Customer Discussions > Automotive forum

The Real Reason American is Failing


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2201-2225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 9, 2012 2:34:30 PM PDT
mitch says:
SW i would like to take 2 hours to go through Romney's brilliant plan page by page to find something I liked. But i'm busy watching the paint in my kitchen dry.

I am sure there are some things that are favorable, just like the part you mentioned bout depreciating the cost of new automobiles for business use. I did spend about 5 minutes skimming over it and that hardly makes me an expert but I will say this. A lot of information is based on false assumptions or incomplete reading of a certain subject, i.e., he stated that "open markets have helped make America powerful and prosperous." and that "every President beginning with R Reagen has recognized this." But a couple of pages later he slams Obama for dragging his feet on the of Asia-Pacific trade agreement. Anyone who has followed this issue will know that the main reason for the dragging of the feet is that So.Korea is stubbornly refusing to grant US carmakers better access to there markets. Kia's and Hyundai's come over here and enjoy our open hospitality. Shouldn't the Chevy Cruze have an equal opportunity to do so there?

The So. Koreans negotiators have actually mentioned that we should let it go because there citizens just prefer Korean cars anyways. That's like telling Henekein that you shouldn't sell your beer here, because Americans just prefer Budweiser anyway. The principle of this is what matters but Romney makes it out like Obama is a job killer. He does the same with the issue of the energy pipeline through Nebraska. Publicans always harp about "states rights" over the tyranny of big bad Uncle Sam. Well in this case Obama is honoring states rights - a majority of Nebraskans, including Publicans do not want the pipeline going through there state. They are worried about possible environmental problems(and with the BP Gulf Coast fiasco that's a real concern). But he slams Obama for being a job killer. If Obama had gone ahead and approved the pipeline deal Romney would have just rewitten his so called brilliant plan to say how Obama doesn't respect states rights.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 4:07:49 AM PDT
Dan says:
That grammar is really bad too. I couldn't even read it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 10:01:15 AM PDT
Then don't.

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 10:22:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 10:28:03 AM PDT
The bush tax cuts have "distributed" the wealthy BILLIONS all these 11 years with none of the job growth promised.... There are SO many links to how the wealthy/poor income gap has widened during the last 11 years its insane. yet u GOP keep voting for it as if SOME day the rich are going to decide they have enough money and let it "trickle down" to the rest of us poor shlubs??

dude, they have NO INCENTIVE to do anything but stuff their pockets with the "distributed" tax cut cash.... and thats all they've done with it for 11+ years now.

The "milk & honey" the rich is getting, and amassing as wealth... is being paid for by YOU THE MIDDLE CLASS & POOR WORKERS... how is that NOT a re-distribution of wealth??
Untill We replace tax cuts to the wealthy & big corporations with TAX CREDITS FOR EMPLOYING MIDDLE CLASS & POOR AMERICANS off the welfare rolls ...... America will be failing...
if u dont agree with anything else President Obama has done,.. you need to side with him & the Democrats on this one....or you're going to be paying for this recession for another 11 years or more.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 11:40:11 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 19, 2012 11:39:47 AM PDT]

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 12:53:52 PM PDT
W.J.Rora Jr., nice assessment and good post. Hope you join us more often. I see you made a friend. One line, bumper sticker, hate monger. Oh well, it is cool to be stupid today, just what the oligarchy wants from voters.

The word "Fact" defined by the rest of the world = "is something that has really occurred or is actually the case."
The word "Fact" defined by many Americans = "Liberal Media Bias."

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 2:35:59 PM PDT
JackV says:
That's funny Malin. Little is responding to YOUR post, not Rora. Try to keep up.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2012 6:06:04 PM PDT
chris532008 says:
kinda all over the place, having the common currency and central bank is the opposite of each nation having it s own currency, course the problem has always been monetary systems as the operators always find a way of skimming and scheming, so they do. the us economy will soon collapse also, democrat and republican are two faces of the same coin, collapse is imminent and the better thing is for it to be sooner than later as the violence will be less. if 25 years ago the people had awakened, things could have been set on track to a better life and avoid the violence that we will experience. at the conclusion of conflict the government employees should be at a minimum imprisioned at hard labor till death to send the proper message that thier greed and injustice should not be tolerated nor forgiven

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 9:16:26 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 19, 2012 11:40:47 AM PDT]

Posted on Jul 11, 2012 11:02:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 11, 2012 11:09:06 PM PDT
JackV says:
Malin, what happened? Just because you couldn't determine that a person was picking on -YOUR- post is no reason to post nonsense. I think you need to put some foil on your head to protect it from "oligarchy" types. It's a basic requirement to know how to post correctly (that's what 'reply' button is for).

