matter the economic circumstances? Why do public unions get to escape hard times instead of reflecting the economy and their bosses economy and hard times? Why is it so hard to fire a public servant who is not serving the public? Shouldn't efficiency and productivity be what is expected and the opposite of that NOT rewarded instead of being rewarded? [/quote]

I'd argue that with the concessions that public workers have made they are sacrificing along with you, how big of a sacrifice is debatable. Granted it might not be as sever as private sector workers who have lost their jobs but none the less they have accepted cuts. The private sector (which strictly operates for profit, unlike the public sector that operates to help society) has been slashing jobs, pay and benefits because they are only concerned with being profitable, not helping society. Due to the high unemployment they also hold all of the leverage, so workers are continually forced into accepting less. Your solution of bringing public workers down to private sector level of pay, benefits and hours is not going to fix anything. In fact it has a pretty significant impact on our economy.

Honestly think about it for a minute, what kind of adverse effects would cutting public workers do to your state and local community? Would people have less money to spend? Would local mom and pop stores suffer from people having less disposable income? Would crime go up? I don't think you truly realize how complicated society is and what it takes the keep it going. I get that you're angry, but you're angry at the wrong people. If you're for privatization, do you have any examples of when privatization has worked better than the public sector? I certainly can't, when I look around at the for profit healthcare industry or the prison system they are massive failures.

[quote name='Pliskin101']So instead of me meeting your demands why don't you post the things that back your initial statement that.... "public" unions help "everyone" and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot... that started this between us then maybe we will talk some more.[/QUOTE]

You've got the wrong guy, this is my first time responding to you. If you look at the link i posted above you'll see how much states and localities spend on employees. You'll also see that even if you eliminated ALL public employees you wont be seeing that much in reduced taxes. I don't expect your opinion to change, but i think it's going for someone's view to be challenged. If you find facts and figures to back up your case I would be happy to see them.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']
1. Public unions get paid by their members who pay dues.
[/QUOTE]

I am short on time but I had to quote this part and say LOL, well-played and touche'. Since I did word my first question that way... mistakenly so. ;)

Anyway I am on my way to a funeral and by some strange coincidence it is that of a public service employee. There has been quite a bit or that in my life lately.

I will read the entirety of your post when I get a chance and I thank you for the conversation and thought out reply (I am assuming by the length of it). Just letting you know is all. :)
 
[quote name='camoor']Are you lumping yourself in with moderates?

Is that what you are - a self-proclaimed moderate?[/QUOTE]

Wow. I always suspected you had some major reading comprehension skills. Pretty much served me the proof right there on a silver platter.

For the record, I don't consider myself a "Self-proclaimed moderator" either.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow. I always suspected you had some major reading comprehension skills. Pretty much served me the proof right there on a silver platter.

For the record, I don't consider myself a "Self-proclaimed moderator" either.[/QUOTE]

And for the record, I think the "Go Amish" post is one of your best. I seriously let out a small chuckle.

But this one - I don't get it. Self-proclaimed moderator - is that supposed to be funny, a punny play on words? Not your best.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Oh, geeze.... Go back and re-read the post you commented on. Read it slowly.[/QUOTE]

I did - it's not any funnier.

Dammit UB I demand more free entertainment. Say something stupidly hilarious as only you know how.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']If you want to debate an issue, it's kinda on you to produce facts that support your view. Telling me to look it up myself is lazy and defeats the entire concept of having a debate on an issue. You have been making claims in this thread but haven't backed them up with anything more than generalizations and anecdotes.[/quote]To be fair, this isn't speech and debate. I see forums as more of a lounge where friends get together and talk shit, and aren't running in with their citations in MLA or APA format.

When someone does make a claim that doesn't look right to me, I will sometimes look up the topic and briefly see what's out there. In essence, I am looking it up myself. On the other hand, it is probably worthwhile to limit the amount of time you spend arguing with people online. I don't always take my own advice.

