Radical Rightwing Republican Base

Wahlin Scott B

10/25/2011 4:10 PM

Wait. What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TyQ7LaaZsds#!

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 11:10 AM

You guys have Herman Cain, Joe-the-Plumber, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul & Son, Joe Wilson, and the list goes on and on. 99% of us will be living in tents if you get your way!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67080.html

McCallum David K

10/28/2011 11:10 AM

Yea right and you guys have Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reed, Franks, Sharpton, Jackson, Farakan, Schumer, Weiner, Rev. Wright............tell me when you want me to stop and NONE of the above .......all liberals at best ....will ever be living in tents.

Kauffman John M

10/28/2011 11:10 AM

wahlins said: You guys have Herman Cain, Joe-the-Plumber, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul & Son, Joe Wilson, and the list goes on and on. 99% of us will be living in tents if you get your way!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67080.html

I'm not sure what your post has to do with anything, but I found this tidbit to be interesting:

The Top 10 richest congress members (Maximum estimated net worth):

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $285.1 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) $231.2 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $108.1 million

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Only 3 are republicans, the remainign 7 are democrats.

Also interesting is this tidbit that the media refuses to talk about:

From 2007-2009 (most recent IRS data available), nominal AGI for the 99th percentile of earners (Top 1%) fell 16.2% (from $410.096 to $343,927) and nominal AGI for the 99.5th percen...tile (Top 0.5% of earners) fell 34% (from $2,155,365 ro $1,432,890). During this same period, the median nominal AGI (50th percentile) fell only 1.5% (from $32,879 to $32,396). In a time when all incomes decreased, higher incomes fell farther than lower incomes.

I wonder how many "Occupy"ers know this?

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 12:10 PM

I forgot Bush 43 who put us in the starting gate for the what we are experiencing now. I think we (the people) are done electing disingenuous idiots now.

Peter Bowman

11 posts

10/28/2011 12:10 PM

After two and a half days of Scott having this topic completely to himself, I was hoping nobody would respond.

Thanks anyways.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

10/28/2011 1:10 PM

jkauffm1 said:
wahlins said: You guys have Herman Cain, Joe-the-Plumber, Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul & Son, Joe Wilson, and the list goes on and on. 99% of us will be living in tents if you get your way!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67080.html

I'm not sure what your post has to do with anything, but I found this tidbit to be interesting:

The Top 10 richest congress members (Maximum estimated net worth):

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $451.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) $435.4 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $366.2 million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $294.9 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $285.1 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $283.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) $231.2 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $201.5 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $136.2 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $108.1 million

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Only 3 are republicans, the remainign 7 are democrats.

Also interesting is this tidbit that the media refuses to talk about:

From 2007-2009 (most recent IRS data available), nominal AGI for the 99th percentile of earners (Top 1%) fell 16.2% (from $410.096 to $343,927) and nominal AGI for the 99.5th percen...tile (Top 0.5% of earners) fell 34% (from $2,155,365 ro $1,432,890). During this same period, the median nominal AGI (50th percentile) fell only 1.5% (from $32,879 to $32,396). In a time when all incomes decreased, higher incomes fell farther than lower incomes.

I wonder how many "Occupy"ers know this?

Wow I thought ketchup would be worth more then that....maybe it's the Heinz 57 sauce that isn't selling, I guess when one is only making $32,396 they aren't buying much steak.

JK, when people are making the kind of money that drops from $410,096 to 343,927 while that kind of stings, they are still hanging in there, and with those kind of incomes, there is more of a variance to those kind of percentages of drops. Those are really just numbers, lets see more of the information behind those numbers as in how income is earned, did it affect investing in job creating investments, did it lead to the kind of foreclosures that the $32,396 suffer, etc. Really would like to see the "whole" story behind those numbers.

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 1:10 PM

pbowman said: After two and a half days of Scott having this topic completely to himself, I was hoping nobody would respond.

Thanks anyways.

That seems like a hateful statement to me. Aside from that, the post stood on its own and did not need additional comment.

Kauffman John M

10/28/2011 1:10 PM

BallMark said:

Wow I thought ketchup would be worth more then that....maybe it's the Heinz 57 sauce that isn't selling, I guess when one is only making $32,396 they aren't buying much steak.

JK, when people are making the kind of money that drops from $410,096 to 343,927 while that kind of stings, they are still hanging in there, and with those kind of incomes, there is more of a variance to those kind of percentages of drops. Those are really just numbers, lets see more of the information behind those numbers as in how income is earned, did it affect investing in job creating investments, did it lead to the kind of foreclosures that the $32,396 suffer, etc. Really would like to see the "whole" story behind those numbers.

