"What specificallly do you propose and show us how it will work"

Once again for the upteeeeeth time, the devil is the details, I can agree with that. The details are ugly, flat put ugly, and the truth is even the most painful plan intended by the Republicans, is in reality not severe enough to actually make the math work without presuming some kind of miracle recovery. So I will agree that laying out their hopeful plans is a damned if we do, and damned if we don't proposition......unless the Repulicans just want to kick a bigger can down the road for the kids to worry about. That is why I think they are somewhat coy about the details. The public is in no way willing to hear precisely what is needed to cut spending; massive spending cuts exacerbated by the very guy everyone seems to like listening to. Actually the most effective change would be a complete overhaul of the federal tax code, but you and I both know this is not going to happen. So I think the House Speaker should just detail a simple new tax plan (value added tax??) that abolishes all the crazy complications of the IRS code and see what sticks. Unfortunately there really isn't enough time with the impending fiscal cliff, and regardless no one wants to deal with this sticky wicket, but simplifing the tax code would save enormous government spending.

OK Mr. Smart Conservative. What specificallly do you propose and show us how it will work. You guys talk a good game in theory, but have, to date, offered nothing concrete other than the sham of the Ryan budget which the vast majority of the American people oppose. i know what it is; you, the conservative elite and intelligensia just know better. The rest of the poor ignorant Americans just need to trust you all and not ask any questions. You self-proclaimed wisdom and correctness are all that we need to know about. The reason that Republicans won't detail their ideas and plans is they know they will be soundly rejected by the American public. Just look what happened this year with just a bare minimum of Republican ideas. Y'all got soundly thrashed. Can you imagine what you would get in an election if you laid out what you really want to do. You can look to places like Ohio and Wisconsin to see how the American people reacted to your ideas on leadership and programs. You guys hide your plans and keep them within the little circle of your conservative world. You are just afraid to lay it all out for the American people. You have no guts despite your apparent macho.

So how about some ideas of what you will do instead of the blame game in which both sides are equally to blame. How about some details? How about explaining how your concepts will work in the real world?

Oh, no. Silence again? More bullets and arrows.

How pathethic. All that hot wind from conservatives and not a windmill in sight to at least convert it to electrical power. If only we could use your hot air for energy, we wouldn't have an oil shortage and we wouldn't be engaged in some of the nonsensical debates you want to have over pipelines for oil companies (no, my friend, that oil in the Keystone pipeline will NOT be for Americans .. it will be for oil companies to sell on the open market) or about drilling for oil and natural gas with no concern for the environment or even a willingness to tell the American people what the $%^& they are pumping into the ground to get the natural gas out. Just another example of 'trust us --- we are superior to you -- we know better'.

Have you noticed your tactics aren't working? And the American people don't want to buy a bridge from you either.

"Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money."

You are a conservative compatriot indeed. Yes, you hit it right on the nail, clobbered it actually. Liberlism/ socialism just sound better and are far easier on the ears than reality, which is the conservative viewpoint. Because someone is capable of attaining and maintaining immense wealth, the liberal always feels in some corrupted logic, that he/ they deserve a cut of this fiscal pie. But their corrupted logic only seems predatory towards intelligence and economic talent, as if they do not believe that these types of people do not fully deserve their well earned power and wealth. I guess it is easy for the naive to feel perfectly capable of sitting in the business owner's big chair and sign a few papers to keep the business humming right along........no problems and not too difficult at all is how they feel. It just takes the fortune to be lucky enough to get to sit in thst chair. Never mind that business opportunity for real talent is always out there, and you just have to be good and smart enough to figure it out and then take on the hard work and risk of starting it up.

Conversely, I do not see liberals complaining about Joe average not getting some of the action as an actor, singer, entertainer, basketball player, artist, comedian, etc., etc. And why would that be? Because it is obvious to any drone that these people have unique abilities that 99.99% of us cannot do at even a pedestrian level, so we enjoy immensely observing this talent.

But whooooaaa, get some really, really smart guys like a Jobs, Gates, Buffet, Trump, and yes a million other lesser talents, and the liberals gotta go after their money like gang busters. Why not much noise from the liberals about these guys deserving their wealth?
They certainly make very little noise about the actors, athletes, singers, etc. attaining all that wealth.......but then again, their talents are observable to anyone with eyes and ears. Liberals have no respect for the talents of business/ investor types because they have no appreciation of their talents at all; just doesn't register. You hear it all the time......why do these rich CEO's and busiiness people deserve such salaries? I actually agree with this somewhat as I do believe their compensations are getting out of hand. But the liberal very rarely makes the same vociferous argument about Tiger Woods and his 40-60 million a year income, which I do not think he deserves either.

