Already Started for Some

fessup

Active Member
I read your response to 55+ and I've written you off as a lost cause. Getting drawn into debates with you will be a waste of time. Enjoy your Fox News!
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
I know it's important to spread the blame around, but it was common knowledge that Republicans were, and are, against unions. It was only when the Democrats had complete control of the gov't that FedEx kicked in, what was it, $26 million(have read as much as $32 million). I'm betting that most of that went to Democrats.

I've said before that I think Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever had. And I suspect that if business owners didn't have to match our payroll contributions there would be little criticism of it. If we are to keep SS viable then spending in other areas needs to be reigned in. Way too many baby boomers starting to collect. There isn't a bottomless well to draw on, the money will run out. We need leaders willing to be responsible, not hand out money to every constituency just to get their vote.

I've heard the $32 million figure, and am guessing that is probably low. Smith was a GOP "Ranger" for Dubya, meaning he was one of the top givers/money-makers for the Republicans. You and I will (as always) have to agree to disagree about the larger question. Either way, we have a bunch of corrupt politicians making decisions based on who pays them the most money. Fred is very generous to his political friends.
 

fessup

Active Member
I've heard the $32 million figure, and am guessing that is probably low. Smith was a GOP "Ranger" for Dubya, meaning he was one of the top givers/money-makers for the Republicans. You and I will (as always) have to agree to disagree about the larger question. Either way, we have a bunch of corrupt politicians making decisions based on who pays them the most money. Fred is very generous to his political friends.

Democrats, with some exceptions, are nowhere near as progressive as I would like them to be, and yes a lot are influenced by corporate money ( or the fear of corporate money being used against them) BUT it isn't the case that Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
If you are not going to vote Republican, republicons would like you to believe that politicians are all the same- in other words it is not worth voting at all.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Democrats, with some exceptions, are nowhere near as progressive as I would like them to be, and yes a lot are influenced by corporate money ( or the fear of corporate money being used against them) BUT it isn't the case that Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
If you are not going to vote Republican, republicons would like you to believe that politicians are all the same- in other words it is not worth voting at all.

I certainly don't think politicians are all the same. Republicans support big business while Democrats make promises they don't keep. Both have their constituencies they pander to. But generally Republicans want less government, Democrats more. Right now we need less. I'm sorry for not saying what you only want to hear but I'm more interested in the truth. If I see Republicans lying I'll say so. Same with Democrats. What I do know about Democrats is they make promises to greatly reduce poverty, to fix schools, to provide for the poor. For decades they poured trillions into "fixing" all our ills without doing so. But they did create a way to scratch backs in exchange for votes. Republicans on the other hand turn a blind eye to corporate malfeasance to line their own pockets and only come down hard when a company like Enron goes way overboard. What you don't seem to see is that Democrats would have you dependent on government, lining their pockets in the process. Republicans rail against this but it's becoming very clear that corporations would have us just as dependent on them. Pay us just enough to stay at it with few options to change our situation. Republicans forgot why they came to power in '94 and were punished for it in 2006 and 2008. Democrats seem to be forgetting why they lost power in '94 after 40 years of controlling Congress. If either party takes it too far the public reminds them when voting. But don't kid yourself. These are two parties representing the two largest constituencies, conservatives and liberals, who tell their respective voters what they want to hear in order to line their own pockets. It's up to the voting public to decide which philosophy best serves the times. I'm hoping they say Republican because right now we need restraint. But I'm afraid too many just want to be given things, not earn it. We're at a tipping point in this country in more ways than one.
 

fessup

Active Member
"But generally Republicans want less government, Democrats more. Right now we need less"

This claim is essentially a Republican framing tactic and is essentially meaningless. This country faces real problems and we need the appropriate government to address these problems.

The Republicons are very good at framing issues in ways that manipulate the emotions of the uninformed. Don't call the estate tax the estate tax, call it a death tax. Don't call a committee that evaluates the worthwhileness of medical procedures a committee that evaluates the worthwhileness of medical procedures, call it a death panel. Oh and that deficit which didn't matter according to Cheney and his "texan" pal, call that a looming disaster that dictates that entitlements for the middle class, working class and poor, as well as taxes for the rich, must be drastically cut.
Good old Frank Lunz - he sure knows how to fool people.
 

