Romney vs. Obama

[TxGoat]

This is one reason (of many!) why I left IBM after 5+ years of working there. I just didn't feel like my management chain cared about me at all. And the CEO? Yeah he was 8 levels of management above me. I didn't even know my 3rd or 4th line manager -- why would I know someone 8 levels higher?

My current company is about 70 people and our CEO works very hard. He isn't worth billions but he definitely make good money and lives in a very fancy area of town, has his own ranch outside of town, etc. He does quite well, but I guarantee you he puts in hours. I see him there every day (unless he's out at a conference or a sales trip), talk to him quite often in the halls, and see him in meetings and such all the time, planning new software sales, etc. Hell, we have a happy hour once/month in our kitchen and it's pretty cool to get to kick back and drink some beers with my CEO. That would have never happened at IBM -- Palmisano's secretary wouldn't have given me the time of day if I asked for it. I'm sure this all varies by company though.




I completely agree with you that people quite often squander opportunities, and that it's up to the individual to take advantage of them. The fact of the matter is that if you have low socio-economic status then those opportunities are few and far between. However, those born into wealth have significantly more opportunities and THAT is the main difference. Whether they chose to squander these opportunities or take advantage of them is irrelevant -- the deck is just stacked in their favor. The data coming from numerous studies on this topic can't be ignored.

Hard working CEOs aren't the norm anymore. It used to be that way, but now it's about how much I can get for myself, and all the people down the corporate ladder are here to serve me and not the company. Look at that show on CBS, Undercover boss, why is it that after the CEO finishes doing some of the low end jobs they're either fired that 1st day OR at the end of filming they feel so humbled that they start doling out some of their money, "Well Veronica, your story about having cancer but not having the benefits to afford treatment and the fact that you still come to work everyday has made me want to pay for your cancer..." I guess that's what passes as entertainment nowadays, a high paid, high powered CEO realizing that he's squeezing his employees and wanting to give something back. I'm willing to bet that not even a few weeks after the show airs, it's back to business as usual.

As far as your situation, you at least saw what it was like at IBM and realized it wasn't for you. Not everyone has the luxury of knowing their boss's boss's boss or even seeing them that often.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Really? How many CEOs do you know?

Silly question, let's use some empirical evidence.

"Currently, of the largest companies in America (those in the S&P 100), CEO pay has no correlation with either performance or market capitalisation."

Focus: Executive pay and performance | The Economist

 

[A.Nonymous]

A little something called work ethics maybe? Which to be quite honest, that's all it really boils down to, ethics. Sure you can cheat the system and massage all the rules in your favor. Assign board members that are your friends, have them over for social gatherings, convince them that you're worth this money and that in a few years you'll retire and will put in a letter of recommendation for them when the board elects another CEO.... Hell why stop there? Get yourself a lobbyist and write in loopholes that only apply to your status and per the written law (that your lobbyist helped shape btw) then you'd be "entitled" to those perks. I guess ethics is only for the "weak minded".....

Again, detecting distinct undertones of pure jealousy here. I still don't see how it's wrong to work less and get paid more. The math just doesn't make sense to me.

My current company is about 70 people and our CEO works very hard. He isn't worth billions but he definitely make good money and lives in a very fancy area of town, has his own ranch outside of town, etc. He does quite well, but I guarantee you he puts in hours. I see him there every day (unless he's out at a conference or a sales trip), talk to him quite often in the halls, and see him in meetings and such all the time, planning new software sales, etc. Hell, we have a happy hour once/month in our kitchen and it's pretty cool to get to kick back and drink some beers with my CEO. That would have never happened at IBM -- Palmisano's secretary wouldn't have given me the time of day if I asked for it. I'm sure this all varies by company though.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about the CEO or whether he cares about me or not. I worked for the county in a past life. The county commissioners didn't give a rats ass about me or anyone else who worked for the county. That didn't bother me. What bothered me is that my supervisors didn't care about me either.

I completely agree with you that people quite often squander opportunities, and that it's up to the individual to take advantage of them. The fact of the matter is that if you have low socio-economic status then those opportunities are few and far between. However, those born into wealth have significantly more opportunities and THAT is the main difference. Whether they chose to squander these opportunities or take advantage of them is irrelevant -- the deck is just stacked in their favor. The data coming from numerous studies on this topic can't be ignored.