So, what you want to do is compare sob stories. You want to use emotion to hide truth. The truth is that household income (in real dollars) is down only $500/yr from its high in 2006. Before that, household income had NEVER been that high -- the purchasing power of the average American had never been as high. The US median houshold income trails only Luxembourg in international status. No one else in the world lives as well as the average American. You're also trying to use a lower income lifestyle to justify your disdain for higher income earners. Are you telling me that losing 15 to 30% of your income doesn't have consequences? What about the people whose jobs are funded by that money? I'm sure they noticed when their boss had the let them go because he didn't have the money to pay them.

But, why does it matter to you how the money is earned? Does it change the value of the owner's money (or the value of your money) if it was earned building hospitals, versus trading hospital stocks? That money still carries real purchasing power.

What this exercies shows us is that the Occupy movement isn't grounded in reality and is not well thought out. It is only a knee jerk reaction brought on by envy.

But, let's consider another lesson this teaches us, specifically about income fluctuation during the business cycle. The economic literature in the late 1800s and early 1900s recognized that higher incomes grow at a larger rate than lower incomes in good times, but also decrease at a larger rate than lower incomes in bad times. Lower incomes have always been more stable. Thus, democrats used this knowledge in the 1930s to justify income caps for OASDI (which went on to become FICA). Payroll taxes to fund "safety net" programs are capped at a particular level and not assessed on the entirety of higher incomes because Congress didn't want funding for its safety net program (Social Security) to decrease wildly during downturns, preferring a steady and stable funding source.

Peter Bowman

11 posts

10/28/2011 1:10 PM

Nothing hateful, Scott. All in good fun, I had hoped.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

10/28/2011 3:10 PM

What I will never understand about liberals/progressives is the feeling that if someone has more it contributes to them having less. Because someone worked their tail off and became successful, it doesn't take money out of the less fortunate or less successful peoples pocket! It is not a zero sum economy. I also haven't heard a liberal/progressive actually put a percent on what a fair amount of taxes the successful should pay. All I ever hear is they have so much that they should be forced to give me some or pay for some of my expenses. How much more is their fair share? Is it 50% of their income above a certain amount? The top 10% earners already pay nearly all the taxes so why should they have to pay a little more to cover their fair share? Do we share grades in college to help out those either less studious or less smart? Where in the American way does it say that I should help pay for some druggie or chronically unemployed loser. When we reach the level of having roughly 50% not paying any income tax I guess it becomes automatic that suddenly people are owed something. Why should I have to help others pay their student loans? I worked and paid my own way through college with no student loans or help from my parents. Somehow the liberal/progressive world has failed to convince me that my thinking is wrong. So please guys on the liberal side, convert me from my evil ways of believing in achieving my goals and earning my fair share!

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 6:10 PM

sandy1 said: What I will never understand about liberals/progressives is the feeling that if someone has more it contributes to them having less. Because someone worked their tail off and became successful, it doesn't take money out of the less fortunate or less successful peoples pocket! It is not a zero sum economy. I also haven't heard a liberal/progressive actually put a percent on what a fair amount of taxes the successful should pay. All I ever hear is they have so much that they should be forced to give me some or pay for some of my expenses. How much more is their fair share? Is it 50% of their income above a certain amount? The top 10% earners already pay nearly all the taxes so why should they have to pay a little more to cover their fair share? Do we share grades in college to help out those either less studious or less smart? Where in the American way does it say that I should help pay for some druggie or chronically unemployed loser. When we reach the level of having roughly 50% not paying any income tax I guess it becomes automatic that suddenly people are owed something. Why should I have to help others pay their student loans? I worked and paid my own way through college with no student loans or help from my parents. Somehow the liberal/progressive world has failed to convince me that my thinking is wrong. So please guys on the liberal side, convert me from my evil ways of believing in achieving my goals and earning my fair share!

Shut off Fox News for a month and I will talk. Otherwise, by the tone of your post you are not ready to be open minded.

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 6:10 PM

pbowman said: Nothing hateful, Scott! All in good fun, I had hoped?

Wahlin Scott B

10/28/2011 6:10 PM

My mother (a member of the Radical Right Wing Republican Base) and I went shopping in Miami. She wrapped the strap from her purse around her arm several times. I told her it was safer to hold it loosely in case a purse snatcher tried to steal it. She told me, "If they get my purse I will be dead and I would expect you to be dead too."