Financial, mathmatical, scientific, investment, etc. talents are simply ignored by the naive liberal. I guess a lack of ability to appreciate these tallents is indicative of the loss of overall average math talent in this country.

George Bush did not create this mess here. We have elaborate pensions for every public service employee. Last time I looked that was a Dem invention. We are broke!!!

"Are conservatives always right... Probably not.

But on the other hand look at all the states and cities which have been run by democrats for most of the past 50 years. NY, Illinois, California, Detroit, Washington DC, Philly, Newark,,,,. They all are in financial trouble due to liberal policies. The other cities that have already gone bankrupt were all controlled by democrats.

Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money."

Did you intentionally leave out the default by Orange County, California in the 90s? Orange County is one of the most conservative and Republican areas in the United States.

Here is my own take:

Capitalism is good, until (one 'l' only) the wealth disparity becomes so great that it leads to revolution. One of the best examples to support this statement was the American Revolution itself. If you don't believe that it was about economics and wealth distribution, then you don't understand American history.

Way off base again. We are NOT alike. I offer specific proposals and you offer nothing but criticizing what is. You are just like the Republican leaders in Congress. You laugh and criticize anything and everything that Democrats propose, but offer nothing specific themselves. Just listen to what John Boehner said yesterday: It is up to the President to propose spending cuts. I guess he never read the Constitution which is 100 % clear that it is Congress's job to create law in this country. Congressional Republicans appear to have a one word vocabulary: NO NO NO. You're a businessman, aren't you? If someone makes you an offer that you don't like what do you do? Do you make a counter-offer or just say no?

I won't even comment on the stupidity of your 'violence' comments about liberals. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of right wing violence as well. No need to support this with facts or data since they are of no use to you.

We all know, or think we know, what you don't want. But, much like an over-tired little child, you are cranky, upset, but have no idea how to express yourself in terms of what it is you want or need to 'un-crank' yourself. Why? Because your thoughts are shoot-from-the-hip without any real consideration or analysis of consequences it too much trouble for you and would take too much time. Even George Bush (in a debate with John Kerry) said (over and over again) ... being President is haaaard work. Just thowing out every idea that pops into your head with no real thought behind it is not hard work ... it's something any amateur can do. We have seriouis problems (something we appear to agree upon). I put alot of thought into my proposals and present a reasonable amount of top-level detail. You barely propose anything concrete and when you do, it is naive simplistic thought like putting all welfare recipients into orphanages after 6 months without a single thought as to who would pay for the orphanages. But the idea fits your mantra... it will work simply because the government won't be involved any more. I hate to tell you this, but I would much rather have the American government running things than a totally inept company like Siemens. I would rather see a bit of government waste than the massive waste I've seen in industry and heard about from others who see exactly the same thing in most companies. When companies waste money, they simply pass the cost on to consumers, so the waste gets hidden. Obviously, hiding waste is much more difficult for government, but the good news is that when waste is uncovered at the government level it is out in the open and can be corrected. The same is not true with the far greater waste that takes place in the private sector.

I expect more barbs for liberals as your response. Just keep firing away while America goes over 'the cliff'. If you have nothing to add in terms of specific proposals to solve our problems, why not go back to your own little business and spend more time working at it there? You're going to need to work harder now to pay that extra $4000 on each $100K you make OVER $250K (or 500K). Working at your own company might, at least, be a productive use of your time. The nonsense you post here and the constant attacks on those who disagree with you are completely worthless and are nothing more than a bitter old man tilting at windmills. You will pay more taxes if you are making over $250K and we not only don't care, but we welcome your added contribution as a patriotic gesture to help your country in it's time of need. And we certainly don't believe a word of your predicted dire consequences of such tax increases because all you ever do is make talking points assertions and never back anything up with facts, data, details or history.

You are, in fact, the worst combination of John McCain and Joe Biden. Both are well known for their off-the-cuff remarks and their fondness for chewing on their own feet.

There will be games, trick-or-treating, a maze and a haunted school house. Visitors can take a break from the family entertainment to take a narrative tour in the buildings during the event. vancouver wordpress design

Are conservatives always right... Probably not.

But on the other hand look at all the states and cities which have been run by democrats for most of the past 50 years. NY, Illinois, California, Detroit, Washington DC, Philly, Newark,,,,. They all are in financial trouble due to liberal policies. The other cities that have already gone bankrupt were all controlled by democrats.