I think we make our own luck in a lot of ways. Was it luck that a headhunter came looking for me? Sure. But I'm sure that headhunter went and contacted other people as well. But I'm also sure a lot of those people didn't get the job. Why? Because they didn't have the training or the experience. Why? Because they never bothered to get it and I did. I don't think that makes me better than them. I think that just makes me someone who positioned myself to take advantage of the opportunities when they popped up. There have been other opportunities that have come up that I failed to take advantage of myself.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The money behind the elections is paying their mouth pieces good money to return the Republic back to the good old days of gutting Law Enforcement so that corruption and malfeasance will once again flourish.

CFTC Head Gary Gensler: Congress 'Sides With Wall Street'

"Gensler might not be wrong to accuse Congress of taking Wall Street's side. Although the financial crisis did significant damage to the national economy, lawmakers have since had a spotty record when it comes to financial regulation.

In December, Republicans closed ranks against the CFTC, refusing to grant it any more funding even though President Obama had asked for the agency's budget to grow by more than $100 million. A similar even transpired in March, when House Republicans defeated a bill to further fund the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Conservatives have also stood in the way of funding the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a task force responsible for investigating the housing crisis that triggered the financial panic of 2008. They've also delayed the confirmation of several presidential appointees to key positions in the regulatory system."

 

[copestag]

hmmm where to begin with that......its pretty straight forward really

lets use a real world example to demonstrate

if you have a company policy that says you must cook the fries at a certain temperature for a certain amount of time...... you have all the tools you need..... you have the fries... you have a cooker..... you have a thermometer and you have a timer...... yet you still dont cook them properly

should your boss:

A) create a new department to cook fries while you do nothing
B) give you a raise so you feel better about doing your job improperly
C) create new company policies that state the exact same thing as the existing policies in hopes that the new raise and added help of a new department to do your job will make you feel better about not doing your job properly
D) fire you and hire someone who will do the job properly

consult the talking points sheet and answer that one for yourself

we do not need more regulations...... we already have regulations in place that solve the problem.... they just arent followed or enforced

we do not need to create new government departments to do the same job another department is supposed to be doing..... lets make the existing department that has all the tools it needs do their jobs or fire them

we do not need to throw more money at existing or newly created departments to reward failure..... Ive never been given a reward for failure in my life......... I think this mentality must start in the schools now..... 1st place and 17th place get the same trophy

we need to clean house and make sure the departments are doing their jobs properly

as the entire premise of your argument in another thread is that the SEC is failing in their duties and refusing to correct their failures...... it would seem to me that rather than more govt or funding or policies....... we need to clean house at the SEC and put someone in there that will do their jobs

in this regard there is plenty of blame to go around........ neither the Reps or the Dems have done a thing to correct any of it....... the Reps are happy to stay with status quo (no new offices, no new funding, but no results).... the Dems desire to expand the status quo (dont fix the problematic dept, increase funding to the problematic dept that doesnt do its job, create new depts at taxpayer expense and heavily fund them to not do their jobs)

of course theres no room for shared blame on a talking points sheet....... so lets follow the Obama path and blame the conservatives for the failures of the liberals

 

[A.Nonymous]

Or we could go the conservatives route and blame the liberals for the failures of the conservatives. This is my biggest problem with politics. It's gotten to where everything must be black and white. It has to be either evil or good. There is no in between.

I ran into someone on another forum the other day who argued that government should get out of every single thing they're in and just privatize everything because government is evil. I argued that while there are certainly many things the feds need to get their noses out of, there are things that are best done by the feds (roads, national defense, emergency services, etc.....) and would never be done well by private companies just because there's no or little money in it. He didn't buy it. If it's being provided by the government now, it's evil. Cut and dried. Black and white. No in between. This is the problem with our politics today. The solution is often somewhere in the middle yet no one even looks for it there. Instead we search on either extreme and nothing gets fixed.

 

[copestag]

Or we could go the conservatives route and blame the liberals for the failures of the conservatives. This is my biggest problem with politics. It's gotten to where everything must be black and white. It has to be either evil or good. There is no in between.

