Be a Supporter!

Will Obama win or lose the election

  • 18,425 Views
  • 514 Replies
New Topic
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 14th, 2012 @ 07:06 PM

At 9/14/12 02:42 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 9/14/12 01:13 AM, Warforger wrote: Perhaps if you read up on US History during a time called the "Gilded Age" you'd realize that regulations are necessary and probably why libertarians aren't taken very seriously.
You mean that period of time which saw one of the fastest rates of economic growth, real wages, and falling prices?
That period that built the foundation for the industrial american economy?

Oh gee look how much better we are nowadays! Lucky we have all those millions of pages of regulations! Otherwise there would be stagnating/falling real wages, huge corporations sheilded from competition and a shitty econo-oh wait.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA. Dear lord are you this ignorant of American history? The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today, wages were fucking horrible and prices were horrible due to monopolies. Economic recessions today mean a couple of people are pissed and moving in with their parents, back during the Gilded Age economic recessions (and yes there were many) meant people starved to death. Oh yah and those wages? Yah say you make 40 $ a week, during a recession in the Gilded Age that would drop to 20$ per week, but during the next economic boom it would go up to 22$ per week. It also didn't match the cost of living either, so in order for people to have enough money often times the entire family had to go to work. Even then that still meant the majority of people lived in poverty (By the way during the "Roaring" 20's, 50% of Americans lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them). This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat. Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOT more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.

So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 14th, 2012 @ 07:12 PM

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Majority of black people voted for Barack Obama and many of them plan on re-electing him despite the fact he proved to be a failure. Unemployment rates has increased 3%

.3%, and that's not taking into account the economy was still crashing when he took office, it was 10% in Oct. 2010, it's 8.1% now. So again that's mediocre, that's not amazing and it's doubtful Romney would do any better.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: housing values decreased,

Um Housing is projected to go into a boom again, so there isn't much he can do.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: gas pries are a dollar more expensive,

I know right Obama is the one who overthrew all those dictatorships in North Africa which caused Oil to go up.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: and food inflation is going up.

Because Republicans ignored Global Warming in the last 8 years and now its coming to bite them in the ass (which is why they won't mention it), which Obama has done all he could to promote things like Solar Energy.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: So yeah, those particular "black people" would be considered dumb and trust me, there are a lot of them.

Conservatives have again proven how amazing they are at debate by insulting people who disagree with them.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 14th, 2012 @ 08:07 PM

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote:
At 9/14/12 03:16 AM, Light wrote:
At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.
Majority of black people voted for Barack Obama and many of them plan on re-electing him despite the fact he proved to be a failure. Unemployment rates has increased 3%, housing values decreased, gas pries are a dollar more expensive, and food inflation is going up. So yeah, those particular "black people" would be considered dumb and trust me, there are a lot of them.

I can't say I take you as a poster seriously. Just like SadisticMonkey, you are an avowed racist; you've frequently and explicitly expressed on the BBS a belief in the inferiority of of African-Americans, simply because they are black.

I won't be responding to any future posts you make in this thread because you adhere to a disproven and hateful ideology. Such adherence speaks volumes about your intellect, and I can't say it would be a good idea to carry on this discussion with someone such as yourself.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
hateyou1
hateyou1
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 14th, 2012 @ 09:15 PM

At 9/14/12 07:12 PM, Warforger wrote:
At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Majority of black people voted for Barack Obama and many of them plan on re-electing him despite the fact he proved to be a failure. Unemployment rates has increased 3%
.3%, and that's not taking into account the economy was still crashing when he took office, it was 10% in Oct. 2010, it's 8.1% now. So again that's mediocre, that's not amazing and it's doubtful Romney would do any better.

He'd do better than Obama, though. Obama already proven to be a failure, so why re-elect someone who has proven to be a failure? That makes no sense.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: housing values decreased,
Um Housing is projected to go into a boom again, so there isn't much he can do.

No, home values decreased significantly. It's one of the many reasons as to why the housing market collapsed. You can thank the illiterates like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for that.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: gas pries are a dollar more expensive,
I know right Obama is the one who overthrew all those dictatorships in North Africa which caused Oil to go up.

Obama continues buying oil from Saudi Arabia instead of invading the country and stealing it from them. Kind of stupid when you control the world's best military, don't you think? Or perhaps over-spending was his plan this whole time...