Socialism is good, untill you run out of other peoples money.

"Did you happen to come across the words megalomania or delusional anywhere during your edjumication?"

I guess I really need to type elsewhere and use spellchk.

This is all very funny to me also. Actually i think it is more interesting than funny, but it's still alittle fun or I would not still be here correct? Actually we are very much alike, strong willed and pig headed about our respective positions, it's just that we are mirror images of each other in terms of our beliefs....nearly perfect reflections of each other but reversed completely.......like the vector cancellations on metal balls swinging and banging off each other. Perhaps we are here to keep Newton's laws intact.

It would be a very boring world without people's differing viewpoints especially since I would have no one to shake my head against, and you, no one to laugh at.

What gets me is that the left is always so much more violent and angry when other's do not agree with your positions. Look at any riot, union strikes, demonstrations, campaigns, eco freaks, PETA, SPCA, etc........all very angry. And I hear that tone in your posts.......what gives? I too, get upset with you liberals, but I'm not popping any veins because I know I am right, same as you feel, but you harbor the anger so much on your sleeves. I think it is because liberals are taught by group think or even from formal edjumications (what with colleges being heavily liberal), and the tone is always anger at the people in control. And us conservatives? We get this way because we experience the business/ labor difficulties in the real world and have to learn for ourselves what makes economic entities tic. When you learn this way, there isn't so much anger but more frustration...... I think because we are still "in control". When people have no control, they have greater anger and fear. What say you, on like this take?

Edjucated?

I think that says it all. There is just no point trying to edjucate a person with a closed mind, who knows he's right but can't provide a shred of evidence to back up his claim. Did you happen to come across the words megalomania or delusional anywhere during your edjumication?

btw: Did Romney pay for his White House lunch today or has he now become a 'taker' at the taxpayer's (and your) expense?

I'm sorry, but this is just too funny.

Let me save you the time to answer since you must be very busy running your very successful company:

Liberals are wrong .... always
Everything liberals have done or want to do have either hurt or will ruin America.
Liberals clutter their minds with facts and data.
Liberals respect intelligence and education.

I am right ..... always.
Cut my taxes.
I'm against Obamacare
Cut my taxes.
I have no replacement for Obamacare.
Cut my taxes.
Cut government spending.
Cut my taxes.
I have no specific things to cut in goverment.
Cut my taxes.
Let business do anything they want and everything will be just fine.
Cut my taxes.
Get rid of unions.
Cut my taxes.

Might sound repetitive, but 'cut my taxes' is the only thing that Republicans seem to support. They are completely void of any other positive ideas.

Rule # 1 in investing ---- stay away from the "experts"

By the way, I have to make an admission. I have not listened to any financial advisor except for a single exception in my entire life, as I do not trust any of them at all. I did trust and listen to one key financial genius, Warren Buffet. I didn't feel comfortable with my level of understanding of the tech boom during the late 1990's, and I had read several times that Buffet also was uncomfortable with tech investing because all the numbers (here we go again) didn't make sense to him and if something didn't make sense to him, he refused to invest in it no matter what the returns. I took his cue and stuck to it because what he said reflected exactly how I felt about the tech boom. That is why I didn't ride any of that stuff and it turned out to be correct, but I did indeed follow someone else's advice this one time.

"I wonder if you oppose knowledge and facts in your business as much as you do in your political 'thinking' ... "

We have tried the facts and numbers game, but we are as opposed to what the data tells us as if we each just made up all of our stats. This is what I'm trying to get across, the facts are meaningless unless you interpret the right deductions. And my take is that your deductions are not very good overall. In fact I'm here because it fascinates me how the liberals (primarily) interpret world, economic, military and political events so differently. Now, you suggest it is I that is cock-eyed and of course that is just as valid as my own position. However I do have a very, very good record of being savy in terms of investment and business, and these things are far easier to access for successfulness. Politics, military, the penal system, etc. are in a sense impossible to gauge absolutes about rightness or wrongness, so we can argue endlessly and be neither totally wrong or totally right.......EVER. These sectors will be forever arguable for either position, liberal or conservative. But in terms of investment and business dealings, I am old enough to have been witness to countless foolish positions taken by people, many professional or edjucated in these fields, who were completely off base and at least to me at the times, completely clueless. They would know all the data, studies, current world/ market conditions, charts, puts/ calls leveraging, hedging/ risking, diversifying, etc., etc...........but still miss the boat!!!!
I did not lose much in the early 1970's market crash, the early 1990's real estate decline, the 2000's tech bubble, nor even the 2007 real estate bubble/ crash. I sold and invested pretty much around all of these great losses, and you know what? Each time, I had to go against the vasy majority of financial advisor's and economists predictions and go with my own analysis and instincts. My biggest regret was not riding the tech boom upwards even as I avoided the crash downwards, but that would have required taking risk's against my analysis of the inevidable bubble and trusting I would have gotten out on time......no guarrantee. So it was probablly best I didn't ride it at all, and that is the way it turned out. Still a huge missed opportunity, but at least I didn't lose huge amounts during that cycle. So you see, I am a guy hugely skeptical of all the data that gets thrown around, so if you see it as a weakness, well go ahead, power to you. I will continue to trust my instincts rather than the number crunchers who would have busted me several times if I had listened to their "expert" opinions.

