Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[bush_cheney2004]

There are tons of people working two jobs, exhausting themselves working long, arduous days, and getting nowhere. You need to have a lot more than a good work ethic to even escape poverty in the United States.

.and there are many more doing just fine. So what?

[Guest American Woman]

You honestly think that just working hard will make you rich? Really!?

That's not what I said. What I said is that I think generally speaking, you can't get rich without long hours and lots of stress - that getting rich has to be the priority. There's a difference between "working hard" and making getting rich the ultimate goal. One can work hard at a 40 hour a week job, but what I do believe is the top dogs in corporations gave up a lot of their youth to work 60-80 hours at low pay - with the hope of climbing up the ladder.

So in that regard, as I said, I don't believe everyone wants to be rich - not if they have to put that kind of sacrifice into it. As I said, people have different priorities. As I said, some people look at the rich and want it, but don't want to put the effort into it.

Not everyone who wants to be rich becomes rich, but not everyone wants to be rich at the price of attaining it. Then there are those who think they should have it without the sacrifices ......

Anyway. My point remains that no, not everyone wants to be rich (excluding lottery wins).

There are tons of people working two jobs, exhausting themselves working long, arduous days, and getting nowhere. You need to have a lot more than a good work ethic to even escape poverty in the United States.

Generally people who are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, are doing so with a different goal in mind - not to be rich, but to get a good start, buy a home, get some of the things they want, pay off student loans, and then level off the hours they put in. Others are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, because they want material things. More and more material things. It's a choice. While some are doing it just to survive - same as anywhere else.

My response was in regard to your comment, which I read as everyone wants to be rich, and that's not true. Not everyone wants to work their lives away, filled with stress. My point is, CEOs don't get where they are without working long hours, exhausting days, filled with stress - and that's not everyone's goal.

[bush_cheney2004]

As usual, it turns out that Canada ain't so great when it comes to poverty either, ranking low right down there with the US of A:

Canada's poverty rates — particularly for working-age Canadians and children — are among the worst in the developed world, the Conference Board of Canada reported Thursday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/09/17/canada-poverty-conference-board-ranking.html

[kimmy]

It cannot be enforced, as it was ruled unconstitutional in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1961 - Torcaso v. Watkins. Any citizen does have the right to run for public office, regardless of their religious beliefs - or lack thereof.

No doubt that these clauses would be overruled if anybody actually attempted to enforce them. However, their existence points out long-held and ongoing prejudice.

Newt Gingrich asked during the debate last week:

"how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?"

Well, if Newt feels obliged to distrust anybody who doesn't profess a religious beliefs, I don't see why his own religious beliefs, and religious beliefs of others, should be beyond question either. He did cast the first stone, as Christians would put it.

Blueblood would have us believe that the religious ideas of the candidates should be beyond discussion because faith is a personal matter and all people have an equal right to hold office. But in practice, we know that's not true. In practice we know that a non-Christian is not going to become president. If faith were really not relevant, we would not see Rick Perry's proxies playing the Mormon card on his behalf.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

... In practice we know that a non-Christian is not going to become president. If faith were really not relevant, we would not see Rick Perry's proxies playing the Mormon card on his behalf.

This is debatable, as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln were not Christians in the truest sense of the word, and wrote as much. So it is very possible for a deist or non-Christian to become US president.

[dre]

I admit to being less than an expert on the clown show. But what I have heard of most of the Republican contenders seems more than capable of eliciting considerable mirth. I gather Huntsman is considered the least crazy, practically sane. And Mitt Romney is, in this company, considered practically the leading light. So who's craziest? Ron Paul? Christine Bachman? Rich Perry? So much to choose from...

Romney thinks that Jesus came to America, and that white americans are the Israelites!

:lol:

[dre]

That's not what I said. What I said is that I think generally speaking, you can't get rich without long hours and lots of stress - that getting rich has to be the priority. There's a difference between "working hard" and making getting rich the ultimate goal. One can work hard at a 40 hour a week job, but what I do believe is the top dogs in corporations gave up a lot of their youth to work 60-80 hours at low pay - with the hope of climbing up the ladder.

