1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

Romney vs. Obama

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Last Updated:

  1. FJR1300

    FJR1300 Well-Known Member

    I'm sorry but you'd have to be as out of touch as Romney to think that minimum wage workers (and that's typically what outfits like Walmart pay entry level positions, at least here in the south) can afford to even eat out, unless you consider the value meal at McDonalds eating out.

    It's not about them not being able to live a certain life style, it's about them choosing between paying the rent or fixing the alternator on their barely running car so they can go to their minimum wage paying job.

    I swear, I'm really not a bleeding heart liberal trying to play Robin Hood, but I can sympathize with those less fortunate than myself just because they were born to poor parents with poor parenting skills (not trying to stereotype either, just using an example of the situation many find themselves in) ;)

  2. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Google search says the average full time employee (which my friend is) makes $10.83 an hour.

    Edit: Apparently those are 2009 numbers.
  3. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    I am sure Obama is not going to trade places with someone that's "not paying their fair share" just so he has to pay less or no taxes. You guys arguing for the middle-class and poor to "pay their fair share" make it sound like the people paying less or no taxes have some secret stash of cash hidden away on some remote island. For the record, I think that's more Romney's MO.

    The reason our system is being taxed (no pun intended) and our country's debt is rising has more to do with the erosion of our middle class. A lot of businesses laid off workers to maintain their profits for the short term. What they didn't realize (or didn't care about) is that as companies began cutting these well paying jobs (or significantly reducing salaries) is that they also cut down how much money these people had to spend on goods and services. With less demand for their products and services, these companies found a need to cut even MORE workers and salaries to maintain their wealth. Now who do you think should be more responsible for the social programs and/or training needed to maintain these displaced employees? Considering who stood to profit most by these companies cutting jobs and salaries, wouldn't it stand to reason that they should carry a larger burden to help these displaced citizens? Cutting funding for these programs will do what exactly? It's not going to help build up our middle class, in fact it'll probably drive more people into poverty.

    If we were to remove all regulations, cut social programs, and let the "survival of the fittest" mantra shape our country, what you'd see is large corporations become even larger to the point where their influence would be so far reaching into our system that you'd see the U.S. turn into China, which if you'd like to talk about scenarios that would be "Un-American"...

    The poor parenting probably is a bi-product of having to work a COUPLE of physically and mentally demanding jobs to the point that the first thing you do when you get home is open up a bottle of whatever alcohol is available and drink until you've passed out, or find some other way to take the edge off. I'm guessing good parenting would be down the list of things that would help take the edge off.

    I think not being able to demonstrate empathy is a trait typical of most sociopaths. Generally, this attitude resides with young males that have a feeling of invincibility. Although, if you're sheltered enough and have the luxury of your parents providing you with a silver spoon your entire life, then it's generally a trait that you'll live with for your entire life. If you look at some of the billionaires who didn't grow up with a silver spoon in their mouth, you'll typically find them dedicating a larger portion of their wealth on the sick and poor (ah la Bill Gates). Looking down their nose at the sick and poor and asking them to pay their "fair share", not so much.
  4. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    Back when I was in high school, Walmart also had a bad habit of working their "full time" employees less than 32 hours so they could avoid giving them full benefits. So if you work 32 hours at $10.83 hell how about we go an even $11.00 an hour, that's $352 BEFORE taxes. What percentage of $352 would be your friend's "fair share"?

    Based on this story, Walmart's CEO makes $16,826.92 if you break it down PER HOUR. That's $673,076.80 PER WEEK (40 hour work week since I don't want anyone to think that I think CEOs don't work hard since you hardly EVER see them at golf courses or enjoying more leisure time than the average worker). So, out of the 673,076.80 per week, what would you say is the CEO's "fair share"? Keep in mind that he's being compensated that extra money because he doesn't have to provide health insurance to his worker. So for his worker to get medical care, they have to go to an ER, and will most likely have to go to a public hospital.