Btw, how much experience do you actually have as a 'labor economist'? You are 48 or so, worked for 30 years as some sort of mechanic (let's say you started at age 18). Doesn't leave you much room for real experience. How long does it take to plagiarize material?

I do like your motto: " Oh well, it is cool to be stupid today" Yup. I'm curious, what does "in which" mean to you? You use that constantly, but it makes no sense as used.

Oh, and don't get "political", that would be so unlike any of your posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 2:56:42 PM PDT
Turbo6 says:
Hello - I'd like to remind you that Obama said:

"I'm calling on Congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98% of Americans who make less than $250,000....."

So basically what he admitted was that what you guys call the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" - in reality were tax cuts for everyone.

Since they have been in effect for 10 years, not extending them is pretty much a tax increase. Keeping the current rates is not a "tax cut" for anyone as everyone would just be paying the same rates they have for a while.

Most people (like myself) make a lot more money now than we did 10 years ago, and it would be a shock to my wallet to pay the pre-Bush rates for sure. (and no, I don't make more than 250K)

I say make the current rates permanent for everyone. Targeting one group of people might make you feel good, but in reality, the government will just pee away any revenue increase on the groups that they favor.

That is not a "level playing field" and it just gives them more power.

So yes, take away the oil subsidies and bank subsidies. Take away ALL subsidies. (solar power, farm, whatever) Let the free market decide what industries thrive and which ones fail. Solar power may not be big now, but it will in the future. Pushing the technology before its time will not help market adoption and is it a big waste of money. (Solyndra, etc.) Let the free market work and all will be well.

And don't say that the market was unregulated during the Bush years. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated industries. If anything, government meddling in the market (Community reinvestment act, etc.) created the conditions for the crash.

Looking forward to intelligent conversation, not democrat talking points.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 6:38:17 AM PDT
Perfectly Said!!

Posted on Jul 13, 2012 2:39:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 13, 2012 2:39:36 PM PDT
mitch says:
Turbo6 is ways off the mark when he ways, curiously, that "the banking industry is "one of the most highly regulated industries?" Just today Chase mentioned that the 2 billion loss they reported a couple of months ago, that everyone was mad about, is really 6 billion, perhaps even more. But the CEO says there sorry and there doing a top to bottom review of their trading practices. The SEC is always saying they do not have enough personnel to do minimal regulatory review, let alone over regulate. Remember in this so called over-regulated era it took over 20 years to learn about Bernie Madoff's fraudulent activities. I watched the CNBC special on him. The SEC sent 1 or 2 junior accountants, guys who just got out of college last Tuesday to go over billions of dollars and they counted on Madoff's people to figure out which files to look at. So much for over regulation. Well i guess we can rest easy now because Chase says there investigating themselves.

The real facts are that Wall Street influence in Congress can always be counted on to water down any proposed changes in how Uncle Sam oversee. The Wall Street banks haven't changed their stripes. There still using the same pre 2007 playbook, still making crazy bets because they've got an insurance plan if storm clouds come over the horizon - Uncle Sam - Privatize the gains but if we mess up we can socialize the losses because were still to 'big to fail.'

And Turbo6's take that things like government meddling via things like the community reinvestment act caused the market meltdown is ridiculously absurd or absurdly ridiculous. That had as much to do with it as my son's decision to stop buying Topps baseball cards. As i've mentioned before it's not about red vs blue, it's green vs non-green. No matter who controls congress or who resides at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave. next January you can be assured that Wall Street and the other great powers like the energy companies who will have great influence because of there right up to the legal limit campaign contributions(many times for both persons in a given race),extensive lobbying, super PACS (no limits, no disclosures) and other inside access stuff.