So in that regard, as I said, I don't believe everyone wants to be rich - not if they have to put that kind of sacrifice into it. As I said, people have different priorities. As I said, some people look at the rich and want it, but don't want to put the effort into it.

Not everyone who wants to be rich becomes rich, but not everyone wants to be rich at the price of attaining it. Then there are those who think they should have it without the sacrifices ......

Anyway. My point remains that no, not everyone wants to be rich (excluding lottery wins).

Generally people who are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, are doing so with a different goal in mind - not to be rich, but to get a good start, buy a home, get some of the things they want, pay off student loans, and then level off the hours they put in. Others are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, because they want material things. More and more material things. It's a choice. While some are doing it just to survive - same as anywhere else.

My response was in regard to your comment, which I read as everyone wants to be rich, and that's not true. Not everyone wants to work their lives away, filled with stress. My point is, CEOs don't get where they are without working long hours, exhausting days, filled with stress - and that's not everyone's goal.

That's not what I said. What I said is that I think generally speaking, you can't get rich without long hours and lots of stress - that getting rich has to be the priority. There's a difference between "working hard" and making getting rich the ultimate goal.

You can get rich just by coming out of the right uterus. The suggestion that rich people work harder than middle class people is a half truth at best. It might be true in the case of some entrepreneurs but thats pretty much it.

[Guest American Woman]

No doubt that these clauses would be overruled if anybody actually attempted to enforce them. However, their existence points out long-held and ongoing prejudice.

They've already been overruled. They are unconstitutional.

Newt Gingrich asked during the debate last week:

"how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?"

Well, if Newt feels obliged to distrust anybody who doesn't profess a religious beliefs, I don't see why his own religious beliefs, and religious beliefs of others, should be beyond question either. He did cast the first stone, as Christians would put it.

Not sure what your point is. It's not as if other leaders of other nations don't bring their religious beliefs into the fray. But yeah, I agree with you. I wouldn't vote for him. He has the right to run - and we have the right not to vote for him.

Blueblood would have us believe that the religious ideas of the candidates should be beyond discussion because faith is a personal matter and all people have an equal right to hold office.

All people do have an equal right to hold office.

But in practice, we know that's not true. In practice we know that a non-Christian is not going to become president.

I don't "know that" at all.

If faith were really not relevant, we would not see Rick Perry's proxies playing the Mormon card on his behalf.

I'm not saying faith isn't relevant - it is to some. And if it is to most, that's personal choice, and has nothing to do with "rights." Religion played into Canada's elections too.

[bush_cheney2004]

Romney thinks that Jesus came to America, and that white americans are the Israelites!

:lol:

..and some Canadians believe that an old woman in England is their source of royal jelly.

[Guest American Woman]

dre, on 23 October 2011 - 01:22 PM, said: Romney thinks that Jesus came to America, and that white americans are the Israelites!

..and some Canadians believe that an old woman in England is their source of royal jelly.

And apparently that royalty fears a Catholic take-over .........

[bush_cheney2004]

And apparently that royalty fears a Catholic take-over .........

'Zactly...no royal jelly for Catholics, but it's OK to mock Mormons in the USA.

[Argus]

That's not what I said. What I said is that I think generally speaking, you can't get rich without long hours and lots of stress - that getting rich has to be the priority. There's a difference between "working hard" and making getting rich the ultimate goal. One can work hard at a 40 hour a week job, but what I do believe is the top dogs in corporations gave up a lot of their youth to work 60-80 hours at low pay - with the hope of climbing up the ladder.

More like the top dogs were born rich. The best indicator of what your economic circumstances will be in the US is what your father's economic circumstances were.

Generally people who are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, are doing so with a different goal in mind - not to be rich, but to get a good start, buy a home, get some of the things they want, pay off student loans, and then level off the hours they put in. Others are working two jobs, exhausting themselves, because they want material things. More and more material things. It's a choice. While some are doing it just to survive - same as anywhere else.