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: and food inflation is going up.
Because Republicans ignored Global Warming in the last 8 years and now its coming to bite them in the ass (which is why they won't mention it), which Obama has done all he could to promote things like Solar Energy.

No moron, it's because of environmental jackasses are using corn as oil. Almost all foods are made with corn. When supply decreases when demand is up, that creates the cause of inflation. You idiots still believe in that un-proven theory that has never been proven once.

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: So yeah, those particular "black people" would be considered dumb and trust me, there are a lot of them.
Conservatives have again proven how amazing they are at debate by insulting people who disagree with them.

No, we just insult morons like you who have no clue what they are talking about.

At 9/14/12 08:07 PM, Light wrote: I can't say I take you as a poster seriously. Just like SadisticMonkey, you are an avowed racist; you've frequently and explicitly expressed on the BBS a belief in the inferiority of of African-Americans, simply because they are black.

I won't be responding to any future posts you make in this thread because you adhere to a disproven and hateful ideology. Such adherence speaks volumes about your intellect, and I can't say it would be a good idea to carry on this discussion with someone such as yourself.

I was wondering how one can be soo freakin stupid, but then I read your sig. Yeah, I destroyed you plenty of times in the past in many debates. You call anyone who destroys you in a debate a racist. Hey buddy, the race card died off years ago. Ironically, you said that I am not worth your time of debate? No, it's the opposite way around. I've proven to be mentally superior to you in many ways, such as countless debates.

Sorry light, or jedi-master, but you are beneath me. I speak factually, but then again, you're soo primitive that you probably don't even know what logic is. I'll let you squabble in your own pool of stupidity because I don't waste my time with idiots like you.

Pride
Pride
  • Member since: Oct. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 14th, 2012 @ 10:16 PM

At 9/14/12 05:03 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Majority of black people voted for Barack Obama and many of them plan on re-electing him despite the fact he proved to be a failure. Unemployment rates have increased 3%, housing values decreased, gas pries are a dollar more expensive, and food inflation is going up. So yeah, those particular "black people" would be considered dumb and trust me, there are a lot of them.

It's a mixed bag and I would certainly not say that the people who voted for him were dumb, they just had hope (perhaps misguided) that he would turn around our economy immediately. I feel that the Barack Obama will probably receive the majority of the African American vote, but then again there are many who have become dissuaded by Obama's plan for America. Coming from a Liberal Arts University, I have many friends of different cultural backgrounds (African, Indian, Asian, Hispanic, etc.) and many of them do not plan on voting for Obama again because they feel he focused on policy making when he should have been focused more on job creation or because of they feel his stances are against their religious convictions. Many African Americans still believe (rightly so) that unemployment is too high and are incredulous to give Obama another shot. If you looked at the graph you can see that while we might be back at employment levels seen in 1999 and 2000, we are worse off. Obviously the population has grown since then; and on a percentage basis, employment is considerably worse than it was in any of those years. The jobs he did create have been relatively disappointing as they give less benefits for the workers and contain lower wages. Also, much of the minority vote that believe in different religious constructs are unwilling to vote for the president due to the ramifications of his policy making (i.e. his support of homosexual marriage, HHS mandate, etc.).

Obama received a mixed bag of votes coming from many different ethnic groups and he did receive much of the white vote during his first election. As I stated earlier, I don't believe the majority of people that voted for him are in any means dumb, they simply had "hope". It will be interesting to see how Obama fares in the debates now that they know his records, have witnessed his policy implementation, and seen how he handles himself in foreign affairs.

I doubt he'll get re-elected
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 15th, 2012 @ 12:36 AM

At 9/14/12 09:15 PM, hateyou1 wrote: He'd do better than Obama, though. Obama already proven to be a failure, so why re-elect someone who has proven to be a failure? That makes no sense.

Yah he would do better by doing the policies that Bush had tried for 8 years which failed to produce tangible results and ended up being all for nothing.

No, home values decreased significantly. It's one of the many reasons as to why the housing market collapsed. You can thank the illiterates like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for that.

So you just narrowly missed my point. Economists are predicting that the Housing market is currently going into a position to be able to experience a boom again, they're just not sure when.

Obama continues buying oil from Saudi Arabia instead of invading the country and stealing it from them. Kind of stupid when you control the world's best military, don't you think?

No you sound stupid. No one would support an invasion of Saudi Arabia just to get cheaper gas, inside the US or outside.