Peter Bowman

11 posts

10/28/2011 7:10 PM

wahlins said:
pbowman said: Nothing hateful, Scott! All in good fun, I had hoped?

Scott, you know how I feel about punctiionizing things, so I do appreciate you asking permission. But in this case either a . or a ? would suffice. But I did intend the .

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

10/28/2011 11:10 PM

jkauffm1 said:
BallMark said:

Wow I thought ketchup would be worth more then that....maybe it's the Heinz 57 sauce that isn't selling, I guess when one is only making $32,396 they aren't buying much steak.

JK, when people are making the kind of money that drops from $410,096 to 343,927 while that kind of stings, they are still hanging in there, and with those kind of incomes, there is more of a variance to those kind of percentages of drops. Those are really just numbers, lets see more of the information behind those numbers as in how income is earned, did it affect investing in job creating investments, did it lead to the kind of foreclosures that the $32,396 suffer, etc. Really would like to see the "whole" story behind those numbers.

So, what you want to do is compare sob stories. I didn't believe I used any sob story in this post, of course I suppose I have used them in the past in an effort to allow people to see what others have to deal with You want to use emotion to hide truth. Both sides are using emotion to hide the truth, because they know we won't take the time to really research and think for ourselves The truth is that household income (in real dollars) is down only $500/yr from its high in 2006. Before that, household income had NEVER been that high -- the purchasing power of the average American had never been as high. Unless you have medical bills or something similar The US median household income trails only Luxembourg in international status. No one else in the world lives as well as the average American. You're also trying to use a lower income lifestyle to justify your disdain for higher income earners. Wow I didn't realize I was showing disdain, hey if they worked hard for it I don't have a problem, I will be honest though, if some CEO of an insurance company is making millions on the back of someone else's misfortune, and then denies coverage all for the most profit, I do have disdain for that SOB Are you telling me that losing 15 to 30% of your income doesn't have consequences? Yes it does have consequences, but so does even losing 1.5% of your income when there isn't a lot of wiggle room to begin with What about the people whose jobs are funded by that money? I'm sure they noticed when their boss had the let them go because he didn't have the money to pay them. but the boss still has a job (hopefully) and continues making a similar salary because they let go people to keep their income the same possibly (I know this is a broad statement, each situation is different)

But, why does it matter to you how the money is earned? Does it change the value of the owner's money (or the value of your money) if it was earned building hospitals, versus trading hospital stocks? Well people were put to work building that hospital, how many people where put to work trading stock? That money still carries real purchasing power. your right all money carries purchasing power, it doesn't matter how it was earned, those that have worked hard and saved can invest (with risk) and make even more money, which in turn gives them more purchasing power, but so does more jobs give people purchasing power, but those that don't really have that extra money to risk, don't have the opportunity to earn more money to increase their buying power, but that is ok. I don't have a problem with that

What this exercies shows us is that the Occupy movement isn't grounded in reality and is not well thought out. It is only a knee jerk reaction brought on by envy. That might be true for some of those protesting but I have heard some real good thought out reasons for the movement, seems your painting the whole movement with a big brush, similar to what we probably do when complaining about the 1%

But, let's consider another lesson this teaches us, specifically about income fluctuation during the business cycle. The economic literature in the late 1800s and early 1900s recognized that higher incomes grow at a larger rate than lower incomes in good times, but also decrease at a larger rate than lower incomes in bad times. Lower incomes have always been more stable. That is not what some of the charts are showing at this time, it shows the higher incomes have grown much higher and faster during this bad time[b] but I think that is with the upper 1 and .5% salaries, it isn't quite that good at the upper 20% but they are hanging in there.[/b] Thus, democrats used this knowledge in the 1930s to justify income caps for OASDI (which went on to become FICA). Payroll taxes to fund "safety net" programs are capped at a particular level and not assessed on the entirety of higher incomes because Congress didn't want funding for its safety net program (Social Security) to decrease wildly during downturns, preferring a steady and stable funding source.