All that is just a mushy way of saying you can work as hard as you want and not get ahead. Hard work might be a part of getting rich, assuming you aren't already, but hard work by itself is not going to make you rich. You need a certain type of inspiration, a measure of luck, access to education, or one of those artistic epiphany moments which provides you with the inspiration to develop something new.

My response was in regard to your comment, which I read as everyone wants to be rich, and that's not true. Not everyone wants to work their lives away, filled with stress.

And my point is that many people work their lives away at stressful jobs and get nowhere. Don't tell me they wouldn't rather be rich because that's just silly.

[dre]

More like the top dogs were born rich. The best indicator of what your economic circumstances will be in the US is what your father's economic circumstances were.

All that is just a mushy way of saying you can work as hard as you want and not get ahead. Hard work might be a part of getting rich, assuming you aren't already, but hard work by itself is not going to make you rich. You need a certain type of inspiration, a measure of luck, access to education, or one of those artistic epiphany moments which provides you with the inspiration to develop something new.

My response was in regard to your comment, which I read as everyone wants to be rich, and that's not true. Not everyone wants to work their lives away, filled with stress.

And my point is that many people work their lives away at stressful jobs and get nowhere. Don't tell me they wouldn't rather be rich because that's just silly.

Yeah its a bogus assumption that the rich lead more stress filled lives than the poor. Stressing out over a business decision or investments is a little different than stressed out because you might not be able to feed your family, or because you might lose your home, or be unable to find work.

Really I think stress is mostly relative

[Guest Derek L]

And my point is that many people work their lives away at stressful jobs and get nowhere. Don't tell me they wouldn't rather be rich because that's just silly.

Yeah its a bogus assumption that the rich lead more stress filled lives than the poor. Stressing out over a business decision or investments is a little different than stressed out because you might not be able to feed your family, or because you might lose your home, or be unable to find work.

Really I think stress is mostly relative

Well relative, it’s also proportional………. “rich folk” do themselves in also, no “class” has the market cornered……….losing 50k in a month on the stock market can be as devastating to some as being short 500 bucks for rent at the end of the month.

One man's 500 dollars is another man's 50000.……or 500000

[dre]

Yeah its a bogus assumption that the rich lead more stress filled lives than the poor. Stressing out over a business decision or investments is a little different than stressed out because you might not be able to feed your family, or because you might lose your home, or be unable to find work.

Really I think stress is mostly relative

Well relative, it’s also proportional………. “rich folk” do themselves in also, no “class” has the market cornered……….losing 50k in a month on the stock market can be as devastating to some as being short 500 bucks for rent at the end of the month.

One man's 500 dollars is another man's 50000.……or 500000

losing 50k in a month on the stock market can be as devastating to some as being short 500 bucks for rent at the end of the month.

The thing is the guy that cant pay his rent gets kicked out. The guy who lost 50k had 50k to lose. Those are completely different kinds of stress.

I would LOVE to be a guy that loses a million dollars a month in the casino (stockmarket)!!! Best Iv managed so far is to lose 20k on a smallcap fund a couple years back

[Guest Derek L]

The thing is the guy that cant pay his rent gets kicked out. The guy who lost 50k had 50k to lose. Those are completely different kinds of stress.

I would LOVE to be a guy that loses a million dollars a month in the casino (stockmarket)!!! Best Iv managed so far is to lose 20k on a smallcap fund a couple years back

But in not all cases can the guy taking a dive afford to lose that 50k……..just as the guy that can’t pay his rent is equally screwed…….I suppose it comes down to spending outside of your means, which is done by people of all “economic levels”………..Personal accountability and lack there of is not always a given……That guy that is short the $500 could have spent it on a new TV, just as the guy that couldn’t afford the 50k loss bought a new Bayliner………As is the flipside, the first guy could have lost his job and the second guy scammed by a stock promoter……In some cases we have zero sympathy, in some cases W5/60 minutes investigates and makes their cause célèbre........

Maybe context is a better choice of words than relative and proportional?