Oh that. I had the impression it was computer generated spam.

The one who always talks about Mobile. I'm not even sure if it is a man or woman who posts that stuff whenever they get off their meds. It's just crazy stuff from someone who seems to be crying out for help and this sure isn't the site to find it.

Yeah, whoever entered this thread should know better. This thread was long occupied by the crazy siemens hating lady again, who keep replying to her own post and arguing with herself.

WTF? What is this post all about ?

Mitt Romney went to the White House for lunch today. He left, extremely upset, when he found out that the President had already eaten his lunch !!!!

Poor Mitt .... poor for the first time in his born-with-a-silver-dog-cage-on-his-car life. Exit ----> stage right!

Please go and stay gone. You think this is a game you can just make up in your head as you go along.

I wonder if you oppose knowledge and facts in your business as much as you do in your political 'thinking' ... and I use that word very liberally in your case !!!!

No wonder that Republicans like you are a dying breed. (Yes, and that is a fact, too).

OK, actuary, not actuator.

But again, all of my stuff is posted off the top of my head, and I see you are jamming up the Google servers once again.

Won't you feel naked the first time you have to come up with something when the serach engines are not there for you to lean on?
Just asking.....gotta go.

It is sheer idiocy tyo believe that social security is not based on the same kind of actuarial statistics as any other insurance. The difference is that insurance companies can adjust their rates yearly, or at any time, to adjust for new actuarial data, whereas changing pay-ins and pay-outs is far more complicated for social security since it requires Congressional action rather than the wave of a pen by some VP at an insurance company.

When you start looking at things with a pre-existing bias it is not surprising that you get things wrong all the time.

This must be close to strike 50 for you. A new major league record!!

The first person to get a monthly retirement check from Social Security certainly got her money's worth. Ida May Fuller, a retired legal secretary from Ludlow, Vt., received her first monthly check in January 1940. She was 65 years old and lived to be 100. She had paid Social Security taxes for three years.

___

Social Security taxes paid by Fuller during her career: $24.75.

Fuller's first monthly benefit check: $22.54.

Fuller's lifetime benefits: $22,888.92.

"If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance (car, home, life, renters, etc). "

Not quite my friend, Private insurance bases their rates statistics and averages, and had put the monies into investments.

SS was based on let this generation that is now working pay for those who are now retired. The first person to collect had contributed around $20 and ends up pulling $20,000 before she passed away. ( If my old right wing brain cells are working correctly -- please check) All well and dandy as long as the working population was far greater then the retirement population. When started it was about 5-10 to one. Now it is approaching 2-1 or less. I hope you have a lot of grandchildren to support me and my wife.

So you're an engineer. It's an actuary, not an actuator !!!!

Social security is a stand alone system. Period. And please don't start with your LBJ and the Viet Nam war nonsense. The way you present that 'issue' is completely misleading and wrong. Money was NOT taken from social security; the excess at that time was 'used' to make the budget appear to be 'balanced' on paper. I guess it's easy to have ridiculous ideas and opinions when you have the basic facts wrong.

"If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance "

Insurance is where many people (policy holders) pay an actuator's estimate of how much the insurance company can charge on a yearly basis, in order to fulfill the contract obligation limits defined in the fine print...... and still make a profit. They are gambling that these obligations will be less than what they collect in premiums over the long haul.

But with SS, we pay into it all our working days, assuming that we will be paid out an entitled cash stream after reaching the age of 65-66 (currently for most people). The trouble is, in the insurance scheme all of the premiums go towards obligations or towards profit for the insurance company but with SS the money does not all go towards SS benefits to be paid out currently or in the future. Some of the money is essentially "stolen" by being used to fund other things besides SS benefits, and is a major reason why the program is essentially broke within 20-30 years unless benefits are cut or contributions and the retirement age are raised.