Or perhaps over-spending was his plan this whole time...

Nah overspending it's the Republican plan, they've been tricking the American people into thinking they balance budgets when each successive Republican President starting with Reagan has produced record deficits and debts.

No moron, it's because of environmental jackasses are using corn as oil. Almost all foods are made with corn. When supply decreases when demand is up, that creates the cause of inflation. You idiots still believe in that un-proven theory that has never been proven once.

No it's because of drought which has been hitting the nation and the world for the last couple years. This drought has been determined to have been a result of Global Warming. Corn oil has nothing to do with it.

But anyway, go take comfort in your pundits while I'll just sit back with the entire scientific community which has constantly brought forth more evidence for its existence while you deploy your arguments which contain roughly cherry picked data which you probably know nothing about and still claim to be an expert on.

No, we just insult morons like you who have no clue what they are talking about.

I'm starting to think that you're trolling.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 15th, 2012 @ 09:58 PM

At 9/14/12 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote: The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today,

Um, it was greatest period of economic growth in American history

wages were fucking horrible and prices were horrible due to monopolies. Economic recessions today mean a couple of people are pissed and moving in with their parents, back during the Gilded Age economic recessions (and yes there were many) meant people starved to death. Oh yah and those wages? Yah say you make 40 $ a week, during a recession in the Gilded Age that would drop to 20$ per week, but during the next economic boom it would go up to 22$ per week. It also didn't match the cost of living either, so in order for people to have enough money often times the entire family had to go to work. Even then that still meant the majority of people lived in poverty (By the way during the "Roaring" 20's, 50% of Americans lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them).

Wages were terrible? America was basically a new country starting from scratch. Without the capital accumulation that takes centuries, of course wages aren't going to be good. The point is, the growth was enormous. That's what matters.

pro-tip; EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD SHITTY WAGES. That was life. Except, nowhere else were things improving as much as in america.

Seriously though, if the taxation adn regulartory structure that is in place was enforced back then, america would never have gotten off the ground in the first place and would be a third-world country. Yes, really, because the gilded age made america industrialised, which is what makes higher wages and better standards of living possible.

This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat.

This has nothing to do with "regulations". Because America was in the middle of economic DEVELOPMENT they didn't have the productivity that they do today and so would have starved if they didn't eat shit.

Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOT

a lot*

This is why you don't send your kids to public school.

In any case, the period of real wage increases of the poor during the gilded age has never been matched since. There are no absolutes in economics, only relatives, and relatively speaking, the poor never saw a greater rate of improvement after the gilded age.

more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.

This just means there was inequality, it does not mean that the lasseiz-faire system was not optimal.

So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.

I don't think you understand, the economy of today is only possible because of the gilded age.

NO COUNTRY was ever good right from the beginning. No system could have made live comparable to today during the gilded age without killing off most people and giving their resources to the ramining few, but this would have meant that there wouldn't have been economic development in the future.

I really don't understand how you don't get it that until the means of production are built up, you can't have modern standards of living. And it was precisely the guilded age that led to this building up.

The reason things are so much better now has nothing to do with regulations, but because of productivity. We can produce way, way more things now at much better quality and much lower cost because of centuries of capital investment.


BBS Signature
SadisticMonkey
SadisticMonkey
  • Member since: Nov. 16, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 15th, 2012 @ 10:01 PM

At 9/14/12 03:16 AM, Light wrote:
At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.

Did you actually click on the link? Of course they're dumb, gosh.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 03:50 AM

Just keep in mind that SadistMonkey is an unironic supporter of social darwinism and laissez-faire economics before debating with him.

Light
Light
  • Member since: May. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Reader
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 04:15 AM

At 9/15/12 10:01 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 9/14/12 03:16 AM, Light wrote:
At 9/14/12 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
And black people wonder why people view them as idiots.
Only racists such as yourself think black people are dumb.
Did you actually click on the link? Of course they're dumb, gosh.

I did, but I don't think they're dumb because they're black. They're just dumb.

You seem to disagree, though. You have stated in this forum that blacks are less intelligent because of the race to which they belong.

At 9/16/12 03:50 AM, Feoric wrote: Just keep in mind that SadistMonkey is an unironic supporter of social darwinism and laissez-faire economics before debating with him.

Unfortunately, I'm aware of his racist views. His economic views are tolerable, though.


I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."