[Guest American Woman]

More like the top dogs were born rich. The best indicator of what your economic circumstances will be in the US is what your father's economic circumstances were.

I'm afraid you're going to have to show me proof of your claim that the top dogs, ie; CEOs, bank presidents, etc. were born rich. Then you're going to have to back up your claim that a father's economic circumstances are the best indicator of his children's economic circumstances.

All that is just a mushy way of saying you can work as hard as you want and not get ahead.

Not true at all. In fact, in two out of three of the scenarios, the people are getting ahead.

Hard work might be a part of getting rich, assuming you aren't already, but hard work by itself is not going to make you rich. You need a certain type of inspiration, a measure of luck, access to education, or one of those artistic epiphany moments which provides you with the inspiration to develop something new.

Which really has nothing to do with anything I've said. I never said everyone who puts in that many hours will get rich; what I said is that most people don't choose to put in that many hours in an effort to get rich. It's not their priority. A lifetime of stress, of working long hours, is not what they are striving for.

And my point is that many people work their lives away at stressful jobs and get nowhere. Don't tell me they wouldn't rather be rich because that's just silly.

I doubt if many people who work 60-80 hours a week at a stressful job "get nowhere." You'd have to give me some proof of that. Furthermore, I never said people who work their lives away wouldn't rather be rich - I said most people wouldn't give up the lives they have to be rich as a result of giving up a good part of their lives to working around the clock at low pay in an attempt to attain CEO status - and then continue working long, stressful hours to keep the position.

Most people have different priorities, including free time, travel, time with family, etc. They wouldn't rather be rich at the expense of those things. They have different priorities. Which is my point.

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah its a bogus assumption that the rich lead more stress filled lives than the poor. Stressing out over a business decision or investments is a little different than stressed out because you might not be able to feed your family, or because you might lose your home, or be unable to find work.

It's a bogus assumption that one is either rich or poor. There's a whole lotta in-between. Most people who work at less demanding jobs than CEO-type positions aren't spending their time worrying about not being able to feed their family or losing their home. In fact, a good many are traveling, spending time with family, and otherwise enjoying their free time - which leads to a less stressful life overall. It's certainly the life I choose, and again, it's the life most choose.

[BubberMiley]

I'm afraid you're going to have to show me proof of your claim that the top dogs, ie; CEOs, bank presidents, etc. were born rich. Then you're going to have to back up your claim that a father's economic circumstances are the best indicator of his children's economic circumstances.

Is this because you don't believe a head start could possibly make a difference, or because it makes you feel powerful (as it does me) to play Demand the Linky?

[jacee]

Of course not. They love big government. Instead, they propose universal programs regarding everything under the sun.

If we're going to have programs, make them universal. 'Means-testing' requires hugely expensive bureaucracies.

Guaranteed annual income for everyone, you're done and no expensive bureaucracies.

[blueblood]

You are getting your economic theories from second rate Hollywood movies?

The US is an extremely wealthy country. It can easily afford to care for its ill and elderly. It just needs to make that more of a priority than indulging its fetish for overeating and living in McMansions.

I'll go with the Austrian School any day over the Keynesian nonsense that got us into this nonsense.

And no it can't, the size of the US government is unsustainable, the way things are going social security and entitlements are going to eat up almost all of the USA budget. So you want more money in the hands of the poor and your idea is to tax the rich. 1) that puts a damper on production which makes everyone poorer as a result and 2) the rich don't have the kind of taxable money to pull everyone out of poverty. The rich would be better off keeping their money and going about their business. IF anybody is buying into the hollywood movie economic theory its you. Rich people by being around improve the lives of others by buying, saving, and investing because they have more capital to do so.

As for the old and sick. I'm not saying stick them anywhere, I'm saying its time to start cutting funding because the US really can't afford it. I don't think you appreciate how dire shape the economies of the western world are. Spending needs to be cut and everything is on the table.