Also, the first thing people tend to attack are sources so it's often a waste of time to post sources anyway, unless you want every argument to devolve into an argument about sources, that is.
 
Anyway, this scared the shit out of me the other day.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288

Basically, the outlook on the national debt, if Congress simply keeps being Congress, is that it'll comprise about 200% of GDP by 2037. The most obvious implication of this is that interest payments on the debt become a bigger and bigger part of the budget, would takes funding away from other functions of government. This will require higher taxes and/or spending cuts. I don't necessarily care about higher taxes, but I don't want to see taxes raised to pay interest on an absurd amount of debt.

A high national debt also restricts the ability of the federal government to undertake stimulus programs. A lot of people here are Keynesians, and they would like to see elevated levels of spending in bad times. That's much more difficult to do when you've got a national debt that is 200% of GDP. We are essentially destroying the effectiveness of those economic tools for future generations (if you believe Keynes was correct, that is).

There is also an effect on our incomes. The CBO can explain it.

The projections discussed above understate the severity of the long-term budget problem under the extended alternative fiscal scenario because they do not incorporate the negative effects that additional federal debt would have on the economy. In particular, large budget deficits and growing debt would reduce national saving, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment—which in turn would lower the growth of incomes in the United States.
Click to expand...
I imagine this would also have a direct effect on jobs in the future. It looks really bad, and I'm surprised at how little press it is getting. I would have imagined this would be the top story on all the nightly newscasts.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Anyway, this scared the shit out of me the other day.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288

Basically, the outlook on the national debt, if Congress simply keeps being Congress, is that it'll comprise about 200% of GDP by 2037. The most obvious implication of this is that interest payments on the debt become a bigger and bigger part of the budget, would takes funding away from other functions of government. This will require higher taxes and/or spending cuts. I don't necessarily care about higher taxes, but I don't want to see taxes raised to pay interest on an absurd amount of debt.

A high national debt also restricts the ability of the federal government to undertake stimulus programs. A lot of people here are Keynesians, and they would like to see elevated levels of spending in bad times. That's much more difficult to do when you've got a national debt that is 200% of GDP. We are essentially destroying the effectiveness of those economic tools for future generations (if you believe Keynes was correct, that is).

There is also an effect on our incomes. The CBO can explain it.


I imagine this would also have a direct effect on jobs in the future. It looks really bad, and I'm surprised at how little press it is getting. I would have imagined this would be the top story on all the nightly newscasts.[/QUOTE]

Meh who cares. When the economy goes on the upswing we'll start paying off the debt again. 2037 is a long way away.

My advice is to enjoy your life and stop worrying about it.
 
So, apparently, I do have to explain it.

[quote name='UncleBob']I can see DD's will now. In it, he demands his tombstone read "Here lies DD - Persecuted by Uncle Bob and the moderators of CAG."[/QUOTE]

[quote name='camoor']Are you lumping yourself in with moderates?

Is that what you are - a self-proclaimed moderate?[/QUOTE]

Those words in bold?
They aren't the same.
 
[quote name='camoor']Meh who cares. When the economy goes on the upswing we'll start paying off the debt again. 2037 is a long way away.

My advice is to enjoy your life and stop worrying about it.[/QUOTE]

That assumes a discipline we have rarely seen at the federal level. Remember, in good times we do not necessarily save. Clinton had a surplus, but when Bush II was in office and the good times were bubbling, were we socking cash away and paying down the debt?

It's not good policy to bet on the fiscal discipline of future presidents and congressmen. Few on either side of the aisle have it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, apparently, I do have to explain it.





Those words in bold?
They aren't the same.[/QUOTE]

Ah ok.

For a second I thought you were self-identifying as a moderate. I now see that you're not that crazy (or rather, that you are extremist crazy but you know it). I guess that's something?
 
[quote name='Spokker']That assumes a discipline we have rarely seen at the federal level. Remember, in good times we do not necessarily save. Clinton had a surplus, but when Bush II was in office and the good times were bubbling, were we socking cash away and paying down the debt?

