Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums - Reply to Topic
Thread: Reasons to vote Republican Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-19-2011 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
Actually, my resounding answer is YES! While true we did not have the goodies you list, it is also true that the main reason for that is our technology as a species was not at that level yet so this is not a good indicator really. I mean I remember when Cassette Tapes first came out and the very first Beta VCR.......

What I do remember was that when I grew up, we had a good lifestyle. My dad worked as a machinist at Motorola, my mom did not have to work. We had 2 cars and an RV. We went camping every weekend and had a 2 week family vacation every year. We owned 2 and a half acres with a home and had good health care that we never had to worry about. On that one job, my dad was able to easily be in the middle class and he was able to save for retirement to supplement the actual retirement that was given to him by Motorola. Very few of my friends had it much different and I don`t remember anyone`s moms having to work. I also remember that Republicans like Governor Barry Goldwater of my state were not corporatist whores like today`s are and Democrats were the labor party not the party of special interests.

Today, that job he did at Motorola is outsourced overseas and good luck finding a machinists job that actually has the benefit package he had back then. How many families today can afford to take vacations like this and go recreating every weekend? How many families today can survive with just dad going to work at one job and ONLY working 40 hours? So we have video games, Blue Ray`s, cell phones and computers, big deal. They sit idle at home, not being used for 12 hours a day because the kids are in Day Care so that mom and dad can work their asses off just to make rent, buy groceries and keep the electricity bill paid to power them. This is to say nothing about paying the $500 to $1200 a month to buy employer offered health insurance that may pay 80% of the medical bills after a $1000 deductible. Sorry, I would turn that clock back 35 years without a second`s hesitation.

While the things you say about the sub prime mortgage mess have contain much truth, they do not tell the entire story. The programs for getting lower income people into housing began in the Johnson Administration in 1968. This program originally called The Fair Housing Act and then later in 1977, The Community Reinvestment Act, has been in place and reviewed in every administration since then. Reagan in fact, did a lot to get more people into their own homes through this program so I think it is unfair to blame only Carter and Clinton. I know some people hate Wiki, but it at least does provide the basics for which to investigate further:

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 70`s there was a maximum 90% tax rate and wealthy paid more in taxes than they do today if you look at the percentage of their income they paid taxes on. The middle class actually paid a little more too. In the 70`s, there were a lot more wealthy people than today. Sure, there my not have been AS wealthy as today`s top 1 percent but there were more of them. We certainly had poor people, but there were certainly not as many poor people back then.

I will give you that Carter was an ineffective President. But I will also stand by the guy for probably being the most sincere, honest, decent human being that we have had as President. That decency is probably why he was so ineffective.

You lay some of the blame on Clinton and sure, he shares it after all, the left has always said this about Clinton, "he was the best Republican President we ever had".... The guy had all of the qualities of any good Republican when it came to money and scheming. But I will say this about him, in the 90`s the rich got richer and the poor and middle class also got richer.

While this talk about the government screwing things up has truth to it, please do not turn a blind eye to the fact that the shenanigans of the banking industry played a much larger role. Just as in the 1980`s S&L scandals, it was not the government holding a gun to the heads of these bankers forcing them to take advantage of the system.

If screwed up regulations make it easy for me to work the system so I can break into your house and rob you, it does not mean that it is the systems fault and that I am not a criminal. I made the choice to do something that society knows is morally wrong. I am still a criminal for committing the act.

These banksters willing played these games using derivatives and credit default swaps to basically make huge profits knowing that at some point it was going to blow up. It is exactly a game of "Hot Potato". The goal was to write as many notes as possible to bundle together and sell the "potato" to the next investment firm. Everybody makes money except for the poor bastard holding the "potato" when it goes off.
I agree with you. remember I stated the banking industry is the one who injected the steroids.My point is, govt. provided the steroids. Banks are greedy. So they don't go investing in risky assets until someone introduces a foreign unnatural factor. Mortgages have existed for hundreds of years why now. Why now did the subprime mortgage scandal happen. Subprime mortgages are super risky. Banks didn't want to lend to them. The CRA started in 1977 and yes existed through the 80s and on. But it had no teeth until the mid 90's when Clinton reformed it.

You say the rich got richer, so did the poor and middle class. Guess how? Subprime mortgage bubble. So Clinton shouldn't get a ton of credit for that. How wealthy were they after their housing collapsed. Not too much. Those were definitely good times. Don't get me wrong. But the wealth was very illusory.