As for rich people only being born into it? Really, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Robert Herjavec, Jim Treliving were born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Welcome to equality of opportunity, there is equal opportunity to accumulate wealth and equal opportunity to squander it. If the kid who was born rich expects to sit with his thumb in his ass, that fortune of theirs goes up in smoke. That's a problem existing with a sizeable number of pro athletes.

Greece, Italy, and Spain have tried your high spending, high tax, high entitlement regimen and it turned out to be a disaster. Hell the Greeks didn't even want to pay for it. As for pension plans being paid for by younger people as a model of success, can you say General Motors??? That's a classic example of why we should be careful with spending money on retirement of others.

Nope the way out of this mess is to cut spending and increase production, and that means the unsustainable consumption party is over.

[blueblood]

You are getting your economic theories from second rate Hollywood movies?

The US is an extremely wealthy country. It can easily afford to care for its ill and elderly. It just needs to make that more of a priority than indulging its fetish for overeating and living in McMansions.

I'll go with the Austrian School any day over the Keynesian nonsense that got us into this nonsense.

And no it can't, the size of the US government is unsustainable, the way things are going social security and entitlements are going to eat up almost all of the USA budget. So you want more money in the hands of the poor and your idea is to tax the rich. 1) that puts a damper on production which makes everyone poorer as a result and 2) the rich don't have the kind of taxable money to pull everyone out of poverty. The rich would be better off keeping their money and going about their business. IF anybody is buying into the hollywood movie economic theory its you. Rich people by being around improve the lives of others by buying, saving, and investing because they have more capital to do so.

As for the old and sick. I'm not saying stick them anywhere, I'm saying its time to start cutting funding because the US really can't afford it. I don't think you appreciate how dire shape the economies of the western world are. Spending needs to be cut and everything is on the table.

As for rich people only being born into it? Really, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Robert Herjavec, Jim Treliving were born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Welcome to equality of opportunity, there is equal opportunity to accumulate wealth and equal opportunity to squander it. If the kid who was born rich expects to sit with his thumb in his ass, that fortune of theirs goes up in smoke. That's a problem existing with a sizeable number of pro athletes.

Greece, Italy, and Spain have tried your high spending, high tax, high entitlement regimen and it turned out to be a disaster. Hell the Greeks didn't even want to pay for it. As for pension plans being paid for by younger people as a model of success, can you say General Motors??? That's a classic example of why we should be careful with spending money on retirement of others.

Nope the way out of this mess is to cut spending and increase production, and that means the unsustainable consumption party is over.

[dre]

It's a bogus assumption that one is either rich or poor. There's a whole lotta in-between. Most people who work at less demanding jobs than CEO-type positions aren't spending their time worrying about not being able to feed their family or losing their home. In fact, a good many are traveling, spending time with family, and otherwise enjoying their free time - which leads to a less stressful life overall. It's certainly the life I choose, and again, it's the life most choose.

Even if you compare the non-poor your assumption is bogus. The most stressed out workers are the ones who are on the bubble, and workers that can barely make ends meet. Workers in the manufacturing industry, textiles industry and so on. These workers face a growing rash of mental health issues caused by job related stress.

Generally the people that experience the most job related stress are the ones for whom losing their job would be the biggest disaster, and the people that feel that they dont have much job security.

Policing may seem like one of the most stressful jobs, but the ordinary factory worker is more likely to feel psychological strain, concludes a "surprising" new Canadian study of mental health and the workplace.

The country's troubled manufacturing sector seems to be generating a new breed of troubled employees whose plant floors should probably undergo a public-health intervention, suggests the University of Montreal's research.

The study found that manufacturing and labouring employees were most likely to report poor mental health on a Statistics Canada survey, while police and firefighters seemed to have relatively healthy psyches.

"This was a very surprising result," said Prof. Alain Marchand, a sociologist with the university's school of industrial relations, who headed the study.

"It means that something is going wrong in these workplaces. It could be the workload, it could be higher exposure to toxic products in the workplace, and so forth."

He suggested that the workers with the worst mental health are in manufacturing industries that have suffered cutbacks of late, creating anxiety about job security, while employees who have fewer skills and are lower on the corporate ladder are also at risk.