It's not good policy to bet on the fiscal discipline of future presidents and congressmen. Few on either side of the aisle have it.[/QUOTE]

Oh well throughout history governments have carried debts that were multiples of their GDPs with little consequence.

I could care less about the debt. It's an abstract concept, paying it down as opposed to paying the interest is an abstract concept. Despite being late to work because moronic tea partiers decide to protest in DC, I doubt it the US debt will tangible impact on my life.

It's the real stuff on a worldwide scale that is scary - the destruction of the environment, religious fundamentalists with nuclear weapons, the rise of the oligarchs - these are the things that concern me.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']I am short on time but I had to quote this part and say LOL, well-played and touche'. Since I did word my first question that way... mistakenly so. ;)

Anyway I am on my way to a funeral and by some strange coincidence it is that of a public service employee. There has been quite a bit or that in my life lately.

I will read the entirety of your post when I get a chance and I thank you for the conversation and thought out reply (I am assuming by the length of it). Just letting you know is all. :)[/QUOTE]

No worries man, take your time. I'm looking forward to discussing this and see where you're coming from.

[quote name='Spokker']To be fair, this isn't speech and debate. I see forums as more of a lounge where friends get together and talk shit, and aren't running in with their citations in MLA or APA format.

When someone does make a claim that doesn't look right to me, I will sometimes look up the topic and briefly see what's out there. In essence, I am looking it up myself. On the other hand, it is probably worthwhile to limit the amount of time you spend arguing with people online. I don't always take my own advice.

Also, the first thing people tend to attack are sources so it's often a waste of time to post sources anyway, unless you want every argument to devolve into an argument about sources, that is.[/QUOTE]

I get where you're coming from and do agree about your point of message boards in general but I think this sub-fourm should be different. I think we should engage in good debate instead of using talking points, generalizations, or antidotes. I don't expect anyone to make posts like they are writing a research paper but if someone is making a point, i'd really like to understand exactly where they are coming from and that is only possible if i can see what someone has read to lead them to a specific view. Like with Pliskin101, I really want to understand what has shaped his view on being against public sector workers being unionized. I don't think issues should always be tied to ideology, and i think thats when most discussions break down and we end up yelling past each other. Our problems as a country are extremely complicated and if we really want to fix them we need to have honest discussions on how we can possibly fix them. Just my two cents.
 
So Bain Capital was basically responsible for KB Toys going under after they bought it and basically doomed the company. Always wondered what happened to them.
 
[quote name='Clak']So Bain Capital was basically responsible for KB Toys going under after they bought it and basically doomed the company. Always wondered what happened to them.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like someone else saw this Friday's episode of Real Time too.

I ain't gonna lie, I actually got pissed about that...almost as pissed as Maher thinking it was a toy manufacturer...almost.:lol:
 
Me too, back in the day they used to have some good sales occasionally. So you buy a company (with little to none of your money btw), load it up with debt, pay yourself a nice dividend, then the company folds. Job well done.
 
[quote name='Clak']So Bain Capital was basically responsible for KB Toys going under after they bought it and basically doomed the company. Always wondered what happened to them.[/QUOTE]

That's it - now I really dislike Romney!!
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Regarding the whole Walker situation, keep in mind that he instated these anti-union policies under the lie of "The state is broke!", while at the same time creating additional tax cuts for the rich. The premise was bullshit from the get-go, the rich benefit, and the poor and middle class get fucked over yet again. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Walker's destructive policies. Hope the fucker gets his head blown off, honestly.[/QUOTE]

This really gets me. All the peace-loving liberals all over this vs. forum and this BS goes untouched? But yet Uncle Bob and IATCG etc get tramped on like they are evil incarnate. But yet this shit went without comment by all you communist peaceniks? Why.... is the obvious...because he thinks public unions are the shiznet... so why would you hypocrites point out the insanity? Like that cnn video Democracy is dead...because I will blow off it's head to if it disagrees. Liberals LOL biggest hypocrites on the planet.

edit: instant ban? should be. Instant investigation...oh hell yes...instant ridicule and distancing? No...because he is for public unions....disgust with yourselves...????? no. Come on folks jump all over it. Is this fine and dandy? Holy crap!!!

edit: Perfect example of the "SELECTIVE" outrage.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-obama-economic-speech-talk-cheap-183548575.html

Thanks for the insight Mr. Romney. You've pointed out that you disagree with your forthcoming opponent. This is staggering!