Billions are being raised this campaign season. The people that wrote those checks will expect something in return. And they will get it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 3:44:20 PM PDT
JackV says:
Regulation and enforcement are TWO different things. Banks are highly regulated. I bet one couldn't skim read all the regs in a month. Probably take a year to fully read all the various aspects.

Do you want a a cop for every 10 people? 100? 1000? 10,000? What are you willing to pay for 'enforcement'? How about training? Like education, more doesn't always make it better.

He's partially correct about the banking/mortage loan problem. It was partly caused by government meddling in loans.

There will always be greed. That's all that Bernie was all about. Nothing can stop that. Same reason scams always work for some people. You can't protect stupid.

IOW, not all things are 'political',even though that makes all problems easy to point fingers at. Events have to thought through from start to finish. Like the insurance thing where you wanted to collect some money at the end of some period of time if you had no claims. Let's say that was done. How did you think that was going to be paid for? Why the paying policy holders of course would pay higher rates. What if after you got 'paid', you all of a sudden had an accident? Do you pay it back?

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 4:27:02 AM PDT
Turbo6, you said, "Looking forward to intelligent conversation, not democrat talking points." So say something intelligent, how specifically did government meddling as you put it crash the economy? You start out complaining about taxes and end with regulation. No examples, not understanding, no clue.

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 9:52:40 AM PDT
JackV says:
Malin "No examples, not understanding, no clue. "

Sure, that explains everything. How about YOU doing the same thing Malin! You talk to no end (with odd grammar mistakes that leave one scratching), plagiarism from other sites and more odd yet, since they are not your own thoughts, complete with contradictions to prior posts. And of course, they are not political. You said so.

IOW, Turbo6 made just as much sense as you do. Arguably more so since he didn't try for word mishmash games. I knew exactly what he meant. So did Mitch. Somehow just you can't figure it out.

I'd pay more attention to your own post details vs picking on others. Just a hint.

I'd still like to know how you can possibly have any experience since you are around 48, was a mechanic for 30 years. Where's the real experience? Something is very wrong here. Curious

What does "in which" mean?

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 11:29:23 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 19, 2012 11:43:29 AM PDT]

Posted on Jul 15, 2012 12:00:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2012 12:02:13 PM PDT
JackV says:
LOL - so how much experience do you have Malin? NONE. That sums you up in every aspect.

You pick on people because you can't read what everyone else understands. And you post constant nonsense in an attempt to be somebody. Then you have the temerity to actually pretend that you know more when you've not shown a single thing, besides reciting book information. Like I've said before, an economist is a person who can't do hard science. It's a pretend topic with pretentious people. That suits you perfectly. I personally find it very hard to believe you graduated from any school considering the weird compositions you write.

YOU are the one that insults everyone that you do not agree with. I do love how this is a constant method you use. It's a perfect reflection of your own attitude. You just once again picked on someone as you have EVERY SINGLE TIME in this topic that someone posted (what you took to be POLITICAL) and tried to bully them. I've said this time and time again. And you proven it time and time again.

Now once again are the rude rude fellow that bellows and rants. I have proof of over 50 rants, you have NONE. Would you like me to put them all into a single post Malin? Seriously you go off the deep end at just about nothing. Dementia can start at a very early age. I'd be worried if I was in your shoes.

True, you never know when to shut up. So long as you try to pick on others I'll be here to make everyone aware that you have no credibility. How could you with NO EXPERIENCE. Just a wanna be.

Btw, do you realize you resort to teenage insults each and every time? Quite amusing to watch. Stop picking on people that do not agree with you. You might want to look at the first post. Lemme see - 154 of 722 agree with you. THAT statistic tells it all, no matter how you attempt to twist the simple truth Malin. In general, basically only 20% agree with your posts. End of Proof.

What does "in which" mean? LOL

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 2:45:13 PM PDT
Athynz says:
@Jack - Since you asked Mr Malin this a couple of times without a response - and honestly it's gotten a bit old - I've taken the liberty of posting a link that helps to define "in which"... http://www.uhv.edu/ac/newsletters/writing/grammartip2004.07.13.html Essentially it can be used in place of the word "where" when referring to containers... and as I'm in vacation mode I'm not feeling motivated enough to see which post kicked off the line of questioning.