"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss

BBS Signature
BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 05:42 AM

At 9/16/12 03:50 AM, Feoric wrote: Just keep in mind that SadistMonkey is an unironic supporter of social darwinism and laissez-faire economics before debating with him.

He cant be serious

Thecrazyman
Thecrazyman
  • Member since: Dec. 20, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 50
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 08:31 AM

Other reasons why I want our current President to lose the 2012 elections, you guess it, broken promises. Here's the link (PolitiFact, The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken) witch shows the list to the promises he broke in the past.

Taken for granted when a promise is broken and not keeped, that alone leads to inner corruption in it's wake and people will know it, even more so when an individual has a history of broken promises, this alone proves that no President, in fact no Leader should ever swear a series of promises that are just going to break in pieces in it's wake.

Instead if I was ever elected President of the Untied States myself, I only have one promise to the American people, this promise is simple but strict, "Helping the American People by the Needs of the American people". It isn't by the Wants of the American People but by there Needs and only by the Needs.

Why by the Needs? It's what they Need, like fix the economy, but that's just one of them, the other things the American people ask what Needs to be done is up to the American people themselves, that including the locals around the area within the United States of America itself, uphold the Constitution, even if it came to the point where the American people ever ask for alterations, changes expanding or even abolishing & replacing pieces within the living document itself (since the US Constitution after all IS a living document). And when I mean the idea of "Abolishing & Replacing a document piece within the Constitution is when such piece actually dose more harm then good to the American people themselves (such as the Jury Duty system, it needs to change in wake of this incident in the UK, the same can happen within the US as well).

Well that sums it up on why our current President should lose the 2012 elections, broken promises is one of the big reasons why he deserves to lose because he's already underwent inner corruption.

BumFodder
BumFodder
  • Member since: Jan. 14, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 36
Melancholy
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 10:45 AM

At 9/16/12 08:31 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: Other reasons why I want our current President to lose the 2012 elections, you guess it, broken promises.

Implying every other president hasnt done that

tyler2513
tyler2513
  • Member since: Jan. 6, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 11:52 AM

At 9/16/12 10:45 AM, BumFodder wrote:
At 9/16/12 08:31 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: Other reasons why I want our current President to lose the 2012 elections, you guess it, broken promises.
Implying every other president hasnt done that

Exactly, in fact he's kept the majority of his promises by pulling troops out of Iraq, increasing energy independence, providing better health care and so on. I'm obviously conservative (I'm Canadian, so duh) so I'm pulling for Romney but Obama has done the majority of what he can and will not be to disappointed if he ends up taking the win.


BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 16th, 2012 @ 10:36 PM

At 9/16/12 11:52 AM, tyler2513 wrote: I'm obviously conservative (I'm Canadian, so duh)

Ah yes, it's so obvious that Canadians would be conservative with their socialized healthcare and high tax rates, things conservatives love and respect.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 17th, 2012 @ 07:08 AM

At 9/15/12 12:36 AM, Warforger wrote:
At 9/14/12 09:15 PM, hateyou1 wrote: He'd do better than Obama, though. Obama already proven to be a failure, so why re-elect someone who has proven to be a failure? That makes no sense.
Yah he would do better by doing the policies that Bush had tried for 8 years which failed to produce tangible results and ended up being all for nothing.

In all seriously War; how different are Obama's policies from Bush's? You keep bringing Bush up, but when faced with a recession early in his presidency...how were Bush's policies significantly different from Obama's early on? Likewise, Bush and Obama worked together in the early stages of the 2008 crisis...which means Obama's early economic policies were continuation of Bush's policies.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 17th, 2012 @ 08:31 PM

With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 17th, 2012 @ 08:38 PM

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

Unless he's on track to do worse than Dukakis, there's no reason to drop out. There is still a strong possibility of Romney being elected. The polls slowly slipping away from him means it's looking slightly dimmer than before, but nothing is given until the polls close. Sometimes, not even until much later.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 17th, 2012 @ 10:24 PM

At 9/15/12 09:58 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 9/14/12 07:06 PM, Warforger wrote: The economic growth back then was shit in comparison to today,
Um, it was greatest period of economic growth in American history

That was unequally distributed and was frequently disrupted by some of the worst recessions and depressions we've ever been in. By comparison in the 40's and 50's after Liberal programs like the G.I. Bill the nation created its large Middle Class out of the shell of the old economic system.