Instead of saying "he's doing it wrong", why can't Romney say "here's how to do it right"? Likely because he has no clue either, but still, it just annoys me to no end that nobody calls anyone out on schoolyard bickering anymore. HAVE AN IDEA!
 
I have to hand it to the GOP, they claim the economy is no better off than when Obama was elected, yet in the time since the last election they've done everything they can to make sure of it. They're contributing to the problem they're complaining about.
 
Republican control of Congress ended in 2006. Unemployment was 4-point-something or other.

The economy tanks and we blame the Republican President.

A Democrat President takes over in 2008, the economy continues to tank. We blame the former Republican President.

The Republicans regain partial control of Congress in 201. We now blame the Republican Congress for the economy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Republican control of Congress ended in 2006. Unemployment was 4-point-something or other.

The economy tanks and we blame the Republican President.

A Democrat President takes over in 2008, the economy continues to tank. We blame the former Republican President.

The Republicans regain partial control of Congress in 201. We now blame the Republican Congress for the economy.[/QUOTE]

Sounds good to me.

I mean, I'd like more people to know how many crooks are still operating scott-free on Wall Street, and how ineffective the SEC is, but at least one of the villains is correctly identified.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Republican control of Congress ended in 2006. Unemployment was 4-point-something or other.[/quote]

4.6
Also, unemployment benefits were extended to 9 months from 3 months.

The economy tanks and we blame the Republican President.
Click to expand...
Depends who you're asking and what part of the economy you're talking about. Dow was still high, Katrina hit in 2005, spending on Iraq satrts piling up (after starting in 2003), the mortgage mess starts to show up in 2004 and has a slow spread, CDS market doubled, etc...
Unemployment didn't start coming into play until 2008 (note that Obama didn't take office until 1/09) but that completely ignores any and all mitigating factors from Trade Agreements and 7 years of protracted war. Oh yeah, the only technological advance in the last decade has been the iPad. Do recall that the sudden boom in the 80's was largely due to affordable computing followed by computer inventions (i.e. amazon and eBay) in the tech heydey of the 90's.

A Democrat President takes over in 2008, the economy continues to tank. We blame the former Republican President.
Click to expand...
Elected in '08, takes over in '09.
At risk of being redundant, see above section RE: what is so bad about the economy. The day I have to barter a chicken for a lap dance is the day I agree that we have a rubbish economy. Until then, Fortune 500 companies sitting on $2 TRILLION in capital and not hiring or growing does not mean a bad economy. It means poor business practices.
How far into RR's 1st term did it take to quit blaming Carter for gas rationing, high interest rates and high misery index? Honest question, I don't know the answer but I'll guess a good 24 months at the least.

The Republicans regain partial control of Congress in 2010. We now blame the Republican Congress for the economy.
Click to expand...
Mostly because they openly admit that they're doing everything they possibly can to cast Obama as a failure.

What honestly hasn't worked? I know you're still unclear on the auto bailout, but that saved jobs and is being paid off as well as equity holding. The financial bailout (started by the last guy) prevented absolute chaos in terms of insolvent investing banks (meaning buh-bye 401(k) of 90% of the population) and lending banks. W/o those lending banks, the housing dip would have been the grand canyon...