I ran into someone on another forum the other day who argued that government should get out of every single thing they're in and just privatize everything because government is evil. I argued that while there are certainly many things the feds need to get their noses out of, there are things that are best done by the feds (roads, national defense, emergency services, etc.....) and would never be done well by private companies just because there's no or little money in it. He didn't buy it. If it's being provided by the government now, it's evil. Cut and dried. Black and white. No in between. This is the problem with our politics today. The solution is often somewhere in the middle yet no one even looks for it there. Instead we search on either extreme and nothing gets fixed.

absolutely agreed.......... everyone is so busy trying to point a finger and offer their extreme polar position as the solution that they dont bother to take a look at the real problem and offer up a realistic solution

 

[gamblor01]

I think we make our own luck in a lot of ways. Was it luck that a headhunter came looking for me? Sure. But I'm sure that headhunter went and contacted other people as well. But I'm also sure a lot of those people didn't get the job. Why? Because they didn't have the training or the experience. Why? Because they never bothered to get it and I did. I don't think that makes me better than them. I think that just makes me someone who positioned myself to take advantage of the opportunities when they popped up. There have been other opportunities that have come up that I failed to take advantage of myself.

This isn't really what I'm saying. I'm saying that given a low socio-economic status, the opportunities provided are just fewer. If you're born into a family of high socio-economic status that you're just statistically more likely to be born into a loving, functional family. You're statistically more likely to attend better schools with better teachers. You're more likely to be able to attend and afford college, etc. Essentially, you're just more likely have opportunities to better yourself and your skills, so that by the time you reach the age that you should be starting a career -- you're actually qualified to look for a career.

I ran into someone on another forum the other day who argued that government should get out of every single thing they're in and just privatize everything because government is evil. I argued that while there are certainly many things the feds need to get their noses out of, there are things that are best done by the feds (roads, national defense, emergency services, etc.....) and would never be done well by private companies just because there's no or little money in it. He didn't buy it. If it's being provided by the government now, it's evil.

Sounds like someone I know who despite all of the evidence, refuses to believe that those of high socio-economic status are given more opportunities throughout their life.

absolutely agreed.......... everyone is so busy trying to point a finger and offer their extreme polar position as the solution that they dont bother to take a look at the real problem and offer up a realistic solution

I don't agree with a lot of what either one of you say but this is something I have said in the past and can totally get behind. Instead of compromising our officials are absolutely refusing to budge on anything and we wind up never achieving anything. It's just silly.

My wife's cousin does work in Detroit that causes her to go to both Republican and Democratic functions. She says that it is amazing that any legislation gets passed at all, or that anything ever comes out of these functions. Both of them basically waste all of their time blaming the other major party for all of the city's/state's/country's problems and fail to ever really offer any tangible solutions themselves.

 

[kathie63]

Look what happened here in Wisconsin just this month, money bought this election!

Just wait and see what happens next to our state. Well if the dems continue to hold majority in the senate we will be ok...hopefully! fingers crossed

 

[copestag]

I keep hearing the excuse that money bought the election .... blah blah

republicans knowing they could win put money into the election from national sources

how quickly we forget that the democrats knowing they had no chance in hell of winning..... even though they could have easily outspent the republicans if they wanted to.... decided to leave it to the locals to raise their own money

extremely high turnouts....... the people spoke... the MAJORITY won the election..... if I recall correctly wasnt 36% of the union votes for Walker..... if you cant even get your own people to vote for you.... no chance

 

[A.Nonymous]

Thought of this when I saw this article today. It's interesting that Blacks, a minority, have the lowest household income while Asians, another minority, have nearly twice that. I've heard people claim that this is because Asians don't get treated like a minority at all, but get treated the same as Whites. Yet Asians, according to the Census Bureau, average $10k more than Whites do.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

 

[saptech]

"It used to be, clients/customers first, employees second, and shareholders third, now days it's shareholders first, clients/customers second and employees third."

- Benjamin F. Edwards III, the popular former chairman and CEO of A.G. Edwards

 

[saptech]

Thought of this when I saw this article today. It's interesting that Blacks, a minority, have the lowest household income while Asians, another minority, have nearly twice that. I've heard people claim that this is because Asians don't get treated like a minority at all, but get treated the same as Whites. Yet Asians, according to the Census Bureau, average $10k more than Whites do.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

I'm at work and cannot view that link, firewall blocking it.

But I don't believe it. Stats has listed Blacks at the bottom of every statistics since 1776 or greater!

 

[TxGoat]

Again, detecting distinct undertones of pure jealousy here. I still don't see how it's wrong to work less and get paid more. The math just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess since you've mentioned this a few times I'll go ahead and answer your question. First, I want to go back a few years when I worked in the semiconductor industry. I was having a discussion with one of the Equipment techs right after a major outage. At the time I worked in the Engineering department. The bulk of our facility consisted of manufacturers that actually ran the processes, the 2nd largest group was our Equipment techs that repaired the machines, 3rd was my Engineering group (we investigated process anomalies and trends that affected yield as well as implemented processes) followed by managers and supervisors.