I don't know about you guy's but that does not seem to be a great deal for the taxpayer. It is essentially a huge tax increase, heavily biased negatively towards the younger folks since they are paying more and more towards things other than their future benefits through the FICA payments each paycheck.

Personally, if I am assuming I make FICA payments towards SS benefits, I would want ALL OF IT to be used for that ourpose.

:Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, those under 40 will be paying the price. Not I :-)"

Another one of the Republican talking points that has no justification. Obviously, none of them know what a Ponzi scheme is nor do they realize that the future of Social Security can been ensured with some tweaking as has been done in the past. The so-called problem with social security is more a matter of anyone's ability to exactly predict the future and the number of benefit recipients and the number of younger people contributing to the system.

If social security is a Ponzi scheme, then so is every other form of insurance (car, home, life, renters, etc).

But thank you for maintaining the image of your No-Nothing Party.

"I agree. we should try Mongolian Chinese Buffet - Warren, MI"
END QUOTE

So this is for real. their rating is not good. LOL

"Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!"

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, those under 40 will be paying the price. Not I :-)

Part III

I may have a solution also for some of the imported oil we seem so unable to do without. A lot of this oil is used to fire up electric generating plants across the country. That is a lot of oil.

About 1/3 of all American adults are obese. That means somewhere around 20-75 million adults walking around obese. I'm not advocating sacrificing them, but perhaps when they pass away we can boil their carcasses much as they used to render whale meat for the fat content. Oil floats to the top to be easily skimmed off for fuel. We could do this with fat people's carcasses and use the oil to fire up electrical plants. That may save millions spent for imported oil, and would go a long way towards further reducing the deficit.

Part II

I also have a very efficient and cost effective way to decrease the military budget yet not decrease or maybe if we are lucky, even increase the effectiveness of our long range weapons. A second benefit would be to streamline the costs that burden Medicare and health care costs in general in this country.

I think all men and women over the age of 66 should be drafted, no exceptons granted, except of course for the decreased level of danger peace time may grace on the fortunate ones. Notice how this precise age eliminates the payments for SS that this group would have just begun to be qualified for. This manditory military service would be for a special division dedicated to piloting all current forms of self guided missle systems. Since their age precludes any significant loss of life's pleasures and accomplishments, these soldiers can sacrafice their lives to a much needed and honorable cause. Cruise missles cost about a million dollars each, and a live pilot brings smarter and better adaptability if the strike dynamics should change. Regardless they can guide the weapon directly onto targets and even make changes seconds before a strike actually hits its target. We can compensate the families of these heroic soldiers with a significant reward if the soldier hit his target perfectly.

Do you plan to send adults on welfare to orphanages too? And who will pay the cost of the orphanages? Are you proposing to pay the cost of all the orphanages all by your generous self?

Please learn to engage mind before opening mouth and remember that a closed mouth gathers no feet.

Well, this is a new one. I knew that the Tea Party wanted to take the country back, but at worst, I figured they meant back to 1932 before the New Deal. Now we get a proposal to return to the nineteenth century. You simply don't get that society today is not structured for the kind of solutions you propose. I never realized how out of touch you were with the vast majority of America. You are the perfect example of the kind of leader who will eventually destroy what remains of the Republican Party. As I recall, the last time the leading conservative Party died in America (the Whigs) it took almost a decade for their replacement (the Republicans) to form and become credible. During that interim period, most conservatives found a home in what was called the No-Nothing Party. It looks like history is repeating itself.

Or was that just a modest proposal, Mr Swift?

I think anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be eliminated from circulation. Within 6 months 90% of the entitlement problem would then be taken care of. The kids can go the orphanage route, and within one generation the problem is fixed. Who else after seeing what happened to these long termer's would try and collect welfare for that long? I think I should run for president.

You even find ways to go after Warren Buffet, I see. As I understand it, he is an old man, I think he has cancer, he is rich beyond belief and even if Berkshire-Hathaway stock dropped by 50 % he would still be rich beyond belief. I also believe he is giving the bulk, if not all, of his wealth to charity. But even your way, what you are saying is that there are many people like Warren Buffet who would benefit from a rise in taxes for the elite rich.