JK, one other comment I would like to mention, while we might have a high standard of living compared to others, it seems our cost of goods eats into our "buying power" We do have the money to buy I suppose, it goes to the choices we make with that buying power. Sometimes we don't have those choices such as heath issues and the costs of prescriptions and Dr's visits sap that buying power, as all disposable income goes towards those items. Also be careful when comparing buying power from different eras. Take TV for instance, back in the 60's and 70's we didn't have to pay for TV, and in some cases we don't now, but with the information and entertainment out there, most that can chose to get subscription TV, at what cost? Heck basic is $20 which doesn't include much more then what one can get over the air. A decent plan runs at least $60 a month, luckily we have more buying power to pay for that. What about cell phones? Back in the 70's and early 80's we didn't have this sapping our buying power, but I remember in another thread people are paying dearly for this service, I know our neighbors spend over $200 a month for their 4 phones and plans, we recently added our son to our plan and with adding texting and insurance our plan doubled to $120, that takes from our buying power, (but we made that decision and will cut from someplace else.) But just be careful when comparing eras. We also have to watch painting things with to broad of a brush on both sides, we should be looking at situations others are in and understand what is best for all, not just ourselves. As I heard at many GCSAA meetings when PDI was being pitched, a rising tide will lift all boats. Let's think that way for America. Just my opinion.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Peter Bowman

11 posts

10/28/2011 11:10 PM

BallMark said:
jkauffm1 said:
BallMark said:

if some CEO of an insurance company is making millions on the back of someone else's misfortune,Mel

Mel,

You constantly use the "on the backs of.....(it doesn't matter what)".

Unless they're doing something illegal, like not at least paying minimum wage - or whatever the case may be - nobody in America is doing something "on the backs of" anybody.

You need to think about that, IMHO.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

10/29/2011 12:10 AM

Pete,
I do think about that and that is why and how I formed my opinion.

I disagree with you there, everyone is one the backs of someone, no one can do it alone. We maintain the golf course on the backs of our crew. Only the one person shows are doing it without being on the backs of anyone, well except their customers. That is how I see it, maybe you don't see it that way, I do. Maybe it is "on the backs" comment that bothers you, I suppose I could use another term, for the above example, "we all worked together to produce our product"

For the example of the insurance company, maybe I should have said, "We thank you for your business, and we will provide the service you paid for" But in the case that I had used as an example, what I was saying was yes an insurance company and their CEO will take in premiums that will be used to pay out on some-one's misfortune, some through no fault of their own, or for not taking care of themselves, or what ever reason. I understand that is how it works and I don't want to discourage them from providing that service, it is valuable for people that need it, I would encourage them to make a profit so they can continue to provide their services to help others. What bugs me is when insurance companies will drop someone who has been paying for coverage when that person gets sick, rather then pay out a claim, to make a profit and millions for the CEO. That is what I meant by making money on the back of some-one's misfortune (as I said above, maybe that might not be the best description, being on the back of someone but those are the words I picked and feel is appropriate in this situation).... and your right it might not be illegal but it sure isn't right in my opinion, (and it's probably not illegal because some lobbyist for the insurance industry got the laws written that way, of course lobbyist have never been caught doing anything illegal either).

Why don't your think about that, and try putting yourself in those people's shoes.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

McCallum David K

10/29/2011 6:10 AM

Excuse me? We the people just elected a very disingenuous person in 2008......the biggest fraud, fake and liar ever elected to the position of President of the United States (imo of course).

McCallum David K

10/29/2011 6:10 AM

Mel well over 6 months ago, perhaps a year I mentioned the factor of inflation........obliviously in the cost of gas but in food and other staples we buy routinely and someone without mentioning a name said unequivocally that there was no inflation in the United States.........from my trips to buy groceries etc it sure seems to be in my neighborhood.

McCallum David K

10/29/2011 6:10 AM

Very impressed that there is someone with some semblence of common sense in your family......even if a right wing radical as you so vividly described her..........glad you guys weren't mugged.

Wahlin Scott B

10/29/2011 7:10 AM

McCallum said: Very impressed that there is someone with some semblence of common sense in your family......even if a right wing radical as you so vividly described her..........glad you guys weren't mugged.

My mother passed years ago now, but there was nothing in her purse that was worth a life. Conservatives like to complain about debt, but will spend a trillion dollars and 5000 American soldiers lives to execute one despot that is offering no challenge to our country whatsoever. Before I allowed my kids to meet my greens crew I told them to give these people complete respect because we had what we had based on the good work of these people.

McCallum David K

10/30/2011 6:10 AM

Scott there is nothign wrong with asking our children to respect the people that work for us. Both my parents passed many years ago.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

10/31/2011 9:10 AM

I am still waiting to hear what percent is the rich persons fair share! I also have yet to hear why if a person succeeds and makes big money that someone else on the less successful side has to lose. Scott, weak effort on the Fox news comment. I am still anxious to have someone give reasons why I should convert to progressive / liberal thinking.