Housing:
Everyone concentrates on the what (declining values) as opposed to the why and the how. Remember Bush's presser about being an ownership society? Lending rules were stripped down towards the end of Clinton and more or less obliterated shortly afterwards. That's a good portion of the how. Hannity would like to blame consumers for getting houses they couldn't afford. I suggest that loose lending practices combined with adjustable rate mortgages and the slow increase in unemployment is more to blame. So that leads us to a bit of the why. Who benefits with increased home ownership? Well obviously lenders profit on the interest, construction profits on the building of the homes, land owners profit from selling their land and so on and so forth. A LOT of money was made on housing but eventually supply outgrew demand.
Also, let us not forget that the average length of home ownership before going into foreclosure is over 6 years (varies by county but in general it looks to be 80 months or 6y 8m) meaning that current foreclosures were still purchased during the last administration with somewhat fuzzy rules.

I could go on but don't feel like writing a 10k word essay on CAG today.

p.s.
Peace and Love is a great Neil Young tune...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahh the blame game...:roll:

The mess didn't start in 2004 it didn't start in 2008 it didn't start this year...etc etc etc.

It is not just democrats it is not just republicans. I really have to laugh and cry at people who still blindly play that game. I can quickly research and get the data I need to go either way and lay the blame on one party etc. It is all silly and quite honestly pisses me off that people are still stupid enough to play it and fall for it.

They are all screwed up and have been for many years there is plenty of blame to go around. As someone else said we need to look to wallstreet as well and ALL of the politicians and their games. Reform is needed and should be demanded.
 
The day I have to barter a chicken for a lap dance is the day I agree that we have a rubbish economy.
Click to expand...

So... the economy isn't completely tanked. Guess if the Republicans are responsible for everything, then they should get the kudos?
 
I was going to post this about a week ago but forgot. Anyway looks like another possible recession coming at the end of the year but may be postponed to early 2013 as the politicians will most likely give temporary extensions as not to look bad before the election. It would take them to work together after that....LOL right...coupled with the other other problems going on in the world it might be a rough year next year.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warns of 'fiscal cliff' risks

Fears of a new recession grow as Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire Dec. 31 and automatic spending cuts are set to follow. Businesses are putting expansion on hold.

"If all the changes take place, the shock will probably cause the economy to contract and possibly lead to a recession, Bernanke said.

So far, however, Bernanke's concerns about the fiscal cliff have been largely obscured by the more immediate, intensifying financial troubles in Europe and elsewhere.

On Thursday, China cut its interest rates, sparking worries that the sprawling economy might be doing worse than thought. There also is a widespread expectation that Congress will take last-minute action to pull back from the fiscal cliff.

Some analysts are skeptical that lawmakers can come together to avoid potential disaster."


Some more....

"The stakes are higher this time as several large pieces of temporary legislation are set to end at once, the biggest of which is the Bush tax cuts, estimated at $165 billion.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress remain bitterly divided on those cuts, with President Obama determined to eliminate the breaks for high-income Americans and GOP challenger Mitt Romney insisting that all the provisions should be made permanent.

In addition to the Bush-era tax cuts, Congress is likely to let expire both the payroll tax cut, which is saving the typical worker about $1,000 this year, and the federal extended unemployment benefits, though these provisions, too, could spark a fight, as they have in the past, analysts said.

"This is a problem we need to deal with, but unfortunately we're not going to take this on until after the election," said Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), referring to the fiscal cliff.

"My belief is that after the election, we'll sit here and the leaders will say on Dec. 24, 'We've reached no conclusion, and we're going to extend everything for two to three months until the new Congress comes in.' "But moving the cliff out a few months or even longer carries risks. For one thing, economists said, it could trigger a credit downgrade. It also would be likely to increase the uncertainty and prompt more companies to adopt contingency plans."

If Congress can't compromise on a new budget, automatic cuts will take effect under the so-called sequester outlined in the Budget Control Act. For defense, the 10% elimination would shave about $53 billion from the budget, to $472 billion.

"People in the industry are really worried a train wreck could come.... They are starting to hedge," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

The impact of the uncertainty, he said, will be magnified at thousands of smaller second- and third-tier contractors, some of which are already asking, "How can you best position a business to prepare for this shock?"