Wages were terrible? America was basically a new country starting from scratch. Without the capital accumulation that takes centuries, of course wages aren't going to be good. The point is, the growth was enormous. That's what matters.

The point is on the other hand was that growth was concentrated in the rich. They could have payed people more but they didn't. It was a terrible time to live in if you weren't rich.

pro-tip; EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD HAD SHITTY WAGES. That was life. Except, nowhere else were things improving as much as in america.

Actually things were pretty well in the early 1800's, but things actually became worse in the Gilded age. For example, the Lowell factory system developed in the early 1800's, the conditions were good, the pay was good and the workers were housed. As the Gilded age commenced this was all the opposite.

Seriously though, if the taxation adn regulartory structure that is in place was enforced back then, america would never have gotten off the ground in the first place and would be a third-world country. Yes, really, because the gilded age made america industrialised, which is what makes higher wages and better standards of living possible.

Funny, because America achieved its greatest point in power and economic status right after that happened in the 40's and 50's. Otherwise, going by this logic Stalin was great because he industrialized the Soviet Union, and higher wages and better standard living isn't possible without it therefore he was a great leader.

This at the end of the day was not even mentioning working conditions, which often led to things like I said before with Sawdust in meat.
This has nothing to do with "regulations". Because America was in the middle of economic DEVELOPMENT they didn't have the productivity that they do today and so would have starved if they didn't eat shit.

.....What? Companies could have easily say kept sawdust out of meat but since it was cheaper not to do so they kept it. This un-regulated atmosphere lead to countless people dying due to tainted food which they had little other choice of getting.

Overall economic booms did not benefit everyone evenly, wages for the average worker would go up slightly but then go up ALOT
a lot*

This is why you don't send your kids to public school.

Yes, public schools crank out retard children, who are retarded because they make a couple of offhand spelling errors on a forum they can't edit.

In any case, the period of real wage increases of the poor during the gilded age has never been matched since. There are no absolutes in economics, only relatives, and relatively speaking, the poor never saw a greater rate of improvement after the gilded age.

.....Right because after the 1930's poor people just began disappearing because they began joining the Middle Class, by the 1960's they made up 20% of the population and by the end of the 60's due to both the programs of Johnson and Kennedy as well as the booming economy they only made up 10% of the population. During the Gilded age they made gains because they made up the majority of the population, which they would do so until the late 40's. By the way, their wages didn't keep up with prices, thus for all this talk of wages it didn't matter at the end of the day.

more for the upper class, this if of course why Labor Unions became large (despite winning no strikes) this is also why during the subsequent period criticism of Capitalism was very acceptable and why Socialist organizations reached such performance as taking a couple of seats in the House or taking the governorship of cities.
This just means there was inequality, it does not mean that the lasseiz-faire system was not optimal.

........What? The problem was that the lasseiz-faire system made this inequality worse, hence why it wasn't very popular.

So yah, in today's economic world things aren't great, but dear lord in the Gilded age you ate shit and who knows even literally back then. It was fucking terrible. To compliment on it being a success and calling the modern economy crap is just flat out ignorant.
I don't think you understand, the economy of today is only possible because of the gilded age.

NO COUNTRY was ever good right from the beginning. No system could have made live comparable to today during the gilded age without killing off most people and giving their resources to the ramining few, but this would have meant that there wouldn't have been economic development in the future.

Economic development had been going on during the entire time. But you're missing the entire point. The economics of the Gilded age were terrible, inequality was rampant and growing, wages did not keep up with prices, labor unions were outright ignored and so many people held a terrible living standard.

I really don't understand how you don't get it that until the means of production are built up, you can't have modern standards of living. And it was precisely the guilded age that led to this building up.

The reason things are so much better now has nothing to do with regulations, but because of productivity. We can produce way, way more things now at much better quality and much lower cost because of centuries of capital investment.

yah you've completely lost track of what I was saying. When businesses were un-regulated they made many practices which screwed over the consumer and the worker, regulations are now in place which keep them from doing such bullshit.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 17th, 2012 @ 11:53 PM

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

What does he have to lose? Sure, he will go home defeated, but he has 250 mil waiting for him back at home.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 12:19 AM

At 9/17/12 07:08 AM, TheMason wrote:
In all seriously War; how different are Obama's policies from Bush's?

