My Paycheck got Smaller and My Hours got Cut

[Will E Worm]

While some of that may be true, "greedy" capitalists can dictate hiring trends based upon market conditions and automation and technology developments and they have that right. They are not sitting in a back room conspiring on how to cut more jobs or benefits. A lot has changed in the past 30 years in terms of technology or have you noticed?

If they need more manpower and it means more profits they hire. The ACA is the first time in our history that the government has mandated something that could punish employers if they keep more full time employees. MP is just one example of this and it will continue.

:goodpost:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Can you explain why the stock market is surging to record highs under the "socialist" Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/business/daily-stock-market-activity.html

First of all no presidential policies influence the stock market and economists of different stripes have been in agreement on this for years. Companies are the real buyers of stocks and individuals are for the most part the sellers. Interest rates remain dirt cheap and this market would be doing this no matter who sat in the White House.

 

[xfire]

First of all no presidential policies influence the stock market and economists of different stripes have been in agreement on this for years. Companies are the real buyers of stocks and individuals are for the most part the sellers. Interest rates remain dirt cheap and this market would be doing this no matter who sat in the White House.

Then explain how "Obama wants to hurt the economy".

 

[Jack Davenport]

Then explain how "Obama wants to hurt the economy".

Quite certain I have ever made that claim, but he believes government is the great equalizer to counteract the philosophical disagreements he has with the concept of capitalism. He would like the see the economy improve but he wants it to improve by expanding government. If he can tear down capitalism and make government expansion the only option he would be quite happy. And conservatives believe it would be an epic failure.

 

[xfire]

Quite certain I have ever made that claim, but he believes government is the great equalizer to counteract the philosophical disagreements he has with the concept of capitalism. He would like the see the economy improve but he wants it to improve by expanding government. If he can tear down capitalism and make government expansion the only option he would be quite happy. And conservatives believe it would be an epic failure.

I was attempting to get clarification from Will E. Worm on that very point, because he in fact made that claim.

I don't know that Obama has philosophical disagreements with capitalism, can you provide some clarification, like his actual words to that effect, or are you merely extrapolating what you believe his philosophical views are? Again, I point to the chart that you nonchalantly dismissed, if Obama has a problem with capitalism, his economic policy results certainly don't bear it out.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Here's the problem with this discussion: People like Will say that President Obama is a Socialist, and that he wants to destroy capitalism. However, in the next breath they say that President Obama is being bought by corporations like large banks.

So, which is it? He's dealing with big corporations, and sustaining capitalism, or he's a Socialist, and doesn't like big business? It can't be both.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I was attempting to get clarification from Will E. Worm on that very point, because he in fact made that claim.

I don't know that Obama has philosophical disagreements with capitalism, can you provide some clarification, like his actual words to that effect, or are you merely extrapolating what you believe his philosophical views are? Again, I point to the chart that you nonchalantly dismissed, if Obama has a problem with capitalism, his economic policy results certainly don't bear it out.

Watching a president in action for over 4 years is hardly extrapolation. We are witnessing the largest expansion of government in our history. You only have to go as far back as his speech in Kansas a year or so ago to see how he feels about capitalism. "It won't work!" "It has never worked" are a few of the things of record he has said. One does not have to resort to conspiracy theories or mind reading to know how he feels. To him government is the answer and the free market is the problem.

 

[Will E Worm]

People off my ignore list? :1orglaugh Never.

Quite certain I have ever made that claim, but he believes government is the great equalizer to counteract the philosophical disagreements he has with the concept of capitalism. He would like the see the economy improve but he wants it to improve by expanding government. If he can tear down capitalism and make government expansion the only option he would be quite happy. And conservatives believe it would be an epic failure.

Obama wants Communism. Just like his father wanted.