John Raine is one of them. His Anderson, Ind., company has been making military field gear for 27 years. The U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan have already cost him significant business, forcing him to lay off a worker for the first time ever.

With potential defense cutbacks coming sooner or later, and higher taxes on the horizon, Raine said there was only one thing he could do.

"You're going to batten down the hatches," he said. "It's the psychology.""

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bernanke-economy-20120608,0,4461109.story?page=2&track=rss
 
[quote name='Clak']Mitt Romney has to be one of the most out of touch goobers in politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-really-liked-sandwich-computer-wawa-231304740.html

Blown away by the damn ordering screen, like it's high technology. They've been doing stuff like that at various places for years, and he tries to use it to somehow prove the government is bad?

I hope you all realize that if you vote for this man, you're no less ridiculous than he is.[/QUOTE]

He said the government's lack of competition and bureaucracy was hurting the United States in keeping jobs that are moving to other countries.
Click to expand...

lol

Yeah it's the govt doing that...
 
Must really drive you twenty somethings (the new young teens) crazy that Obama said the "private sector is doing fine".

LOL

edit:
“The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government,” President Obama claimed on Friday. His solution to fix the public sector was more government spending.
When people started screaming, Obama clarified his remarks and said “It’s absolutely clear economy is not doing fine,” but he just couldn’t bring himself to disown his statement about the private sector generally doing “fine.” His clarification still asserted that there is “good momentum in the private sector.” But private sector employment growth has fallen in each of the last four months, reaching a pitiful 82,000 in May.
President Obama is also wrong about his other claim that state and local governments are doing poorly relative to the private sector. The only group of workers “doing just fine” is federal government employees, where employment has increased by 4 percent since the start of the recession.
In sharp contrast, both private sector and state-and local-government employment have fallen, with the private sector is in the worst shape. Private-sector employment is down by 4 percent and state- and local-government down by half that -- 2 percent. Between 2007 and 2010, annual wages also grew 40 percent faster for state- and local-government workers than for those in the private sector.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='camoor']lol

Yeah it's the govt doing that...[/QUOTE]
It's amazing what the man is able to extrapolate from something as mundane as that.

"This amazing piece of technology (yeah....) was fostered by competition, unlike our government! Har har...."

It's almost like that (admittedly inaccurate) story about Bush Sr. being amazed by the grocery store scanner. Somebody should show him a smartphone, he'll think he's living in a sci-fi movie.
 
[quote name='Clak']They've been doing stuff like that at various places for years, [/QUOTE]

While the technology itself isn't surprising, I've never been to a place that uses it in such a fashion.

I always wanted a pizza joint where you can go online, design the exact toppings you want for your pizza - down to the individual slice - using a graphical interface and have it made based on your exact specifications.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']black olives suck.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if blaspheme...

Black olives are awesome... as long as they're not cooked. On a sub/sandwich, taco/burrito, in a salad - hell yeah, pile on the black olives.

On a pizza? No thanks. Now, green olives on a pizza... mmmmm.....
 
I don't like Romney either but Obama isn't any better.
I guess if it was Obama at wawa he would have put the system on his kill list.
Obama blames ATMs... LOL like they are new or something. This guy has every excuse for being a failure. Anyone who votes for this clueless out of touch fool is crazy.

Blame the ATM!

"Let’s quickly run through some of the major conceptual errors behind that statement: ATMs and airport check-in kiosks are not new, though persistently crushing levels of unemployment are. Moreover, the number of bank tellers actually has grown over recent decades.
Revenge of the Machines? Obama Mocked for Blaming Slow Recovery on ATMs

"I didn't do it," read a "guest blog" posted on House Speaker John Boehner's site. The blog was signed by "the Automated Teller Machine (ATM) in your favorite convenience store near the Slurpee Machine."
In the satirical post, the ATM author blamed high taxes, burdensome regulation and excessive spending for the slow jobs report. "ATMs and airport kiosks (and even teleprompters) are tools that help make life a little easier."

Take the 'Are You Smarter Than the Obama Administration?' Quiz

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top