- #421
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
ParticleGrl said:Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.
That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?
ParticleGrl said:Obama already implemented Romney's healthcare plan.
WhoWee said:That's probably the best reason to elect Romney - he's the most qualified to fix Obamacare - isn't he?
lisab said:Nice double half gainer with a reverse twist !
IMO, that's a flawed way of looking at it. Your measure means that unless I give my kid an iPhone, he's poorer than I was growing up. That's illogical. If he gets an iPhone (or a Blackberry), he's richer than I was because he has more than I did. If he doesn't, he's the same as I was. If he gets a Blackberry instead of an iPhone, your standard calls him poorer even though he has more than I did.AlephZero said:That may be a "fact", but it doesn't tell the whole story, because the range of goods and services that made up an "average" standard of living has changed. In 1967, nobody was paying for cellphones, personal computers, flatscreen TVs etc, because those things didn't exist.
Keeping pace with inflation is the wrong measure IMO. You should be looking at keeping pace with GDP, as a (crude) measure of the average amount of "stuff" that is available for people to to spend their money on.
Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:russ_watters said:It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/ [Broken]
US Census said:average income of lowest 60% in 2010 $29,659
average income of lowest 60% in 1967 $ 4,370
I agree with you that it's a fact that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago. But why would you call that the bottom line? For example, unemployment is significantly higher today than 50 years ago.Jimmy Snyder said:When it comes to the cost of living, the bottom line is that more people can afford to live today than could 50 years ago.
You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.ThomasT said:Thanks for the link. My impression might be wrong, but I don't think I'd characterize it as very wrong. According to the link:
The lowest 60% made, on average, about 6.79 times more in 2010 than in 1967.
If the buying power of the lowest 60% increased from 1967 to 2010,
then prices increased less than 6.79 times from 1967 to 2010.
For some things this is true. For others it isn't.
Since I don't have time to do an exhaustive survey of this in order to get
a meaningful average, I have to consider it an open question.
Jasongreat said:Here is Romney's CPAC speech.
Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?russ_watters said:You don't have to do an exhaustive analysis. Each survey comes with two sets of data. Scroll down further for the one adjusted for inflation.
Just more of the same rhetoric, imo. I think Romney's run for the presidency is more ego-driven than anything else. Not that that's unusual, or necessarily a bad thing.WhoWee said:Straight talk and spoke of "Obama's ineptitude".
phoenix:\\ said:It was rather poor rhetoric. He wants to expand the government but also limit it as well? To me that isn't "straight talk" rather talk of someone who has no idea what he is doing currently and is just using common charged phrases to appease the base.
phoenix:\\ said:He wants to start testing people who have applied, and are currently getting, government subsidies for drugs.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article/226699/166/Romney-in-Atlanta [Broken]
"People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they are not using the money for drugs. I think it's an excellent idea."
phoenix:\\ said:I do not know about you, but look at the bold:
and that would require more expansion of the government to begin such measures of testing. You don't need to "hear" such information being directly said, it is quite naive (in terms of politics) to believe you need to hear, "these types of policies will expand the government" especially from a candidate like Romney as he doesn't want to cause a further divide with his base.
Also, he said people partaking in "government benefits" that would include small business owners who have decided to take up government loans?
phoenix:\\ said:Isn't that a bit irrelevant? You believe I am an Obama supporter? This is about Mitt Romney, not Obama. He doesn't believe or see it being necessary to begin testing people who are given government subsidies for drugs.
However, with that said, because drug tests aren't mandatory for the common, everyday, wrongdoing, welfare drug fiend recipient, we have to look for a state that does conduct drug tests and this state must be tested to be a state where illegal drug abuse is prevalent. I found one... Florida:
unacceptable link deleted
as for the other post, just look at the implementation of the program, an expansion needed to occur for it to be implemented, now think of that on a national level. Would that save more U.S. dollars or take more money from the economy? It would take from the economy, and expand the government.
No, that's what "inflation" is!ThomasT said:Don't we want to compare an income increase coefficient a with price increase coefficient?
Inflation refers to price increases over time. My question was about a possible erosion of buying power. If the rate of income increase has kept pace with or exceeded inflation, then buying power hasn't been eroded. If incomes haven't kept pace with inflation, then buying power has been eroded.russ_watters said:No, that's what "inflation" is!
The incidence of drug usage seems to be less wrt recipients of temporary cash assistance than wrt the population at large.phoenix:\\ said:Wow, lol. Here is another link to the source that is credible:
http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/ [Broken]
phoenix:\\ said:What do we judge him by then? That is if we cannot judge him on rhetoric that is meant to pander to his base, then what else is there to judge him by? His record, his wants, etc...? As far as it being "rhetoric pandering", that sort of policy is in direct conflict with his base of limiting the government. My dirty pants are clean...
WhoWee said:He said he thought drug testing Welfare recipients was a good idea - to make sure they aren't buying illegal drugs with their Government assistance. I didn't hear any mention of an expansion of Government.
Evo said:I'm not liberal and I'm not a Democrat. I've been called conservative and a Republican, and I guess I often do lean a bit conservative if it makes sense. I'm really middle of the road and will vote for the candidate I think is less of a danger. I have no party affiliation. Sorry.
Unlike President Obama in the last election - Romney does have executive level leadership experience - 25 years in business, he saved the Olympics, and he served as Governor. Harry Reid and the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 1,000 days and the last budget Predident Obama sent to Congress (I'll be gentle) didn't get many votes.
If possible, could you please provide your definition of "rhetoric pandering" - I want to apply it to the other threads?
I have to be very careful here, but I'm an atheist. And I think politics is a sort of religion.
phoenix:\\ said:Definition, or at least why I use "rhetoric pandering": He over-exaggerates his positions, consistently flip-flops, and outright lies just to appease his base. That, to me, is a prime example of rhetoric pandering.
Mitt Romney is a Republican politician who has held various positions in the government, including serving as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He is known for his conservative beliefs and has taken stances on issues such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy.
Mitt Romney has been involved in politics for several decades and his candidacy has evolved over time. He first ran for president in 2008 and then again in 2012, ultimately becoming the Republican nominee. Since then, he has continued to be involved in politics, endorsing and campaigning for other candidates and speaking out on current issues.
Some criticisms of Mitt Romney's candidacy include his changing stance on certain issues, such as healthcare, and his perceived lack of authenticity. He has also faced criticism for his wealth and business background, with some questioning his ability to relate to and understand the struggles of everyday Americans.
Mitt Romney's candidacy has had a significant impact on the Republican party. He has helped to shape the party's platform and has been a prominent figure in the party's efforts to win elections. His candidacy has also sparked debates and discussions within the party about its direction and values.
There are several potential outcomes of Mitt Romney's candidacy. If he were to win the election, he would become the President of the United States and would have the opportunity to implement his policies and agenda. If he were to lose, he could continue to be involved in politics in other ways or may choose to retire from public life. Additionally, his candidacy could have lasting effects on the Republican party and the political landscape as a whole.