Call it a public service announcement...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 2:52:18 PM PDT
Athynz says:
@Richard A. Little Then what do YOU suggest? You have insults and can shout over the interwebs... but do you have what it takes to have a rational discussion?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 2:58:59 PM PDT
Athynz says:
@Turbo6 - If I'm right Obama wants to continue the tax cuts for those who make less than $250,000 and discontinue the cuts for those who make above that amount... given the state of the economy and the distribution of wealth as it stands right now I'm for that as well as for giving tax breaks to companies that employ middle class and poor Americans. I've been critical of Obama as far as his commitment to getting our people to work again and this seems to be a step in the right direction. What about this do you oppose and why?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 4:31:04 PM PDT
Turbo6 says:
I oppose raising taxes on anyone at this point. I think it is cowardly to point at someone that makes more than you do and rally to raise THEIR taxes and not your own.

I am against the government getting involved with giving any company "tax breaks" to control who they hire. I am against the gubmint subsidizing any company or industry. From oil to solar to farms - NO MORE SUBSIDIES. All the money does is distort the market and give politicians more power.

I would eliminate tax loopholes for corporations, but at the same time lower corporate tax rates. This way every company, regardless of what they do or who they support, pay the same tax rates as everyone else. A true "level playing field".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 4:36:51 PM PDT
Turbo6 says:
If you don't think that the banking industry is highly regulated, why don't you go look at what it takes to open a bank?

Heck, if you don't think government has become ridiculous with its rules and regulations, look at what it takes to open a hot dog cart or operate a taxi cab in NYC.

I stand by my belief that government meddling in the markets causes more problems than it solves. I am not saying that we don't need any regulation, but when you make things complicated, you make it so that small businessman are blocked from competing because only the huge companies can afford to understand and comply with the regulations.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 7:10:14 PM PDT
JackV says:
Anthynz - it's not that I don't know what "in which" means, it is how Malin uses that term - indicating HE doesn't know what it means or how to use it correctly. Here are some recent usages (there are literally a hundred more sprinkled in this topic - all confusing ).

See if by substituting "where" for "in which" makes any more sense in the following Malin quotes (sure there are sometimes multiple mistakes, but why should I have to play word detective. Some are blatantly wrong no matter what I try to 'fix'):

========

liquidity traps in which he claimed does nothing to revitalize a economy

memories are short of the bubble economy in which Romney endorses along with henchmen of his character.

higher intrest rates from credit instruments in which are dependent on variable rate

sheltering of wealth in overseas accounts in which Mr. Romney will not disclose?

where individuals take from production in which is the real creation of wealth

chastening working Americans in which forgone wage increase in order to falsely secure a retirement.

merely acts as a body in which manipulates a legal process

My biggest mistake on this post board is that I was suckered into political fights in which is a losing proposition.

===========

Now do you see why I take Malin to task as to what he thinks 'in which' means? This term has a very high usage frequency and usually incorrectly. It's as if he thinks 'in which' is more formal and erudite vs just wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2012 7:46:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2012 7:47:38 PM PDT
JackV says:
Turbo6 - I like your honesty and clear expression. I never thought of it as "cowardly to point at someone that makes more than you do and rally to raise THEIR taxes and not your own". Excellent focus on exactly the problem. We want the 'rich' to suffer. AKA jealousy. Understanding the human psyche is critical to understanding why people say what they do.

Not that I agree 100%, but I do like how direct you are. Refreshing.

Subsidies are not inherently bad (and sometimes do good), it's just that they always seem to get exploited beyond the original intent and stick around when they are no longer required. I agree that they can distort the market.

At times we are reacting to foreign events - so fixing it here still leaves us vulnerable to distortions. It's not a simple thing that can be fixed by just the USA. If only laws were easier to 'tune' to real-time events vs the huge lag that creates all these mountains and crevasses. Laws are a problem because their very nature makes things black and white vs the required shades. In many ways, the way we govern is the cause of our problems.

I make jokes about highway engineers as all those engineers that flunked mechanical engineering (what - you designed a 4-lane road that terminates into a 2-lane?). Law makers often comprise all the lawyers that can't cut it as real lawyers so they concoct laws without realizing what will happen. Or they get bought? I can't tell the difference :)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Automotive forum (296 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Automotive forum
Participants:  312
Total posts:  2781
Initial post:  Jul 30, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 9, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 19 customers

Search Customer Discussions