Keith Lamb

3 posts

10/31/2011 10:10 AM

So we have Sandy (Right wing Conservative) and Scott (left wing Liberal) constantly going at it....not willing to give a inch and times getting testy with each other as those of us in the middle just laughing at the both of you as your discourse continue to epitomize the gridlock we all see paralyzing our country. Keep up the show boys. You're wearing me out. Lost interest in these discussions some time ago.

Now where is that goofy picture for other thread?......

Kauffman John M

10/31/2011 11:10 AM

I had a really good response ready, then posted it twice, then deleted the extra post, then accidentally deleted the other one. So, I'll try to make this brief

BallMark said:
jkauffm1 said:

I didn't believe I used any sob story in this post, of course I suppose I have used them in the past in an effort to allow people to see what others have to deal with I didn't say that it was your own personal story. You tried to insinuate that the plight of one class was more important than another class. That is the definition of a sob story. Both sides are using emotion to hide the truth, because they know we won't take the time to really research and think for ourselves Agreed. Truer words have never been typed. Unless you have medical bills or something similar Medical bills are still purchases. Chances are that you can afford more expensive procedures and more expensive pills than you could 30 yrs ago. Wow I didn't realize I was showing disdain, hey if they worked hard for it I don't have a problem, I will be honest though, if some CEO of an insurance company is making millions on the back of someone else's misfortune, and then denies coverage all for the most profit, I do have disdain for that SOB "On the backs of" is misleading and disregards the reailty of the situation. Again, injecting your emotion to hide the facts. Yes it does have consequences, but so does even losing 1.5% of your income when there isn't a lot of wiggle room to begin with Again, more emotion. I have been (and may be now) one of those low income folks, but I have built myself some wiggle room. However, I personally know some higher income folks who don't have much wiggle room and their losses, while they may not mean much to you, mean that they had to let go some very good workers, who now have to rely on other methods to feed their families. Again, comparing the misery of different sides and trying to declare on's plight more important than the other is comparing sob stories. but the boss still has a job (hopefully) and continues making a similar salary because they let go people to keep their income the same possibly (I know this is a broad statement, each situation is different) Have you ever decided not to buy something because you wanted to use the money for something else, or just wanted to keep it? If so, you have done exactly what you advocated against here.

But, why does it matter to you how the money is earned? Does it change the value of the owner's money (or the value of your money) if it was earned building hospitals, versus trading hospital stocks? Well people were put to work building that hospital, how many people where put to work trading stock? Washington and the liberal media have perpetuated this falsehood for too long. Investment income is not phantom wealth -- people were employed to build the office buildings, make and builed the infrastructure, research the stocks, and make the trades happen. And that's all before the wealth was created. Then, the investment is used to pay people, fund businesses, fund new businesses, fund medical research, and create jobs. Investments also fund our retirements. your right all money carries purchasing power, it doesn't matter how it was earned, those that have worked hard and saved can invest (with risk) and make even more money, which in turn gives them more purchasing power, but so does more jobs give people purchasing power, but those that don't really have that extra money to risk, don't have the opportunity to earn more money to increase their buying power, but that is ok. I don't have a problem with that It may surprise you to know that the majority of stock holders (more than 70%) are those making $40,000k/yr or less! This is from mutual funds and 401(k)s. That money, risk, and purchasing power is held by people like you and me, not by fat cats.

But, let's consider another lesson this teaches us, specifically about income fluctuation during the business cycle. The economic literature in the late 1800s and early 1900s recognized that higher incomes grow at a larger rate than lower incomes in good times, but also decrease at a larger rate than lower incomes in bad times. Lower incomes have always been more stable. That is not what some of the charts are showing at this time, it shows the higher incomes have grown much higher and faster during this bad time[b] but I think that is with the upper 1 and .5% salaries, it isn't quite that good at the upper 20% but they are hanging in there.[/b] The information I supplied was directly from the IRS and it showed that high incomes fell much more than low incomes during this recession. You're confusing the rise of incomes during good times, when those the fell hardest in bad times rose fastest in good times. For proof, read the following article by two harvard economists:

The Increase in Income Cyclicality of High-Income Households and its Relation to the Rise in Top Income Shares

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16577

Remember, the volatility of high incomes is why the income cap is in place for FICA taxes. Democrats knoew this and put it into their bills in the 1930s. It's not new.