The Equipment tech spelled it out as directly as possible, "Without the manufacturers (paid the least), this place wouldn't operate at all, without the Equipment guys, this place could run maybe a few days, a week at most, without you Engineering guys, I'd say a month or two tops, without management, maybe much longer".

Now before anyone tries to chime in and claim that "Well without Engineers there would be no designs, without big daddy warbucks' funds to pay for the research...", the fact remains that the life blood of this country's economy was built on the blood, sweat, and tears of the common man/woman.

I have no problem with the big shot CEO of "Corporations R US" paying himself/herself a healthy salary, but where I do have a problem is when they pay themselves such a "healthy" salary that it cuts basic benefits or strips retirement funds from employees.

As an Engineer in the Semiconductor industry, I knew that our manufacturing team could make or break our company's profit. Even though my role paid me more than the average manufacturing position, I never took that for granted nor did I ever consider myself a better person because of my title nor my salary. As far as I was concerned, I was there to support the manufacturing group, not the other way around.

Look at professional Football, the quarterback is a vital position and generally is pays more than most other positions, but the best quarterbacks understand that the team isn't going anywhere without a solid offensive line, running back, wide receiver, or tight end.

One can be successful and wealthy without denying the most basic luxuries to their subordinates. I actually remember when Ebenezer Scrooge was seen by most as a villain, not a champion.

 

[copestag]

As an Engineer in the Semiconductor industry, I knew that our manufacturing team could make or break our company's profit. Even though my role paid me more than the average manufacturing position, I never took that for granted nor did I ever consider myself a better person because of my title nor my salary. As far as I was concerned, I was there to support the manufacturing group, not the other way around.

so since their job was more important than yours....... and they worked harder than you...... and your job was to support them

did you ever offer to take a pay cut so they could earn more?

 

[TxGoat]

so since their job was more important than yours....... and they worked harder than you...... and your job was to support them

did you ever offer to take a pay cut so they could earn more?

I'm not exactly sure where you got that their job was more important/less important than mine. They were more directly involved with making money for the company, and there was a ratio of about 20 manufacturers for every Engineer on site, but my salary didn't consist of 20x their salary.

My point is that NO ONE from TOP TO BOTTOM should think that a company exists to serve their needs alone. A company should be run with the intent to serve its customers followed by its employees and shareholders.

Companies like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital exist to bring profits to only a select group and that's it. If that's any indication of how he would run this country then he doesn't need to be in office since "Trickle Down" has proved a failure since Reagan championed it back in the 80s. Philosophers have always warned against societies with the wealth concentrations that only served a select few for a reason. History has shown that those societies never last.

 

[A.Nonymous]

My point is that NO ONE from TOP TO BOTTOM should think that a company exists to serve their needs alone. A company should be run with the intent to serve its customers followed by its employees and shareholders.

Why the F not? Anyone with half a brain (and you don't make $20 mil a year by being stupid IMO) knows that if you don't treat the customers/employees/stockholders right you don't stay in business. At the very least you have to treat them well enough that they don't run off to your competitor.

You can have your theories about how a company SHOULD be run, but the fact is companies have never been run that way. People are always going to look out for themselves. That goes for the guy pushing buttons at the cash register and the guy sitting on top of the heap. While you may not believe it the CEO of McD's has a rarer skill set than the cashier at McD's. So the CEO gets paid far more.

And I'll say again, if you think this is a major problem, then it's still a problem for the corporation to solve, not the government. Unless there is a law that FORCES people to do business with said corporation, any business that fails to treat it's customer's properly is going to falter and fail eventually.

I'm at work and cannot view that link, firewall blocking it.

But I don't believe it. Stats has listed Blacks at the bottom of every statistics since 1776 or greater!

I may not have been clear in my post. The link has Blacks on the bottom of the earning tree. What interested me is that Asians made twice what Blacks did and they are also a minority. Saying this is because Asians get treated basically the same as white people do in this country doesn't really explain it either because Asians averaged $10k more than Whites did. So, even if you assume that Asians and Whites generally get treated the same there's still that disparity. Do Asians tend to come from wealthier socio-economic backgrounds than Whites do? Is that the explanation? Are they "more fortunate" than Whites? Is there something else at work here?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Well, I would think the fact that Asians in the USA are generally of a background of people who were willing to immigrate, the fact that many come from the brightest and best who fled from persecution and fear (e.g. Vietnamese who helped the the anti-communist forces), and the fact that East Asians come from a background where people are pushed to work and study for ridiculously long hours with piss all reward. I guess the fact that Chinese, Koreans and Japanese people tend to be slightly more intelligent (at least according to QI tests which are dodgy) due to genes or whatever would help too.
If Indians are included in this set then that would reflect that a very high percentage of Indian immigrants are medical professionals.