To the other poster, I have been saying for ages that $500K or even a million is an acceptable compromise. I could make arguments about those in high cost areas having made a choice and if $4000 on each $100,000 over $250K makes that much of a different, it suggests they bought in way above their means. For those in high cost areas in general, salaries are usually higher there to compensate. But, as I said, the higher levels would still be acceptable. To me what is more important is to remove the tax preference for capital gains for uber-income people, especially those who get a large percentage of their income from such investments. There are still many people like Mitt Romney who pay only around 15 % because so much of their income is long term capital gains.

Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!

I agree. we should try Mongolian Chinese Buffet - Warren, MI

Warren Buffet has stated he believes that the tax rate should go up on the rich, but thinks the rate should apply only to those above $500K a year or even higher. I agree with the $500K cutoff as $250K for a family in pricier neighborhoods is not rich.

But if you think about it, he knows this will leave more money in the economy to prop up Wall Street as smaller cuts to government spending can be endured, helping to boost spending. And he has a huge interest in keeping stock values up because of his Bershire investments. I do not believe he sincerly believes increasing taxes will not effect employment negatively, but like I said he has a huge dog in the fight in terms of equities values.

Yeah, whoever entered this thread should know better. This thread was long occupied by the crazy siemens hating lady again, who keep replying to her own post and arguing with herself.

Just have some holiday spirit, enjoy the one woman show.

Nope. This is like any other website. Enter at your own risk. You know the rules !!

Could you at least name your room appropriately or put out a "do not disturb" sign?

In case you haven't noticed, we already have one, thank you. It's a special room that isn't for everyone's taste. Fortunately for you, attendance in OUR room is not mandatory.

Could you guys get a room?!

Once again, you miss the point. You simply put faith into someone who you say shares your 'philosophy'. One would think that the 'philosophy' would be based on something ... some facts, some data. But you and the Republicans refuse or simply can't come up with any data or facts to support your philiosophy; you simply state you know you are right. You say you don't like what 'liberals' want to do, but you won't say what you want to do. You criticize Obama for not achieving all he set out to do (never mind the FACT that he tried to do much more but was blocked at every turn by a minority in the Senate. This anti-democratic group refuses to even allow many issues to come up for a vote and yet they maintain they are the party of 'true' America who support freedom and democracy. Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Since you won't use facts, data, or history to support your philosophy and won't make any specific proposals to ensure an healthy economic future for America, I can only conclude that you are just filled with anger, fear, and hot air.

SO STOP ALL THE CRITICISM. STOP THE UNFOUNDED DIRE PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE. STOP THE CATEGORIZATION AND LABELS. STOP SAYING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT AND TELL US WHAT YOU DO WANT. MAKE A PROPOSAL WITH SOME DETAILS AND EXPLAIN HOW YOUR IDEAS WILL WORK IN PRACTICE. MAYBE THEN YOU WILL HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE ZERO.

You simply don't seem to understand that simpy being against things and not having any ideas of your own is not the basis for an adult coversation about anything. You sound like a sports fan whose team is doing very poorly. You complain about the players, the managers and coaches, and the owners. You know everything that isn't working for your team. Yet, you don't make a single suggestion as to how to fix it. You don't suggest any trades; you don't suggest and improvement in player training, or anything else. You are like the little kid during the 'terrible twos' that just stomps his feet and says no to everything. It is little wonder that the Republican party in which you believe is spiraling itself into oblivion. If I were really a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I would welcome a new political order consisting solely of radical leftists (relatively speaking), liberals and moderates, and a tiny minority, off in the corner, called The Party Formerly Knows as Republicans. How do you expect a polical party to survive with no idea and just a vague agenda of low taxes, no government programs whatsoever other than an excessively large military, and a completely nauseating, anti-democratic social agenda. I don't know about you, but I for one do not want Big Brother Republicans in my bedroom.

"I suspect you don't take in what a professional sports person makes."

As I said, One should be paid big bucks if they are able to do a job no one else can do, or no one else wants to do.

Could you guys exchange phone numbers or Emails?