The study, published in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, comes at a time when mental health problems are the fastest-growing category of disability claims and the number one reason for absenteeism at work, Marchand said

Youve fallen for piece of broken conventional wisdom, sorta like folks who think being a soldier or policemen is more dangerous than being a fishermen or convenience store worker. What youre saying seems to make sense on the face of it, but its just not true.

Heres another interesting snippet.

WORKPLACE STRESS

The degree to which your mental health is affected by workplace stress may depend on your job description.

MOST LIKELY TO

REPORT POOR MENTAL HEALTH - Machine operators in fabric, fur and leather products - Public works, labourers - Food, beverage and tobacco wholesale distributors - Electrical equipment and component manufacturing - Assembly-related occupations - Truck transportation - Transportation equipment manufacturing - Motor vehicle mechanics - Miscellaneous manufacturing - Fabricated metal-product manufacturing

LEAST LIKELY TO REPORT POOR MENTAL HEALTH - Managers in production - Managers in manufacturing and utilities - Police officers/firefighters - Processing supervisors - University professors - Building material and garden equipment dealers - Sales representatives (Wholesale) - Clerical supervisors - Human resource and business service professionals

Notice how the occupations where people suffer the most from work related stress are generally the actual PRODUCERS. The water carriers. Where as managers and supervisors are actually the LEAST likely have stress related issues.

Edited October 24, 2011 by dre

[dre]

I'll go with the Austrian School any day over the Keynesian nonsense that got us into this nonsense.

And no it can't, the size of the US government is unsustainable, the way things are going social security and entitlements are going to eat up almost all of the USA budget. So you want more money in the hands of the poor and your idea is to tax the rich. 1) that puts a damper on production which makes everyone poorer as a result and 2) the rich don't have the kind of taxable money to pull everyone out of poverty. The rich would be better off keeping their money and going about their business. IF anybody is buying into the hollywood movie economic theory its you. Rich people by being around improve the lives of others by buying, saving, and investing because they have more capital to do so.

As for the old and sick. I'm not saying stick them anywhere, I'm saying its time to start cutting funding because the US really can't afford it. I don't think you appreciate how dire shape the economies of the western world are. Spending needs to be cut and everything is on the table.

As for rich people only being born into it? Really, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Robert Herjavec, Jim Treliving were born with a silver spoon in their mouths? Welcome to equality of opportunity, there is equal opportunity to accumulate wealth and equal opportunity to squander it. If the kid who was born rich expects to sit with his thumb in his ass, that fortune of theirs goes up in smoke. That's a problem existing with a sizeable number of pro athletes.

Greece, Italy, and Spain have tried your high spending, high tax, high entitlement regimen and it turned out to be a disaster. Hell the Greeks didn't even want to pay for it. As for pension plans being paid for by younger people as a model of success, can you say General Motors??? That's a classic example of why we should be careful with spending money on retirement of others.

Nope the way out of this mess is to cut spending and increase production, and that means the unsustainable consumption party is over.

So you want more money in the hands of the poor and your idea is to tax the rich. 1) that puts a damper on production which makes everyone poorer as a result and 2) the rich don't have the kind of taxable money to pull everyone out of poverty.

Thats been a claim made by the supply-side economics crowd for a long time, but Iv looked at it pretty closely and cant find much evidence of it. In fact there doesnt seem be any correlation between tax rates and economic growth at ALL. Historically some of the highest rates of economic growth in the west have happened during times when taxes and especially top marginal tax rates were actually quite high.

[blueblood]

Thats been a claim made by the supply-side economics crowd for a long time, but Iv looked at it pretty closely and cant find much evidence of it. In fact there doesnt seem be any correlation between tax rates and economic growth at ALL. Historically some of the highest rates of economic growth in the west have happened during times when taxes and especially top marginal tax rates were actually quite high.

I wouldn't say that...

My link

My link

Highest economic expansion in USA history and little to no taxes, that would be the gilded age.