Of course within this group (Asians), there are unwilling immigrants, people from poor and unprosperous backgrounds, people living in ghettoed communities, and people who are below average intellectual ability, or suffer from other issues (from anxiety to diabetes). Thus the state should help provide everyone with an opportunity by making basic services, education, healthcare and social provisions free and/or very affordable.

 

[copestag]

exactly as I thought....... its always easier to give away someone else's money

as for how a company should be ran....... a company should be ran to make a profit above all else........ otherwise it shouldnt run very long

 

[TxGoat]

exactly as I thought....... its always easier to give away someone else's money

as for how a company should be ran....... a company should be ran to make a profit above all else........ otherwise it shouldnt run very long

Actually, I don't see anything resembling a "thought" coming from your arguments. Maybe a "Just as I attempted to postulate per Faux News' programming" would suffice.

But, I'll humor you and attempt to describe what you claim you "thought". So your argument is that since I understand that my position as an Engineer was dependent on the people that were below my pay scale I should take a pay cut to less than their wage or equal? Lets see, considering the specialized training I was required to take, the hours in Chemistry, Physics, and other Semiconductor specific training, I'm going to say no. Not that when I actually worked in a manufacturing role I minded pushing a button here and there, calling someone when something broke. I knew what that manufacturing job required of me and I knew what was expected of me as an Engineer. I went to school full time while working full time in a manufacturing role, and during finals I even logged 84 hour work weeks because we were short staffed (I logged 84 hours but I actually worked close to 100 a week but due to state law, I couldn't say that I worked those hours).

Now do I think I deserve to make 100x more than my front-line workers? No, for a couple of reasons. First, it wouldn't be responsible on my part and second, I don't require to make 100x more than someone to affirm my self-worth. If you believe a man is measured by his salary or title then that's your prerogative. What you see as a successful man that pays himself gluttonous amounts in salary, I see an insecure man that's trying to quantify himself in terms of material wealth. If your definition of a successful life is material wealth then good luck getting there if you're not there now because it's only going to get harder if the GOP can put in place enough of their policies to make the wealthy wealthier and everyone else poorer.

Also, I took several hours of Psychology and I have learned that many people will try to align themselves with the GOP because the GOP represents the party of the wealthy and some people are so insecure that they think backing policies that favor the wealthy, it'll give off the impression that they're wealthy. Typically, it's a naive kid that's making less than $30,000 a year but thinks that he's just one big break from making a 6 figure income. How those cases tend to turn out, after a few years of disappointment, they go on some shooting rampage attacking some liberal group because they think that the liberal group is responsible for their situation, the latest being that insane idiotic coward from Arizona (from your neck of the woods I'm guessing) that shot Gabrielle Gifford.

Now I'm not saying that you're headed down that path, but based on some of your posts, you do sound like you're a little angry and think that those fighting for the middle class (just a hint, it's not the GOP) are fighting against you.

Now if for some reason, my posting pushes you over the edge and one day you find yourself without medication, I want to let you know that I'm really a GOP backer, more importantly a Tea-Party backer. If you want to find me, I'm the one wearing a wig shouting "Obama is a Socialist Nazi from Ghana". I'm looking forward to meeting you.....

 

[A.Nonymous]

Once again, people get paid based on the rarity of their skills. Again, baseball player makes $10 mil. Guy ringing up people at Wal-mart is lucky to make $10 /hour. Why? Because it's harder to replace the baseball player.

The difference is in how you see people. You see a guy making $20 mil a year and you think he's just someone who is a greedy bastard with an overinflated sense of self worth who is using his pay as a penis replacement. I see a guy who's making $20 mil and I see a guy who has given himself a rare skill set. CEOs who get fired or quit end up going someplace else and getting paid comparably which tends to rule out the idea that it's pure cronyism going on.

 

[TxGoat]

Once again, people get paid based on the rarity of their skills. Again, baseball player makes $10 mil. Guy ringing up people at Wal-mart is lucky to make $10 /hour. Why? Because it's harder to replace the baseball player.