"Obama did present a plan, even though you don't like it"

Here we go again, we just see the world differently. What the difference is between you and I are the perceptions of what is and what isn't. You like data and studies and charts and while they obviously have merit, I believe that one can make raw data lie and you believe data you collect as the god given word. 2+2 is simple enough that I cannot argue with the correct answer, but economics and business are not so clear cut. It depends alot on how the data is collected, the interpretation and the accuracy of the method used. I know you don't accept this because you throw me details and data all the time but they don't agree with how I interpret them. I'll try and give an example that you will agree with. Let us take Amazon, Siemens, Exxon and Proctor& Gamble. You get your financial advisor and I'll get mine. The corporate ledger sheets are made availible to all since they are all publicly traded companies. Now lets just say that all other forms of news/ info will be exactly the same for both of our advisors so that it cannot be argued that information was different for both guys. Now we ask both to order these widely divergent companies as to the best long term investments from best to worse. Do you think the order will be exactly the same for both? After all, since the data is the same, the # crunching should clearly reveal who is better than the next, and the next, etc. I would guarrantee the order will be different for both. It is the same for complex economic and political policies. That is why I would rather trust someone whose basic ideology is as close to mine as possible, as the details scripted in a campaign are just outlines, not bankable details. As proof, Obama stated much the first time around that never came to pass either because of congress or unpredictable results from policies actually put in place or world events. Remember the "I will.....; shut down Guantanamo immediately; if my stimulus package is passed unemplyment will be below 6% before my first term is over; I will pass comprehensive Immigration reform; the war in Iraq will end in the first year of my term; I will keep gas prices low, unlike the oil linked president Bush; I will decrease the federal deficit; I will reach out to both sides and pass comprehensive health care reform and it will be posted on the internet"; etc, etc.
I am not blaiming him for not getting all this done, I am just pointing out how little specifics mean on the campaign trail. Further, you want the specifics laid out tp reduce federal spending, but we know a lot cannot be passed thru congress, so things will have to go as things develope......look at the fiscal cliff negotiations. No one knows even now what the specifics will be. Further the actual details for spending cuts are nothing but
bad news. Just how is a candidate going to win by specifying what really needs to be done? It is all ugly if you are to be honest. I agree, Obama's stuff sounded much better than Mitt's vague responses, and that is why I know Obama was full of crap. Without hurtful cuts, the borrowing has to be greater.......that's why he has a huge deficit!!!! You call it deception on Mitt's part, and I call it a rather poor attempt at not clearly lying in order to give people the rosiest promises possible. You simply want yours today and want to pass the buck down to your grandkids. That kind of thinking scares me big time.

AS I have said many times, I share most of your concerns for future generations. To start, though, let's get one thing straight. If Mitt had won and the Republicans had won two more Senate seats than they did, they would not have been able to repeal squat without getting past a Democratic filibuster. That's just reality. I also see no point in discussion all of your dire predictions of what will be. I can discuss what is, I can discuss the past as it relates to the present and I can suggest several courses of action that I believe I can defend on how to ensure the future for our children and future generations. I have no plan that controls what goes on in other countries. Countries like China, India, Indonesia will continue to grow regardless of what we do here. They will develop their own middle class and as this happens, whether we like it or not, the overall wealth in the world will become distributed among more and more people. What bothers me about your position is that you say you want to repeal ACA, but no one can say what, if anything, they will replace it with. You say you want to cut the spending in Washington, but no one in your party can list enough cuts to make a big enough dent in the budget, you say you want to lower tax rates even more, but won't say where you will make up the difference. You are basically asking the American people to trust the Republicans on faith alone. All I heard last fall from Mitt was, elect me and once I'm in office I will figure out which cuts to make; elect me and I will balance tax rate cuts with elimination of preferences and, once again, I'll figure it all out after I'm in office. And Obama did present a plan, even though you don't like it. At least he gave the American people something to judge him on. And along with all of this vagueness and numbers that just don't add up, electing the Republicans would have brought into power a group of people who are hell bent on turning the United States into the most socially repressive nation in the developed world. And whether you like it or not, you can't separate the fiscal and social conservatives any more.

So I really don't know where to go from here. I know some of the things you're against. I suspect you'd like to see OSHA and the EPA close along with many other government services. I don't know how you propose to deal with any negative consequences of such closing, so there isn't much to discuss on regulation. The same can be said on taxes. I've presented a number of ideas, all of which you say either won't work or will ruin America somehow, despite no real evidence. All I've heard from you is that you want the Bush tax cuts retained for all, you may want even lower tax rates, and I have heard zero on what major things you will cut to start to bring the budget back into balance. It's like trying to catch the wind.