Exactly. There is no difference between Bush, Romney or Obama

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 12:20 AM

At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.

And what attack was that?

DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 12:35 AM

At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 9/17/12 08:31 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: With Romney's latest attack on the 47% of Americans, I doubt he has even a sliver of a chance. He needs to drop out before he makes a fool of himself at the polls.
And what attack was that?

Google it. Look up, "Romney Attacks 47%" and you'll find a bunch of news stories on it. Here. Since you're so damn lazy, here's something for you:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/romney-faults-
those-dependent-on-government/

Lazy bastard.

I kid, I kid. But seriously...Would it kill ya to do some research?

And besides, would you REALLY want someone who said, "Let the auto industry die", keeps flip-flopping his views like a fry cook flipping burgers, or being born with a silver spoon in his mouth leading the 99%? The answer is: NO. You don't want that, and when you're out on the streets with no aid from the government, living in a box, you'll know why: Should've voted for Obama, shouldn't you? And NOW you're paying for it.


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 12:37 AM

At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what attack was that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 02:49 AM

At 9/18/12 12:37 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/18/12 12:20 AM, LemonCrush wrote: And what attack was that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnB0NZzl5HA

That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.

BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 02:58 AM

At 9/18/12 12:35 AM, HiryuGouki wrote:
And besides, would you REALLY want someone who said, "Let the auto industry die", keeps flip-flopping his views like a fry cook flipping burgers, or being born with a silver spoon in his mouth leading the 99%? The answer is: NO. You don't want that, and when you're out on the streets with no aid from the government, living in a box, you'll know why: Should've voted for Obama, shouldn't you? And NOW you're paying for it.

The auto industry wouldn't have died. And if they did, it would be a result of decisions THEY made. THEY made the decision to make shit cars. THEY decide to promise their employees retirement benefits for life. THEY should deal with the consequences. I've yet to hear an explanation on why I should pay for their bad business practices.

All presidents flip-flop. Except the libertarians. But they're "crazy" remember?

And if I'm ever out on the streets in a box, it will be because of politicians like Obama, Bush and Romney.

Obama has made remarks, and taken actions against the aviation industry...which happens to be the industry that puts food on my table. The "fat cats with private jets"....those people write my paycheck. When he thinks those people with private jets should pay more (endangering jobs of pilots, maintenance personal, etc), simply because [no actual reason] and threatens my livelihood for [no actual reason]...he can piss up a flagpole, and I'd spit on him if I could

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 03:03 AM

At 9/18/12 02:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote: That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.

Hahahaha, oh man, you sure are something else. 47% of Americans don't pay income tax because they are retired or are children or are so poor that they qualify for enough deductions to avoid it. Therefore, they are moochers who feel entitled to food and housing.

BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?

People either agreed or disagreed with his position, in fact most people agreed, since lots of people seem to think raising taxes actually might be a good idea. Because, you know, people typically don't freak out when politicians go out and say reasonable things. They tend to freak out when politicians say unreasonable things. Like what Romney said.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 03:22 AM

At 9/18/12 02:58 AM, LemonCrush wrote: The auto industry wouldn't have died. And if they did, it would be a result of decisions THEY made. THEY made the decision to make shit cars. THEY decide to promise their employees retirement benefits for life. THEY should deal with the consequences. I've yet to hear an explanation on why I should pay for their bad business practices.

Jesus christ dude, how on earth do you say things like this with a straight face? The nationalization of the auto industry ended up working out extremely well and the UAW secured a very favorable contract with wage increases. They're basically some of the few workers in America doing well right now. Propping up the auto industry was an issue supported by both Republicans and Democrats alike. It was neither a conservative nor liberal issue, which may have forgotten, or you have a selective memory, or you have amnesia. Do you even comprehend the scale we're dealing with here? We're talking about the collapse of the entire fucking American auto industry, right down to the manufacturing plants to local dealerships. Do you know how many tens thousands of jobs that entails? And you're okay with that because "GM makes shitty cars!"? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you like it when people suffer? And I guess it doesn't matter to you that the loan (yes, it wasn't a bailout, it was a loan from the government) that saved thousands of jobs, and thousands more from the nasty trickle-down unemployment that would have resulted from the U.S. auto industry going completely belly up, has been re-paid with interest and at zero cost to taxpayers? Just face it: it was a successful example of government stimulus.