The difference is in how you see people. You see a guy making $20 mil a year and you think he's just someone who is a greedy bastard with an overinflated sense of self worth who is using his pay as a penis replacement. I see a guy who's making $20 mil and I see a guy who has given himself a rare skill set. CEOs who get fired or quit end up going someplace else and getting paid comparably which tends to rule out the idea that it's pure cronyism going on.

What skill does a CEO possess that warrants his/her salary? Again I'll refer to that TV show Undercover Boss. How often does the CEO get fired when going undercover to do some basic task 1000 times a day? And then at the end of shooting they all have a good laugh, 'ah haha, you fired the boss!'

Like I said, I have nothing against someone being compensated large amounts of money, and hell, I don't begrudge pro athetes for making their millions, their skill and performance can be measured. if fans are willing to shell out large money to see their favorite athlete or wear their jersey then that's their choice, I mean fanaticism is a form of insanity and if fans want to part with their hard earned money then so be it.

 

[ylexot]

Also, I took several hours of Psychology and I have learned that many people will try to align themselves with the GOP because the GOP represents the party of the wealthy and some people are so insecure that they think backing policies that favor the wealthy, it'll give off the impression that they're wealthy.

Wow! Several hours of Psycology and you're an expert on the psychology of GOP supporters! That's strange though since I took an entire course on Psychology (40+ hours?) and it was all about the nervous system, senses, and perception (i.e. optical illusions), but nothing about psychological diagnosis of any group of people. Why? Because that is the very basics of psychology and you don't get into that other stuff until later classes. So, you either took many more than several hours of psychology, didn't learn anything about the psychology of GOP supporters, or had a teacher with an axe to grind.

Typically, it's a naive kid that's making less than $30,000 a year but thinks that he's just one big break from making a 6 figure income. How those cases tend to turn out, after a few years of disappointment, they go on some shooting rampage attacking some liberal group because they think that the liberal group is responsible for their situation, the latest being that insane idiotic coward from Arizona (from your neck of the woods I'm guessing) that shot Gabrielle Gifford.

Loughner was neither left nor right. Care to give another example?

 

[A.Nonymous]

What skill does a CEO possess that warrants his/her salary? Again I'll refer to that TV show Undercover Boss. How often does the CEO get fired when going undercover to do some basic task 1000 times a day? And then at the end of shooting they all have a good laugh, 'ah haha, you fired the boss!'

Like I said, I have nothing against someone being compensated large amounts of money, and hell, I don't begrudge pro athetes for making their millions, their skill and performance can be measured. if fans are willing to shell out large money to see their favorite athlete or wear their jersey then that's their choice, I mean fanaticism is a form of insanity and if fans want to part with their hard earned money then so be it.

You think business skills and the skills to pilot a business can be found on any street corner? Show like Undercover Boss make no sense to me. I am a computer tech by trade. I can do complex routing tables, VPNs, virtual networks and troubleshoot problems all through the network stack. I've got guys repairing my roof. I get paid more than the guy swinging the hammer on my roof. Yet there is no way in the world I could do his job. I lake the physical coordination, endurance, strength, etc.... If I was forced to be a roofer tomorrow I would be fired. This proves what exactly?

 

[TxGoat]

Wow! Several hours of Psycology and you're an expert on the psychology of GOP supporters! That's strange though since I took an entire course on Psychology (40+ hours?) and it was all about the nervous system, senses, and perception (i.e. optical illusions), but nothing about psychological diagnosis of any group of people. Why? Because that is the very basics of psychology and you don't get into that other stuff until later classes. So, you either took many more than several hours of psychology, didn't learn anything about the psychology of GOP supporters, or had a teacher with an axe to grind.

Loughner was neither left nor right. Care to give another example?

Please tell me ONE, just ONE cause that the GOP stands behind to champion the middle class. And please don't try to claim that debt reduction is a cause they champion. After 8 years of Bush, fiscal conservitism is NOT what the GOP stands for.

So, have you thought of anything that benefits the middle class that's championed by the GOP? I'm actually looking forward to seeing what you pull out of your.... Let me guess, the pipeline through the U.S., right? No.That's for big oil, and besides, when there is an enviornmental accident, guess who that affects more? I know, they're hard on illegal aliens. Sure, kick that illegal back across the border. We have many American "middle class out of work that are just dying to get their hands on all those cherry 6 figure jobs [\s] cherry picking $6.00 an hour jobs.

I'll wait to see what you suggest the GOP champions as a direct result of trying to help the middle class, otherwise I'll let you tell me then why anyone not in a preferred tax bracket would suppot the GOP.