MrFedEx

Engorged Member
nice effort, IAJDB, but it seems to have had no effect

Not auditioning for the forum police folks, but could a new thread possibly be started for the political discussion and let this one get back on to its original track? Thanks!

(I know, it's easy for topics to drift, but this one's gone just a wee bit too far afield)

See "Current Events" in the UPS Forums.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
"But generally Republicans want less government, Democrats more. Right now we need less"

This claim is essentially a Republican framing tactic and is essentially meaningless. This country faces real problems and we need the appropriate government to address these problems.

The Republicons are very good at framing issues in ways that manipulate the emotions of the uninformed. Don't call the estate tax the estate tax, call it a death tax. Don't call a committee that evaluates the worthwhileness of medical procedures a committee that evaluates the worthwhileness of medical procedures, call it a death panel. Oh and that deficit which didn't matter according to Cheney and his "texan" pal, call that a looming disaster that dictates that entitlements for the middle class, working class and poor, as well as taxes for the rich, must be drastically cut.
Good old Frank Lunz - he sure knows how to fool people.

But the deficits under Bush were much smaller. Obama's annual deficits are a trillion plus. You can't see that that's unsustainable? You affirm what I said by saying we need appropriate government to address these problems. And you open a whole other can of worms talking about the worthwhileness of medical procedures. Many of us don't want others deciding for us whether we should be allowed to have a procedure or not. In other words we don't want government controlling every aspect of our lives. And I see Frank Lunz discussing polling on various channels, not just on FOX. I suppose when Democrats show Paul Ryan dumping granny off a cliff they aren't going way overboard? Your problem is you are a true believer. Too partisan. Just remember that it was a Republican who freed the slaves and Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights Act. And that Texan you love to hate did more for Aids victims in Africa than previous presidents combined. Not to mention his administration warned banks against making bad loans to unqualified applicants. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd were pushing banks to do just that and that was the foundation that ultimately brought the economic house of cards down. There's good and bad on both sides but true believers tend to demonize the opposition. And that's the path to unrepairable schisms.

I started this thread so I feel it's ok to go wherever it meanders to. Feel free to ignor it or start your own thread.
 

check6ii

Well-Known Member
You failed to mention the defense budget and the tax cuts for the rich.Personally I cant wait to start getting my handouts from our govt since my employer keeps taking away my benefits/entitlements? I suppose this is what fred has in mind..My 350.00 a week is just not enough anymore to make my mercedes payment..I could tryvand take a second job at walmart but fred just wont give me a regular schedule that I can rely on.maybe I will take some money from my bank account in the cayman islands..buy a business suit and get a fulltime job from another fortune 500 company since I know they will hire me especially since im over 55 and I know how companies admire and respect people over 55 especially women..There were so imany roads this company could take through the years and I personally think they blew it..they had a great workforce that really cared and were proud of what they did..Now they are just a greedy capitalistic money grubbing corp. that I really dont care to work for any longer..I really dont think Romney could make anything better for this country..He is not going to create living wage jobs any more than Obama can..Lets get real here..politicians are also onlu in it for themselves just like fred and his cronies.
+1
 