    ****And the story I posted above, don't just look at the first video, take a look at the following video about CEO pay raises vs the average worker's pay raises. Hopefully we can throw out the whole notion of "fair share"****
  5. FJR1300

    FJR1300 Well-Known Member

    Try this one on, it's up to date and data is supplied anonymously by employees;

    Walmart Salaries | Glassdoor

    Do the math on $8.63 an hour; a single person living in Florida (no state income tax) claiming 2 exemptions will take home $309.92 a week. Now pay the rent, utilities, car payment (kinda hard to buy a half-way dependable car outright on $309 a week), auto insurance, gas and food. No luxuries, just living to work and see what kind of 'lifestyle' these people are living. Even less in most states that have state and local taxes.

    Now of course since these low income earners typically can't build up enough good credit or pay up front for things like auto insurance and vehicles, they end up being gouged by substandard companies selling substandard products so that they can pay weekly or monthly. They can't afford healthy, organic foods so they buy what they can afford; cheap GMO corn based foods that lead to long term health problems and further the vicious circle of poverty.

    Add a couple of kids into the mix and it just becomes more and more laughable to think that they are simply living a different lifestyle.
  6. FJR1300

    FJR1300 Well-Known Member

    Couldn't agree more, the parenting problem is a part of the vicious circle that will never be broken unless the more fortunate among us give them a hand. And it is in our best interest to do so; if we can help them to raise their education level and income potential then they will be less of a burden on society and actually become a part of society that helps those escape from the same place that they did. Getting these people up to 'our' level also helps reduce the incentive for crime.

    The people that look down their noses at the poor just need to walk a mile and be humbled themselves, that's all it usually takes.
  7. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest


    I'm waiting for someone to suggest they need to walk to work, get themselves in debt with their non-existent credit to go to school, or to not eat every day since they're obviously living past their means :rolleyes:

    Here's a good example of how blind some people can be...

    Craig T. Nelson on Government Aid - YouTube
  8. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    If you look at Obama and Romney (yeah, I'm actually going back on topic! :p ), and a lot of candidates in general, you'll find their stance on these types of issues is influenced by whether or not they are a product of old money. From what I've read, Obama's mother and grand mother had to raise him with his father mostly absent. I'm sure his mother struggled greatly to make sure he was provided for. Seeing how hard it can be, I'm sure Obama has a better understanding of how things are for the working class. Meanwhile, Romney recalls his father shutting down factories and laying off workers for the bottom line, not exactly events in life that build character.

    I also think that if our leaders had a better understanding of actually serving their country in the military (not the kind of service where your father's influence ensures that you never see live FRONT LINE combat) that you wouldn't have some of our leaders so gung-ho about sending troops overseas.
    breadnatty08 likes this.
  9. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Stung again by a spelling bee. :eek:
  10. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  11. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Looks like marginal rates should be around 50%. We didn't have a debt problem till everybody bought into Reagan's voodoo economics.

    "Some of the fastest economic growth of the post-war period came in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was above 80 percent. The slowest growth came in the 2000s, when the top tax rate was 35 percent. So the fastest income growth for the top 1 percent has come under the low-tax regimes, while the fastest income growth for the median American came when taxes on the richest Americans rose."

    Ezra Klein: A rich guy’s case for higher taxes - The Washington Post
  12. gamblor01

    gamblor01 Well-Known Member

    Just to jump in a bit here, I don't believe in a true survival of the fittest philosophy either, but have a friend that works for the food stamp system here in Texas (the lonestar card). Want to know something crazy? When determining how much in benefits a person receives, they factor in utility bills into the equation. This doesn't seem so bad until you find out what can be considered a utility bill.

    It turns out that a cable tv bill is considered a utility bill. Really?!!?? Since when was cable a requirement for living? I'm a software developer with an MS in computer science and 7 years of experience now...I get paid quite well, and I don't even have cable tv!! I cut it a year or so ago when my family was getting too far into debt.