JK, one other comment I would like to mention, while we might have a high standard of living compared to others, it seems our cost of goods eats into our "buying power" We do have the money to buy I suppose, it goes to the choices we make with that buying power. Sometimes we don't have those choices such as heath issues and the costs of prescriptions and Dr's visits sap that buying power, as all disposable income goes towards those items. Also be careful when comparing buying power from different eras. Take TV for instance, back in the 60's and 70's we didn't have to pay for TV, and in some cases we don't now, but with the information and entertainment out there, most that can chose to get subscription TV, at what cost? Heck basic is $20 which doesn't include much more then what one can get over the air. A decent plan runs at least $60 a month, luckily we have more buying power to pay for that. What about cell phones? Back in the 70's and early 80's we didn't have this sapping our buying power, but I remember in another thread people are paying dearly for this service, I know our neighbors spend over $200 a month for their 4 phones and plans, we recently added our son to our plan and with adding texting and insurance our plan doubled to $120, that takes from our buying power, (but we made that decision and will cut from someplace else.) But just be careful when comparing eras. We also have to watch painting things with to broad of a brush on both sides, we should be looking at situations others are in and understand what is best for all, not just ourselves. As I heard at many GCSAA meetings when PDI was being pitched, a rising tide will lift all boats. Let's think that way for America. Just my opinion.

Mel

Thanks for the discussion, Mel. I always like to hear (or read) your points. As for my price comparisons over time, I like to use real dollar values indexed to a particular year (the truest apples to apples quantitative comparison we have) whenever possible. But, your words reminded me of helping my grandfather in his garden a few years back (more like 6 or 7 years back). I was helping him fertilize his garden in which we were going to plant corn, tomatoes, cucumbers, and pumpkins. I bought a bag or urea from the local farmers' co-op for $35. We got to talking about the old days (1940s, 1950s) when we were working and he told me that one bag of fertilizer cost him three days' wages when he was my age. The bag I bought cost me less than one day's wages. Maybe this is a more accurate cost comparison than real dollar value. He had to do much more work to buy that fertilizer at that age than I did at that same age.

Does the rising tide lift all boats in economics? I think it does help, but let's remember what that means. Some boats have a larger draw, some have a shallower draw. I can't make a johnboat sit as tall as an aircraft carrier, but I can't take from the aircraft carrier, put it in the johnboat, and expect all to be equal. I also can't make them all behave the same way -- they are free to go wherever they want. Too many times, we get caught up in thinking that the US is a collective of individuals, instead of a collection of individuals.

McCallum David K

10/31/2011 3:10 PM

I seldom watch Fox News except on the club TV at work......it's on Fox, ESPN or the Weather Channel...........so not watching it for a month would do little to change my politicaly viewpoint. I very well be rightwing but do not consider myself radical because of differening opinions with you and Mel.

I agree with Sandy, why should my hard work or my neighbors hard work be looked at in disdain by others that choose not to work hard. We have all gone to college and had cost's associated with that, why should their bills be forgiven because they do not want to pay...............it goes on and on from buying a home way to expensive to living a lifestyle one can;t afford. Should my gambling losses be forgiven (that ain't going to happen if I value my health)..............should my winnings be diveyed up between you and Mel because you chose not to take the risk but still want to be rewarded? I think not.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

11/1/2011 9:11 AM

Keith, I would be willing to listen to compromise but not until our government at all levels are required to justify every expenditure just like we do. If they had to do that, other than pensions, each entity would find they have more than enough money. Just don't cry to me for more money until you have a clue about what you already have. If governments would be forced to be accountable and it is then found that some form of added taxation is required, I would be more than happy to listen. I admire Scott for having strong beliefs. We may not agree on much but that is the beauty of this country. If we were in the same geographic region, I am sure we would be good friends in spite of both of us having strong convictions. I just have a hard time wanting to foolishly give my hard earned money to others who choose to live undisciplined lives. Let them learn to take care of themselves. I see those types of losers within my own extended family. When you can't afford to pay a bill yet you drink, smoke, consume soft drinks by the liter and waste your money on lotto scratch off's, I find it wrong for our levels of government to tax me more to help them! Check out carefully our so-called needy. Way too many have all the new electronic devices, cars, HD TV's etc. They don't need my help but rather a lesson in money management and discipline. The truly needy get help from me through key charities.

Forum Groups

Radical Rightwing Republican Base Cancel

Forum Groups

Radical Rightwing Republican Base Cancel The title field is required!

Radical Rightwing Republican Base Cancel