check6ii

Well-Known Member
The national debt stood at $10.6 Trillion when Obama took office. It now stands at over $16 Trillion and growing. His administration has far outspent any other. Projected to be over $20 Trillion and growing by 2016. People like to point out that Bush left the economy in shambles but Obama's stimulus plan was for $1 Trillion. Where has the rest gone? He has rewarded supporters such as several solar panel companies with huge contracts, one for half a billion and it went bankrupt. He has grown the Federal Gov't to unprecedented levels. There are now 10's of thousands in Washington making over $150k a year when that number was a small fraction of what it is now. We now have over 47 million on food stamps, close to 5 million on disability, with incentives to keep them on gov't programs. This is all being paid for by selling bonds to foreign gov'ts, especially China, and paying the interest on the debt by printing money. If other govt's stop buying bonds this house of cards collapses. And as they print money it becomes worth less which gives those gov'ts an incentive to stop buying. The Chinese have already lectured us on this. They see their investment coming back to them worth less than what they were promised in interest. At the same time Obama has closed down drilling on Federal land and in the Gulf. He has severely hampered coal production. If he's reelected and manages to get the House of Representatives back his next goal is to implement his cap-and-trade program. He said in an interview that I watched that it would cause our electric rates to skyrocket. Trying to wean us off fossil fuels but there is no viable alternative. FedEx lives on fossil fuels. Don't like your pay now wait until that happens. Obama is a far left extremist pretending to be a centrist to get reelected. The only reason he hasn't tried to ram through other programs like cap-and-trade after he got Obamacare is that the Repubs won the House in 2010. And I'm beginning to wonder if enough people are worried about losing their gov't handouts that they'll vote for Obama and give the Dems the House back. We are literally at the edge and it won't be granny thrown off the cliff but literally everyone if we don't get the spending under control.

FINALLY! Someone sees the truth.
 

TUT

Well-Known Member
"But generally Republicans want less government, Democrats more. Right now we need less"

Right because deregulation proves corps will:

1. Keep prices low and not collude.
2. Treat Employees Fairly. Not cancelling pensions, nno hour trickery to save on health benis.
3. Keep jobs in America.

We always need less gov't if everyone played fair and cared about their own and country. We need more gov't when they don't play fair, could careless about their country and neighbors. Fix prices, etc.

So what state do you feel we are in right now? The Corp that cares about the US? Or the Corp that cares about only themselves at the top?

I think right now, it couldn't be any cleared. Reducing laws, will just allow them to run roughshod over the working class. Not enough people are talking about the decline in the job paying grade itself. There has been no successful country ever where the wage earners make less then they previously have. Not one. That is where we are.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
"But generally Republicans want less government, Democrats more. Right now we need less"

Right because deregulation proves corps will:

1. Keep prices low and not collude.
2. Treat Employees Fairly. Not cancelling pensions, nno hour trickery to save on health benis.
3. Keep jobs in America.

We always need less gov't if everyone played fair and cared about their own and country. We need more gov't when they don't play fair, could careless about their country and neighbors. Fix prices, etc.

So what state do you feel we are in right now? The Corp that cares about the US? Or the Corp that cares about only themselves at the top?

I think right now, it couldn't be any cleared. Reducing laws, will just allow them to run roughshod over the working class. Not enough people are talking about the decline in the job paying grade itself. There has been no successful country ever where the wage earners make less then they previously have. Not one. That is where we are.

Nothing wrong with regulating industries. But overregulating stymies industries and is a big factor in their taking business offshore. And big government is intruding into every aspect of our lives. The government exists to serve us, not the other way around.
 

fessup

Active Member
Nothing wrong with regulating industries. But overregulating stymies industries and is a big factor in their taking business offshore. And big government is intruding into every aspect of our lives. The government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

This demonstrates the antigovernment, antiregulation mindset that exists in certain segments of the population and it is a real drag on the country. It all sounds so reasonable but the logic falls apart when you get down to specifics. Without good government we are at the mercy of the corporations and it is pretty obvious (or should be) to most people that they do not pursue policies that are in the public interest.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
This demonstrates the antigovernment, antiregulation mindset that exists in certain segments of the population and it is a real drag on the country. It all sounds so reasonable but the logic falls apart when you get down to specifics. Without good government we are at the mercy of the corporations and it is pretty obvious (or should be) to most people that they do not pursue policies that are in the public interest.

Demonstrates no such thing. Government is necessary. Excessive governing isn't. And your people aren't just against big corporations. They are going after anyone making in excess of $250k a year which includes many small business owners. Look around you. Where would the food, the gas, the stores, anything at all come from if people weren't willing to work hard to make it happen? They should be rewarded for their efforts but extremists think they should only be allowed X amount with everything else taken away to be given to others. Pretty soon no one will be willing to start a business and then where will we be? Obama talks a good game but this is the path he wants us on. And you so badly want to stick it to the rich you can't see what you'll end up doing to yourselves.
 