    I can sort of see phone bills (up to some standard/reasonable amount), since you often need the ability to contact people, but cable tv? No way. Internet bills are the same...you can go to just about any coffee shop (with your own computer), library, etc. Heck, work out a deal to share internet with your neighbor.

    The problem with all candidates is that our system sucks and forces them to play games. If you don't play by the rules of the game, then you can't expect to hold office. And the higher the office you wish to hold, the more corrupt you must become. I have said it before and will say it again, all politicians are crooks and liars.
  13. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    I have quite a few examples of people on welfare that abuse the system as well. Having worked at Walmart in high school, I saw it first hand. I remember ringing up one woman who had over $100 worth of food, and a bar of soap. She had items like filet mignon and other extravagant itmes. Since the bar of soap wasn't a food stamp item, she paid cash. She actually pulled out a WAD of $100 bills and paid for the bar of soap with a hundred.

    Not every welfare case abuses the system. There are more than there should be of course, but reform should be the first attempt at cutting costs, not denying a bunch of families that truly depend on the service.
  14. mike114

    mike114 Well-Known Member

    You do realize that there were so many tax breaks that no one came close to paying 80%, right?

    And how about paying a tax which would cover the costs incurred by the government spending only within it's Constitutional boundaries? You want to go back to the 1950's, how about pre 1913 when there was no income tax. How did the government function back then??

    The answer is not taxing more, the answer is spending less...period.
  15. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    Why don't we also demolish all highways, remove a woman's right to vote, and assign 3/5ths voting rights to anyone that doesn't have at least $2,000,000 in liquid assets? Let me go get my powdered wig, lets do this!
    OutofDate1980 likes this.
  16. FJR1300

    FJR1300 Well-Known Member

    Are you nuts? It would cost billions to demolish all highways! Can't we just let them fall into disrepair? :D
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Put down the straw man my friend. I freely admitted that my argument was purely facetious. Nor did I ever argue that everything should be survival of the fittest. The point remains though that you the poor who are paying the least and benefitting the most from government aid programs who are pissed because the rich who benefit the least from said programs are already paying far more than the poor people and the poor think it's not enough. Warren Buffet, by his account, paid $7 mil in taxes. Did he reap $7 mil of services from the feds? I somehow doubt it. Yet people think what he is paying is "unfair" and that he should pay more. :hmmmm:

    Goes back to my previous point. From a strictly financial point, few are paying their "fair share". That's fine. But to claim that those who are paying millions of dollars and reaping thousands of dollars in benefits aren't paying enough seems silly to me. Why should a guy like Warren Buffet pay more than what he's already paying?

    Two problems here. 1. Corporations are amoral entities that simply look out for the needs/wants of their shareholders. They're not out there evily conspiring to screw the employees and pad the bottom line. Their goal is always more profits (which isn't evil btw) and how they get there differs from company to company. 2. You can't tax a corporation in the first place. They pass on the additional costs to either employees by cutting staff/benefits or to consumers by raising prices. Increase corporate taxes and you're going to increase prices or unemployment one.

    The CEO in your example is already paying MORE in taxes than the cashier. You're saying that him paying more isn't enough. He needs to pay even more than what he's paying. My question is why? Does he reap more benefits from the feds than the cashier? If so, does he reap enough more to justify paying many, many times more than the cashier?

    He is being compensated more than the cashier because he is more valuable to the company than the cashier. Nothing more and nothing less. It is much harder to find a good CEO than it is to find a good cashier

    The majority of minimum wage earners aren't parents trying to raise kids. They are high schoolers and college kids working for some extra money while still at home.

    There was an article I saw yesterday where a lottery winner somewhere got arrested for taking welfare after she won the lottery. She won $1-2 mil or something along those lines and continued to take food stamps. The article said that she wasn't the first one who did this either. Apparently someone who won a year or so ago did the same thing.