Watching a president in action for over 4 years is hardly extrapolation. We are witnessing the largest expansion of government in our history. You only have to go as far back as his speech in Kansas a year or so ago to see how he feels about capitalism. "It won't work!" "It has never worked" are a few of the things of record he has said. One does not have to resort to conspiracy theories or mind reading to know how he feels. To him government is the answer and the free market is the problem.

Obama and Communism don't work and never will.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Here's the problem with this discussion: People like Will say that President Obama is a Socialist, and that he wants to destroy capitalism. However, in the next breath they say that President Obama is being bought by corporations like large banks.

So, which is it? He's dealing with big corporations, and sustaining capitalism, or he's a Socialist, and doesn't like big business? It can't be both.

You take what resources you can get until you develop the resources that you want to change the playing field. He is the visiting team wanting to eventually rename the ballpark after himself.

 

[xfire]

How has Obama "expanded government? By shrinking it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...nomy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html

Off the Charts: Shrinking Government
The government sector of the economy shrank during the first three years of the Obama administration, but the private sector grew more rapidly than it did during the first three years of either of George W. Bush’s terms in office. The charts show the growth in gross domestic product from the first quarter of the year in which each president was inaugurated through the first quarter of the subsequent election year. All figures are adjusted for inflation.

Please, stop making stuff up as you go along.

 

[Jack Davenport]

How has Obama "expanded government? By shrinking it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...nomy/off-the-charts-shrinking-government.html



Please, stop making stuff up as you go along.

The "government sector" included the military. Which skews the numbers quite favorably. The dems learned that years ago and is at the top of their playbook.

 

[xfire]

The "government sector" included the military. Which skews the numbers quite favorably. The dems learned that years ago and is at the top of their playbook.

So you admit you're wrong.

 

[Jack Davenport]

So you admit you're wrong.

How's that? It's real easy to show a downsizing in government when the military is the one that is primarily downsized.

 

[Jeep!]

That's still part of the government, and if downsizing government is the way to reduce the ability of the state to intervene in private affairs, then a smaller military means less state-run foreign intervention, which accomplishes a component of the desired goal.

 

[xfire]

How's that? It's real easy to show a downsizing in government when the military is the one that is primarily downsized.

Is the military part of the government? Why yes, yes it is. Has government shrunk? Why yes, yes it has. Rendering your declaration "Obama has expanded government 100% wrong.

 

[Jack Davenport]

That's still part of the government, and if downsizing government is the way to reduce the ability of the state to intervene in private affairs, then a smaller military means less state-run foreign intervention, which accomplishes a component of the desired goal.

Except for that little part of the constitution that the government is to provide for the national defense, I am good with that.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Is the military part of the government? Why yes, yes it is. Has government shrunk? Why yes, yes it has. Rendering your declaration "Obama has expanded government 100% wrong.

Um..when you consider that every aspect of government has expanded except for the military I am quite right. Obama is great with the smoke and mirrors.

 

[Jeep!]

Except for that little part of the constitution that the government is to provide for the national defense, I am good with that.

Surely the national guard is the one that the constitution is more pertinent to--it's the one tasked with defence rather than offence, works with emergency management too, and is the the modern outcome of the "militia" mentioned in the bill of rights. The other branches of the armed forces, not so much.

 

[xfire]

Um..when you consider that every aspect of government has expanded except for the military I am quite right. Obama is great with the smoke and mirrors.

And as compared with previous administrations, Obama's non-military budgets haven't been significantly different, illustrating that you're merely attempting to use a non-issue as a means of attack, making it up as you go along. I suggest you admit what you're attempting to do, stop trying to run interference for Will E. Worm, and bow out of the discussion.

:hatsoff:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Surely the national guard is the one that the constitution is more pertinent to--it's the one tasked with defence rather than offence, works with emergency management too, and is the the modern outcome of the "militia" mentioned in the bill of rights. The other branches of the armed forces, not so much.

Judging by your euro style spelling of "defense" I am certain you are quite the scholar of the US Constitution. By your rationale, the tax code should not have grown from 800 pages in 1932 to almost 72,000 now. lol