DontThrowPackages

Well-Known Member
Demonstrates no such thing. Government is necessary. Excessive governing isn't. And your people aren't just against big corporations. They are going after anyone making in excess of $250k a year which includes many small business owners. Look around you. Where would the food, the gas, the stores, anything at all come from if people weren't willing to work hard to make it happen? They should be rewarded for their efforts but extremists think they should only be allowed X amount with everything else taken away to be given to others. Pretty soon no one will be willing to start a business and then where will we be? Obama talks a good game but this is the path he wants us on. And you so badly want to stick it to the rich you can't see what you'll end up doing to yourselves.
They always seem to equate small business with 250k a year lol. A mom a pop making 30, 50 or 80K a year is a small business. The parameter of 250k is the low end and any small business, as they call them, making 250k, 1million or 20 billion would be subject to the tax. Its like arguing, because the minimum age to join the armed services is 18, the government only wants 18 year old men and women to serve.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
They always seem to equate small business with 250k a year lol. A mom a pop making 30, 50 or 80K a year is a small business. The parameter of 250k is the low end and any small business, as they call them, making 250k, 1million or 20 billion would be subject to the tax. Its like arguing, because the minimum age to join the armed services is 18, the government only wants 18 year old men and women to serve.

False analogy. Small business owners(most anyways)aren't in it to make $50k or less. And business owners try to make their business grow. And you don't take into account many couples who work professional jobs who's combined income is easily over $250k. Essentially this administration wants to limit success. Individual achievement is the driving force behind our economy. And those who make good money spread it around on their own. Construction jobs on large homes, not to mention landscaping, real estate agents, clothing manufacturers. Yeah, it's easy to resent companies like FedEx who've manipulated large groups of people to enrich themselves. But to lump everyone in who've worked hard to achieve success and want to punish them for having more than you is just short-sighted. And about envy for many unfortunately.
 

fessup

Active Member
Demonstrates no such thing. Government is necessary. Excessive governing isn't. And your people aren't just against big corporations. They are going after anyone making in excess of $250k a year which includes many small business owners. Look around you. Where would the food, the gas, the stores, anything at all come from if people weren't willing to work hard to make it happen? They should be rewarded for their efforts but extremists think they should only be allowed X amount with everything else taken away to be given to others. Pretty soon no one will be willing to start a business and then where will we be? Obama talks a good game but this is the path he wants us on. And you so badly want to stick it to the rich you can't see what you'll end up doing to yourselves.

Baloney. I'm not against success per se being rewarded, but if you are successful by screwing the country, then yeah i want you to pay.

Romney was successful in being a pirate equity guy - robbing pension funds, laying off workers and transferring jobs to China where wages and regulations are at a minimum, and hiding his money in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Romney loves America but has contempt for the majority of Americans.
No wonder the billionaires give so generously to your Republicons, because they know that they'll get it back in spades.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Baloney. I'm not against success per se being rewarded, but if you are successful by screwing the country, then yeah i want you to pay.

Romney was successful in being a pirate equity guy - robbing pension funds, laying off workers and transferring jobs to China where wages and regulations are at a minimum, and hiding his money in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. Romney loves America but has contempt for the majority of Americans.
No wonder the billionaires give so generously to your Republicons, because they know that they'll get it back in spades.

If he robbed pension funds why isn't he in jail? You fail to mention all the jobs Bain Capital created investing in businesses. And you even had to qualify it..."success per se". The fact is that you want high tax rates for income over a certain amount. That punishes success period. I'm not talking billionaires which again is a Democrat framing tactic, pointing to extremes. I'm talking about everyone who has achieved a certain amount of success being told by extremists they should turn over most of their income above a certain amount, which is often cited as $250k. You are a greedy socialist.
 

DontThrowPackages

Well-Known Member
He's not in jail because the rich(successful) make the laws. You're arguing against Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian paying a little more in taxes as if its going to effect you directly. Why should someone who has become rich(successful) pay a lesser percentage of tax than I didnt when I was doing 12 hours of OT a week? Do I want them to pay 80%? No. But I shouldn't pay 33% when they're getting away with 12 or less.
 
Top