Demonstrate to all of us how the implosion of the entire US auto industry really wouldn't have been all that bad with facts and numbers from reputable sources. I dare you.

All presidents flip-flop. Except the libertarians. But they're "crazy" remember?

Yes, you're all fucking nuts, if we're using your posts as any example.

When he thinks those people with private jets should pay more (endangering jobs of pilots, maintenance personal, etc)

hahahahahaha

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 12:36 PM

Let's talk about GM and the auto-bailouts.

* GM paid back it's bail-out but did so with TAXPAYER money from another TARP account GM was given by the US and Canadian government to use for unexpected operating costs...and to pay back their loans to the US government if they could not. It wouldn't be quite so bad if this was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul...instead it's robbing Paul to pay Paul. ABC News The New York Times

* Oh yeah...then the government decided to reduce the loan to $6.7 billion in the bankruptcy hearings of 2009. The would just take the remainder in the form of stock in the new GM. Good idea huh? Investing in stock, right? Too bad they sold the stock for a LOSS of $25.1 billion. NBC News

And all for what? GM still lost 22,500 jobs, closed 13 plants and 900 dealerships. Wiki So we saved a company that employed thousands of Union workers (ie: Democratic votes) that went on to produce such game changing cars like the Chevy Volt. (Please detect the sarcasm.) Meanwhile companies like Ford were able to weather the storm w/o government assistance and start producing the 2012 Focus which gets up to 40 MPG (if you get the manual) without the price tag of a hybrid (as well as not being a mobile HazMat incident waiting to damage people, property and the environment). And a truck that has great horsepower and torque...and gets 26-28 MPG.

Now I know the argument goes that so many ppl would be left without genuine Chevy parts. So? Do you really think that with all the Chevy and GM vehicles on the road...that no one would step in and fill the void? I'm pretty sure Ford would at least consider it, as well as other manufactures looking to make something to sell. That Obama and his administration is so out of touch with how business operates is just stupifying.

And not just the big boys...we let truly revolutionary cars that could've changed the game, like the Aptera whither and die on the vine all because of silly and nonsensical government red tape from the federal and California governments.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Will Obama win or lose the election Sep. 18th, 2012 @ 01:02 PM

At 9/18/12 03:03 AM, Feoric wrote:
At 9/18/12 02:49 AM, LemonCrush wrote: That is not an attack. It's factual numbers.
Hahahaha, oh man, you sure are something else. 47% of Americans don't pay income tax because they are retired or are children or are so poor that they qualify for enough deductions to avoid it. Therefore, they are moochers who feel entitled to food and housing.

I think you are seeing things that are not there. I looked at your source. They are talking about filers and wage earners two categories that do not include retired or children. 22% of the 47% of Americans with an income that do not pay taxes are social security pensioners. (Source) According to your own source; 36% of single people and households who do file tax returns...do not pay any federal income tax. "There are millions of other Americans who have some income but not enough to be required to file a tax return. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that when these people are added to the 52 million nonpaying filers, some 47 percent of all households pay no income taxes at all." So while your assertion regarding retired people may be somewhat accurate (comes up to 12% of all wage earners, required or not to file), it lacks the punch you think it does. Also, children are not included here since if you are dependant working at McDonalds...you still have to file.

Also, look at my source. The federal government uses the tax code to hand out benefits to people. When I was married the first time claiming a child...my effective tax rate was -12% while I was making about $42K/yr. When I was single and the ex claiming the daughter and I was a full-time student...-7%. I'm a full-time student now (again) and remarried going into 2013. The wife makes just under $40K and I hope to be a first year teacher next August. So I expect a tax rate of around -10%.

So not only will I get everything I paid in back...I will get more in hand-outs! (Thank you George W. Bush...didn't get those under the Clinton tax code!)


BTW, when Obama attacked "fat cats" did anyone care?
People either agreed or disagreed with his position, in fact most people agreed, since lots of people seem to think raising taxes actually might be a good idea. Because, you know, people typically don't freak out when politicians go out and say reasonable things. They tend to freak out when politicians say unreasonable things. Like what Romney said.

No...Romney didn't say anything that was unreasonable or untrue at all. Furthermore, raising taxes may be a good thing right...but so would cutting many things in the federal budget such as:

* 80% of the Army
* The Joint Strike Fighter
* Repealing ACA
* Cutting back on the Navy's sub fleet
* The Dept of Education


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature