• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

How can you be a democrat?

Arshes Nei said:
On the economy thing, it's doing well, however two things.

Someone please remind me the term for this but basically there is a percentage splitup (GP funding?)

The majority about I think in the 60's in percentage range went to the employees
Another percentage to the employer and company.

What happened now is while more money is coming in, less of it and the percentage went down for the employee, it went more for the employer.

The other problem is, while the economy "is doing great" inflation is also not being factored. Employees wages are not increasing to keep in line with inflation while inflation has risen dramatically. In some cases Employee wages have decreased.

Having said that, Bush really has nothing much to do with the economy. I said the same for Clinton too, the DotComs were helpful in a quick inflation but its crash has also affected the economy.

I do find it humorous though, when Gas prices go up, Bush's approval rating goes down, and the reverse happens too. XD Gas costs he has the least control over, but he can put into action a plan for weaning our dependency on foreign oil.

I tend to disagree, I think that some of the policies he's had a hand in do play an important part in the economy. I agree, he's not the major driving factor. Perhaps a good analogy would be if the economy were a car, and the person driving were businesses. Blue and white collar workers woould be the gas and he would be one of the people working for the highway department planting signs that give directions.

I disagree with raising the minimum wage nationwide because this would result in inflation with the companies merely passing the additional cost off to the customer. I don't believe the minimum wage is meant to be a wage you can live off of. 16 years olds don't need to make enough money to live off of. And there's plenty of opportunity to get an education and a high paying job. Anyone, regardless of race, sex, or beliefs can get a student loan and apply for grants. You could argue that you don't want to build up the huge debt of a student loan, but a community college or even small university doesn't cost too much. So you end up with 30,000 in student loans, when most college graduates make more than 20,000 a year more than non-college educated individuals.
 
Stitch said:
Oh, man, I am so sick.....

QFT and 100% agreed. What I really wanted to accomplish with this post was get some ideas of what corruption occurs among high level Republicans or Republican presidential candidates. I read a lot of news and listen to talk radio. All I ever hear is about the corruption of Democrats. I know as a general rule, politicians are corrupt. But I can't seem to find anything MAJOR along the lines of corruption and falsification among Republicans. I hear Democrats doing one thing and saying another. But from what I see, most Republicans are in line with their party views. It's like the Democrats are saying what people want to hear while the Republicans are sticking to the party line? Funny thing is, I don't even see anything about the Republicans on any News, which seems to jump at the chance to post even the smallest Republican scandal. I probably should have titled the post differently, looking at it, it makes it look like I'm saying I'm against democrats. I'm not really, I just haven't seen any Democrat that is doing and saying the same thing. Like I said before, it would be a lot easier and cheaper if we got rid of the senate and the house and just had a few 'lawmakers' that came up with solutions and allowed the general public to vote on them. You could argue the general public is stupid, but seriously, you know where you stand on issues. And if you voted on something, you'd have only yourself to blame if it was a mistake.
 

nobuyuki

Member
Stitch said:
Answer: because you, the American people, have let it. Every single time you vote on a party line without thinking about the issues at hand, every time you toss rabid accusations at the 'other side' while turning a blind eye to the shortcomings of 'your side', every time you make excuses for your preferred candidates while they screw over the values you hold dear, every time you let some windbag political 'commentator' on tv tell you how you ought to think, every time you say something like "I can't even understand how you can support YOUR party, because everybody knows they're stupid and wrong about everything, whereas MY party is righteous and saintly and perfect," the politicians give themselves a pat on the back and a little piece of America dies.

Here you are lecturing the 40% or less of the population who actually votes when 60% just sit there and let shit hit the fan for doing nothing. Sheep exist everywhere whether we lecture em or not, but if you don't vote you're simply letting someone else make an opinion for you. At the very least, the 40% of people actually voting have made up their minds to know that politics matters, and that's a step above NOT voting. Consider since there will always be sheep that you as a more intelligent voter may be able to use them as your tool to get your opinion out to people who's opinions actually matter, or something. I'm not saying to astroturf, but it's like being the salesman of a philosophy.

Seriously, though, way to condescend on the voting populace. This is as much the fault of people who have too much apathy to vote as it is people being sheeped around, because the majority of the former makes the latter's influence that more disproportional to the actual will/proper representation of the people.

===========================
Edit: BTW rostam, I can see how minimum wage could possibly hurt small business owners in theory, but there's a lot of unlikely circumstances I think have to come into play for that to occur, and I disagree that the costs will end up going back to the consumer as if they weren't already. This country favors shit to LOOK cheap, that's why companies outsource it and shuffle cash around to make items in like China, then sell it back to you for 89 cents and you think you're saving money while all the while the value of your cash goes down and so does the US economy. On the macro scale, anything you can think to do to close the wealth gap in this country will simply have the wealthy outsource it to get around it anyway, it seems. Costs of many items are below their actual value, it's just a matter of time before this catches up to us :I

That besides the current minimum wage is waaay below the earnings of your average american worker, which wasn't always the case. The elasticity of minimum wage workers in this country is low (we need a certain number of unskilled labor jobs regardless of their pay). I believe that market power needs to be balanced more between the companies and the consumer, and that minimum wage increase would be a way to promote that more healthy relationship (or, it could promote companies to try and get around the law by outsourcing or hiring more illegals -- either way it will make the situation much less ambiguous as to what we SHOULD be doing to fix a fxcked up economy). I Am Not An Economistâ„¢ but I did just google this issue and I found out that economists in general seem to prefer Antitrust litigation over minimum wage increases to "get the job done" restoring power balance to the consumer. I think antitrust litigation's been busted ever since SBC started consolodating Ma Bell (and let's not forget Microsoft's slap on the wrist which basically did nothing to stop their monopoly), so maybe minimum wage hikes will get the snowball rolling to tell the bigshots that we the american people mean business.

Sorry, I'm getting off track..... :T


Edit2:
I read a lot of news and listen to talk radio. All I ever hear is about the corruption of Democrats.

Talk radio's the realm of the conservatives -- the news, while often painted as liberal, generally tries to follow guidelines of journalistic ethics towards things like ad hominem attacks. Generally. Talking heads like Wolf Blitzer are increasingly blurring the line between NPOV and obvious opinion. Still, Even a little bit of slander can slip underneath the radar on talk radio thanks in part to its fluidic nature -- you can't get away with that on TV unless your name is Fox News (whereby nobody with more than half a brain takes you seriously anyway).

BTW, I am shocked that you claim to listen to a lot of news and barely know who jack abramoff is. I'm not super surprised you don't know who Duke Cunningham is, but I am somewhat disappointed -- that also made news and his name should be about as well-known as William Jefferson.

Finally, Hypothetical question. What's worse to you, a corrupt politician who doesn't deny some of his comrades might grease the wheels, or a corrupt politican that claims that his comrades are all saints? (Personally, I think the flat-faced liars are the lesser-trustworthy of the two, and much more dangerous to the american people)
 

capthavoc123

Master of Disaster
There's one thing I find confusing about any sort of debate about the presidency, Democrat or Republican or whatever.

Blaming or crediting the economy to the president. The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves. Pretty much the only effect the president can have on the economy is if he makes a comment on something and it causes stocks to fall, just as if someone like Alan Greenspan or the CEO of some huge corporation had said it. That's all the influence the president has on the economy, and it's ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Rostam The Grey said:
Arshes Nei said:
On the economy thing, it's doing well, however two things.

Someone please remind me the term for this but basically there is a percentage splitup (GP funding?)

The majority about I think in the 60's in percentage range went to the employees
Another percentage to the employer and company.

What happened now is while more money is coming in, less of it and the percentage went down for the employee, it went more for the employer.

The other problem is, while the economy "is doing great" inflation is also not being factored. Employees wages are not increasing to keep in line with inflation while inflation has risen dramatically. In some cases Employee wages have decreased.

Having said that, Bush really has nothing much to do with the economy. I said the same for Clinton too, the DotComs were helpful in a quick inflation but its crash has also affected the economy.

I do find it humorous though, when Gas prices go up, Bush's approval rating goes down, and the reverse happens too. XD Gas costs he has the least control over, but he can put into action a plan for weaning our dependency on foreign oil.

I tend to disagree, I think that some of the policies he's had a hand in do play an important part in the economy. I agree, he's not the major driving factor. Perhaps a good analogy would be if the economy were a car, and the person driving were businesses. Blue and white collar workers woould be the gas and he would be one of the people working for the highway department planting signs that give directions.

I disagree with raising the minimum wage nationwide because this would result in inflation with the companies merely passing the additional cost off to the customer. I don't believe the minimum wage is meant to be a wage you can live off of. 16 years olds don't need to make enough money to live off of. And there's plenty of opportunity to get an education and a high paying job. Anyone, regardless of race, sex, or beliefs can get a student loan and apply for grants. You could argue that you don't want to build up the huge debt of a student loan, but a community college or even small university doesn't cost too much. So you end up with 30,000 in student loans, when most college graduates make more than 20,000 a year more than non-college educated individuals.

Student loans have been *severely* reduced in how much the government doles out recently.

It does sort of depend on what you major in (a job with 20,000 buckaroos post-college) - I'm majoring in Anthropology and with a BA of Anth, you really can't do anything. I mean, you can flip burgers...make pizzas? As far as student loans, as well, you have to take into account the amount of interest that goes into loans. For people like myself who need a PhD to do anything they can get pretty up there, and the government after a point gives you very little. Under the Federal Pell Grant you can be authorized (I'm not sure about this anymore, but this is how it was when I was a freshman) for up to somewhere around 2,000 dollars. The rest depends on the state government (this usually can get up to [really, tops] about 5,000 dollars including federal work study), generally.

It was during Bush's latest term that federal university loans had the largest cut.
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
jellyhurwit said:
It was during Bush's latest term that federal university loans had the largest cut.

Ya... I got a 2,500 for this year in student loans... the rest, I had to get out of myrichuncle. Just the name scares me.. it screams "SNEAKY FEES AND RATES but up-front, we've got great interest rates!"
 

Mega Wolf

Member
capthavoc123 said:
The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves.

How come one of the main things I hear when people say good things about Clinton is "The economy was good when he was president." or "He helped the economy." or even "He was the reason the economy was so good."... But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
Mega Wolf said:
But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?

I hate Bush. And I like blame all kinds of stuff on him.

But I make an honest effort not to BS stuff about him. I think some people just like to blur things like that, and assume no one will ask the question you just asked. Damn... that bias is exposed now >_<
 

Mega Wolf

Member
Grimfang said:
Mega Wolf said:
But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?

I hate Bush. And I like blame all kinds of stuff on him.

But I make an honest effort not to BS stuff about him. I think some people just like to blur things like that, and assume no one will ask the question you just asked. Damn... that bias is exposed now >_<

Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not. What was a reason a democrat was doing a good job one term is suddenly not something a president can control when a republican is in office, and when a republican effects something in a bad or negetive way, when a democrat is in the same shoes it's "not their falt, totaly out of their control".

Granted, precived powers is a big problem with the presidency, and by that I mean the ignorant masses tend to think the president can do a LOT more then he can really do. But far to often I hear this used to defend democrats and defame republicans. -.-
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
Mega Wolf said:
Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not. What was a reason a democrat was doing a good job one term is suddenly not something a president can control when a republican is in office, and when a republican effects something in a bad or negetive way, when a democrat is in the same shoes it's "not their falt, totaly out of their control".

Granted, precived powers is a big problem with the presidency, and by that I mean the ignorant masses tend to think the president can do a LOT more then he can really do. But far to often I hear this used to defend democrats and defame republicans. -.-

Well, I think it goes both ways. I think republicans make the same kinds of arguments. Right now, Bush isn't in a very popular spot, so everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office in 2009, and if he falls into a spot like Bush is in right now, he'll have the same kind of deal. Unfair and inaccurate arguments and blame.

It's politics - never pretty.
 

Mega Wolf

Member
Grimfang said:
Well, I think it goes both ways. I think republicans make the same kinds of arguments. Right now, Bush isn't in a very popular spot, so everyone is ganging up on him. But I'm sure there'll be a democrat in office in 2009, and if he falls into a spot like Bush is in right now, he'll have the same kind of deal. Unfair and inaccurate arguments and blame.

It's politics - never pretty.

True. Maybe its simply a matter of my enviroment. I may live in Texas, but I live in an area that is VERY democraticly controlled. As if that is not bad enough, I've been in various colleges since 01, so all I EVER FRIGGAN HEAR is 'Bush is evil this' and 'Bush bites the heads off of babies' that and 'There would be no aids if only Clinton was still in office' and I am F'ing sick of it!
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
I understand. People who have a shallow understanding of what's going on in the world just dismiss it as "Oh, well of fking course.. Bush is in office."

While Bush may have to do with many things, there's this thing called a cabinet, and also the other millions working for the executive branch of the government.
 
E

Epsereth

Guest
Grimfang said:
I understand. People who have a shallow understanding of what's going on in the world just dismiss it as "Oh, well of fking course.. Bush is in office."

While Bush may have to do with many things, there's this thing called a cabinet, and also the other millions working for the executive branch of the government.

At the same time, Bush also has the big ugly Vetomobile...
 

Hanazawa

Would Like To Play a Game
Epsereth said:
At the same time, Bush also has the big ugly Vetomobile...

can I get one of those? I wanna go chug-chug-chuggin' down the street in my sweet sweet Vetomobile. It's probably a white van.

I don't know why.

I just read Vetomobile and thought "white van".
 
E

Epsereth

Guest
Hanazawa said:
can I get one of those? I wanna go chug-chug-chuggin' down the street in my sweet sweet Vetomobile. It's probably a white van.

I don't know why.

I just read Vetomobile and thought "white van".

Like the one the DC Snipers of 2003 used?

Wow. "I VETO YO' LIFE, BETCH!"

*winces at own lame joke*
 

SFox

Member
Mega Wolf said:
Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold it right there. You can't go pointing at democrats like only they do this. Oh jeez man, the things that republicans tried, and still try to pin on Clinton, you'd think he was Satan walking the earth himself.
 
E

Epsereth

Guest
somberfox said:
Mega Wolf said:
Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold it right there. You can't go pointing at democrats like only they do this. Oh jeez man, the things that republicans tried, and still try to pin on Clinton, you'd think he was Satan walking the earth himself.

Yyyyeah, politics is politics and mudslinging goes both ways. XD
 
J

Jelly

Guest
Hey, hey...I know this is a bit off-subject...

However, has anybody else seen the latest FoxNews thing? They take various liberals and analyze every single hand and eye movement in a slow motion tape of an interview. They try to interpret (postulate) how this means that liberals are lying, or have no idea what they're talking about.

...well, I got a kick out of it.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Mega Wolf said:
capthavoc123 said:
The president has no authority over the economy, the stock market, or anything else like that. Nothing the president does dictates economic policy, that kind of thing is the business of Congress and businesses themselves.

How come one of the main things I hear when people say good things about Clinton is "The economy was good when he was president." or "He helped the economy." or even "He was the reason the economy was so good."... But when we think of the upturns in the stockmarket and any positive market changes while Bush is in office, people love to say "The president has nothing to do with the economy"?

Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681

I said that Clinton had little to do with it either.

The economy just has its natural turns. What made the boom different during Clinton's time was the dot com explosion. However, while it needed to be done, Clinton passed into law something that caused an economic downturn, which in this case has a direct effect on the economy until it re-adjusted itself.

That was, more honest stock reporting. That's also why a lot of those companies in the dot-com era went bust. Rightfully so, but it did cause quite a ripple. Before there was little accounting and auditing when companies reported earnings, they were more estimate based than factual based.

So the person in office isn't really directly in charge of the economy, he might be able to pass laws to affect it, but most of the laws passed, not to many have direct effects but ripples.
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
omg! For some reason, my heart has been hurting today. I had blood work done before and doctors said "No, you's fine"... Anyways. My heart is hurting today, and I'm reading all this shit and you guys crack me up.. and this laughing is doing a number on my heart. Not making it feel any better. I love you all.

*hugs everyone except dong*
xP

jellyhurwit said:
Hey, hey...I know this is a bit off-subject...

However, has anybody else seen the latest FoxNews thing? They take various liberals and analyze every single hand and eye movement in a slow motion tape of an interview. They try to interpret (postulate) how this means that liberals are lying, or have no idea what they're talking about.

...well, I got a kick out of it.

That's funny. I didn't see it, but I can imagine it.

"Now, once he was asked about Bush's blabla policy, you may have noticed" *slow motion replay* "his left eye began twitching... not only that, but also on-camera was a FIST he made!!"



ok ok... *hugs Dong too* I would've left you out to be funny, but I felt too guilty.

Plus, if I die of a heart attack, I can't die knowing I was being mean...
 

Mega Wolf

Member
Arshes Nei said:
Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681

I did, but I mean in general. Whenever someone strikes up the daily 'How republicans are going to destroy the world today' debate at my local college, someone passing by usualy mentions something about the economy and one of the bush haters spouts 'Well how can you say Bush had anything to do with the economy!? Clinton was the one who had the economy running so well!'. And not just at the college but everywhere I go I usualy hear stuff like I mentioned in my post. Some of you on here seemed to notice, but 2 or 3 out of the hundreds I have heard still does not constitute a 'fair distribution'.
 

Grimfang

Well-Known Member
Mega Wolf said:
Arshes Nei said:
Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681

I did, but I mean in general. Whenever someone strikes up the daily 'How republicans are going to destroy the world today' debate at my local college, someone passing by usualy mentions something about the economy and one of the bush haters spouts 'Well how can you say Bush had anything to do with the economy!? Clinton was the one who had the economy running so well!'. And not just at the college but everywhere I go I usualy hear stuff like I mentioned in my post. Some of you on here seemed to notice, but 2 or 3 out of the hundreds I have heard still does not constitute a 'fair distribution'.

I totally understand that. People generally have an ignorant argument to make.

I was going to one school, and there were always students protests that always started these big arguments.

"HOW CAN YOU SAY TO ME THAT I'M GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR MY BELIEFS?"
"HOW DO YOU KNOW THE FETUS IS A LIVING THING?!"

I dunno... one time, I wound up arguing devil's advocate (normally, I say women should choose if they want an abortion or not, but I could NOT argue on this dude's side...). Somehow, his argument was that animals are smarter than people, therefore abortion should remain legal.

I didn't get it. But, yes, I can relate with what you're saying, Mega Wolf.
 

Mega Wolf

Member
somberfox said:
Mega Wolf said:
Thats anouther thing I dont like about democrats, they love pull anything they can to defame or insult a republican, reguardless if it's true or not.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold it right there. You can't go pointing at democrats like only they do this. Oh jeez man, the things that republicans tried, and still try to pin on Clinton, you'd think he was Satan walking the earth himself.

True, both sides are guilty of this, and I am aware and have heard BS arguments against Clinton, but whenever I hear the republican side, its always dismissed as 'conservative banter' and therefore rendered as pointless, but see it from the otherside of the fence and suddenly everyone is paroting it like the god given truth. When was the last time you listened to anything on conservative talk radio and actualy even mildly considered it true in any way, shape, or form? If you answer 'never' then you see my point. If you answer 'Only if what they are saying is ACTUALY true and not just something they made up' then you would be a bit more open minded to both sides of the argument, which is more then I can say about everyone that lives in my brainwashed town.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Mega Wolf said:
Arshes Nei said:
Umm how come you didn't even read post #48 http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7032&pid=118681#pid118681

I did, but I mean in general. Whenever someone strikes up the daily 'How republicans are going to destroy the world today' debate at my local college, someone passing by usualy mentions something about the economy and one of the bush haters spouts 'Well how can you say Bush had anything to do with the economy!? Clinton was the one who had the economy running so well!'. And not just at the college but everywhere I go I usualy hear stuff like I mentioned in my post. Some of you on here seemed to notice, but 2 or 3 out of the hundreds I have heard still does not constitute a 'fair distribution'.

What is funny, is that an IRC channel I founded long ago, most of us were high school/college age. This was the time we were idealists and thought our views could change the world. So our ideals were more democratic, and thought those darn conservatives were evil.

Then we had to pay off those loans, or move on and live on our own. I come back years later to this channel and we're more conservative, we want the government interfering less with our lives and most definitely our paychecks.

Not everyone is going to go through this turn in life, but I thought it was interesting to note.
 

Razzor

Member
Okay time for my personal opinion. BUSH IS AN IDIOT! Get that moron out of office, he's a freaking puppet for Cheney, and he's been lying his a** off about the purpose of the war in Iraq for ages.
Seriously the man is borderline retarded. I would also like to point out, something concerning Bill Clinton. He lied, yes, he apologized too. Guess what else, why do people seem to make a big deal about private life? That's something you do and don't tell people!
Guess what, both situations are immoral, but George Bush's lies have gotten countless people killed. Iraq is well on its way to being the next Vietnam.
 
Top