"As for the minimum wage, I could put the shoe on the other foot and talk about employers feeling entitled to have labor for the lowest possible wages (the obvious extreme is slavery"

No offense, really...... I am serious here and not trying to be sarcastic, you are fully in that entitlement liberal mode and cannot see the forrest thru the trees. And I am with you on the sympathy for the young ones graduating today, they indeed do have it much tougher. But that is why I scream here and vent because I care too. In fact I care about this subject more than any other concerning our countries future......we just see things from a different perspective. The kind of tough economy the kids are facing today is potentially nothing compared to what faces kids who have decades left before they graduate from college. That is why it disturbs me so much that we have re-elected a president who's own administration estimates are that deficits will run on average a trillion a year till the end of his second term. And the reality is that it will obviously be much worse. Do we not owe it to the kids to shoulder most of the hard times within our generation and not pass on enormous burdens to the far off future for them to pay off? Yes, it will hurt, but it was our generation (yes, including Bush and his wars) who f&*^%$'k'd up badly. At the very least, Mitt would have generated less debt simply by abolishing Obamacare. Obviously some kids would be punished by this if Mitt was elected, so maybe we could have special entitlements just for kids below 18 or so for the immediate future untill things can be further streamlined for costs and care. But I'm sorry, adults who cannot fend for themselves should have to work for any real benefits because generational transfer of entitlements means kids in future generations get stolen from before they are even born. All of this is worse case senario stuff, I agree, but that is how a conservative looks at things because that is how we are defined, and why we seem perpetually better prepared than liberals for life's difficulties.

As for my employee facilities example, I will disagree and say it fits right in w/ this discussion by the very nature that they are not government regulated. You see, free market forces will push us in the right direction on these issues because we become less competitive in the labor market. All non essential aspects of business regulations are better off no involving government; it is always cheaper and more efficient this way.

And as for the min. wage, low paying jobs being equated to slavery is the typical slippery slope that liberals cannot define correctly. If a slave has the freedom to leave, HE WILL LEAVE and seek a better life. The last time I checked, labor regulations in the US never allowed one to pay $0.05 an hour while chaining the emplyee to the job.

You guys realy need to actually run a business to get a real world education. I will assure you from direct experience that advertizing a job for $0.99 an hour (if this was allowed) would get you zero takers and therefore ZERO VICTIMS. There is no need to protect the public from $0.99 an hour jobs even if there was no min. wage regulation........no one would accept the job in this country. Market rates being paid for appropriate job positions will direct employees to better educate/ train themselves
for the necessary jobs or they will not make it. And if an able bodied/ minded person cannot cut it in the job market, that is his lot in life to work out for himself.

What makes you think I don't know about technology or the course of study required for different disciplines. For some things, calculus is essential. For others various sciences are necessary, not all of which depend on calculus to any great extent. The only derivative I can remember being involved with after my last calculus final was a part of my investment portfolio.

There are lots of courses that get taken in college that wind up as useless information. Even English majors have a value in the technological world. Just read a variety of instructions that come with all of today's modern electronics and you will understand the value of someone who can write a simple, understandable declarative sentence.

As for your college experience at Commie University, I fully oppose the idea of biased education in a general class. Teach the good and bad of each system (none that I know of is perfect). Make more biased classes available too, but identify them as such. Based on some of the statements made during the recent election, and the number of people I have met who accept some of the wildest nonsense on both sides, it seems that we need more and not less education in history, government, economics, etc. The easiest way for Americans to give up control of their government is to be uniformed and ignorant and disinterested when it comes time for them to choose their leaders.

Finally, as a cheerleader for the free enterprise system, I would you would be more than happy to let market forces decide the value of a particular set of knowledge or skill. I don't know how much yor business makes or what you are worth, but I would suprised if you are in a league with a Mick Jagger or Justin Beiber let alone many other lesser known names. I suspect you don't take in what a professional sports person makes. And I suspect that none of those people ever needed to learn about calculus (although sound engineers or those freaks who use high powered aerodynamics to prove that a baseball can curve when thrown). There is more to life than the latest and greatest tech toy.

Fair wage; I have an idea, why not pay everybody $50/hr. That way everybody makes $100K + a year and everybody is rich ... simple.

Or as LBJ would say THE GREAT SOCIETY ! As he sent 550,000 young men to Viet-Nam

"How in the world will learning calculus change someone's world? I took 3 semesters of it in college along with plenty of liberal arts course as well as the many required to complete my degree in science. And I gotta tell you that if there were ever 3 wasted courses, they were calculus."

All of these high tech wonders that we enjoy have various upper levels of math behind them. If you had the background that you say you have, you would know it.

I took a few required Liberal Arts courses and all they pushed was Marxism and how bad capitalism was. The reason I suggest the liberal arts students take a semester or two was to round their education. Like mine was rounded.

Sounds like your BS is BS.