    She is probably an outlier, but there are also those who do work and still take assistance that they're not eligible for.
  18. cmybliss

    cmybliss Well-Known Member

    LOL! Seriously made me laugh! I've got a powdered wig you could borrow if you like. Of course it's of the féminin variety, so if you show up with it on your head you might not be able to vote.
  19. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Warren Buffet couldnt make that much without the federal government, between its economic management, provision of defence, promotion of trade and economic liberalization, currency, transport management, etcetera etcetera.
  20. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The same could be said for the poor as well. Plus they benefit from the various welfare programs as well.
  21. mc48

    mc48 Well-Known Member

    Bush never got elected to his first term :) As to apathy on the part of Dems to vote, I hope you are wrong. I am hoping it goes the other way...that people will after all these months of the Republican nomination campaign they will see what a frickin joke the Republican Party has become and throw any kind of anti-Republican vote in there they can. I think voter turnout for women will be higher than ever because of it. Same can be said for union workers, the LGBT community, government workers, Hispanics and anyone that is not in the top 10% of the nations wealth class. As to what I would change about the presidential election process...lots. But I would start with campaign finance reform and getting all the money out of politics. First thing to do would be appeal Citizens United. It would all be downhill from there.
  22. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    Not that much worth, and those on lower wages are necessary for the system.
  23. FJR1300

    FJR1300 Well-Known Member

    In 2009 there were 2.4 million minimum age workers with children. No matter how you slice it that is significant number of people that just aren't going to make ends meet without some type of assistance.

    It's difficult to factor in (without performing a fair amount of unpaid research ;) ) all of the workers with children who are earning just above the minimum wage, receiving raises of a dime, a quarter or maybe 50 cents once a year if they're lucky.

    These low paying positions are very common and plentiful, the food and services industry relies upon them for cheap labor and they are easily replaceable without having to give raises or benefits.

    I find it difficult to believe that your average citizen can deny that these people exist in the millions, perhaps your own personal experience and the area where you live are exceptions, but it is not the norm.

    Even at twice the minimum wage, it is damned hard for a single person to make ends meet and have any kind of a life beyond feeling like a slave to the system.

    As I've already stated, I don't propose simply taking money from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. I most definitely agree that many wealthy people pay far more in taxes than their proportionate share. But I also agree that many of the extremely wealthy wouldn't have their wealth without these low income workers and conversely the poor wouldn't have their low paying jobs without the wealthy business owners.

    But if you take away those jobs, the poor will still be poor, only more so. What would happen to the wealthy without the poor to fill those jobs, and the slightly better off, but eroding middle class to buy their products?

    Perhaps the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets of the world recognize these facts and give generously just because it's the moral thing to do, in spite of the fact that they are already being forced to pay far more than their 'fair' share.
    cmybliss likes this.
  24. TxGoat

    TxGoat Guest

    Millionaires don't benefit from our government more than the poor? Did you see the seminars held by large corporations trying to figure out how they were going to profit from the invasion of Iraq? Sure Michael Moore brought this to light, but this happens more often than you'd think. I'm sure this type of corporate welfare puts us in more debt than helping feed the poor.

    Also, if services like food stamps didn't exist, how much do you think food prices would have to go up for farmers to recoup the loss of food stamp recipients buying their products? If you think food is expensive now, cut off all the poor peoples' benefits to food stamps and you'll really see food prices go up.

    Fahrenheit 9/11 - Halliburton Scene - YouTube
  25. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Great for birth control, no household formation, keep them poor, worked great during the 1930-1940 period.

    "The U.S. population grew by 7.3 percent between 1930 and 1940, the lowest rate of increase of any decade before or since, and less than half the 16.2 percent increase for the 1920s. The slowdown in the nation's population growth was due in part to reduced immigration and lower fertility levels and reflected the impact of the Great Depression."

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page