Unregulated Capitalism is a failure. While I am a Marxist, I am not even advocating that. I understand that America is and always has been Capitalist. All I am saying is that it needs to be the kind of Capitalism that Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or even Reagan advocated. Not this out of control unregulated scorched earth version of predatory Capitalism that is going on today and Republicans and tea baggers treat like a religion.
I'm 100% with you, except for the Marxist part I'm a capitalist pig. But I'm not a laissez-faire free market capitalist. We can thank Bill Clinton's administration again, for the deregulation. He worked with the GOP controlled Congress for this. Predates the Tea Party by almost a decade. Clinton signed repeal of Glass-Steagall with the GOP. His right hand man Treasury Secretary Rubin resigned just days after repeal, to go work on the very deals that were illegal just days before. Got rich off of it too. Don't hear about that much. Also the Commodities modernization act.

As you said earlier, Clinton did indeed resemble a Republican because of his deregulation that he championed. But if you dig deeper, he had a very liberal/democrat motive. The deregulation furthered his goal in pushing subprime housing. He did very Republican things because it furthered his very Democrat goal. He removed capital requirements from Fannie and Freddie, specifically exempted derivatives (Credit Default Swaps particularly) from the definition of Security to escape regulation by the SEC. These helped Fannie and Freddie buy up these subprime mortgages.

Jimmy Carter by all accounts was a nice, genuine guy, with superior intelligence. Unfortunately he couldn't handle the crisis given to him. Imagine a time with almost double digit unemployment and double digit inflation with a misery index over 20. Those were the 70's. It was pretty nasty.

Times were simpler than Snowolf, I take your word for it! I was still a young pup. But I can't imagine it was that great. I mean, just watching Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech and the crisis of confidence tells me things were not good then. The energy crisis with rationing created a lot of unease. I'm sure parents hid it well from their children, as all good parents do. And as Americans do we toughed it out.

That's why in the end, even though I vote mostly Republican - Occasionally Democrat (Clinton, Kerry in 2004)I dont' care much who's in office as long as there is split govt. 2008-2010 was flat out terrible with Obama in the White House and both houses controlled by Democrats. Thats too much unfettered power. George Bush in the early 2000's when they controlled Congress too. Too much power.

I want a split govt, with one party controlling at least one head of the 3 headed beast. There are good times and bad times, under both Republicans and Democrats. We had the 70's under Carter. Terrible time. 80's through 90's with both Republicans and Democrats. Shit happens. I dont' think the R or D after the President's name can control much of that.
11-19-2011 02:38 PM
snowjeeper I didn't say that all republicans are greedy fuckers, because some are definitely not. The ones that are complete morons probably aren't greedy.
11-19-2011 11:05 AM
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
If you're in the top 5% of the earners, then I can understand it. Understand that you're a greedy fucker that doesn't want to pay back into society.
And I can just as easily paint all liberals with one brush and say they are all lazy, generational welfare loving, leaches to society. The reality is it doesn't work that way.

You were saying?
11-19-2011 11:02 AM
metric I never understood why almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax, yet they get a "refund" (handout) from O. If you want the rich to pay more in taxes, certainly EVERYONE should pay something in taxes then. I can't stand these losers who own brand new cars, smartphones, big screen tv's yet they claim they are "poor" and pay no taxes.
11-18-2011 08:21 PM
snowjeeper jdang the problem is you are cherry picking numbers and taking them out of context.

Even talks about the 1970s! :P
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

I'm still looking for a great article with tons of data vis charts, didn't find it though.
11-18-2011 07:59 PM
dreampow Nice post Snowolf.

I can say the same for the UK in general although I don't remember the 70s because I was a baby.
I grew up in the UK in the 80s.
Whats happened in the last 30 years around the world is that mega corporations and big business has taken over. Its more or less running government and owns the media. The result is average peoples lives are way harder. They have less free time and less spare money and are being squeezed ever tighter.

Its just that mass media and mobile phones and Xboxes are keeping peoples minds so busy with garbage that many people don't realize it. Especially people who have by chance done well financially over this period are in denial. They will dogmatically cling to the illusion that its gotten better for everyone when the truth is things have gone horribly wrong.

Unless you are in the 1% that is fucking over the rest of humanity in which case things have gone according to plan.
11-18-2011 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by Extremo View Post
You should really read the articles I posted.
I will. Two Happy Hour events paid for buy contractors trying to earn business from my wifey are beckoning me though

I promise to get to them.
11-18-2011 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by snowjeeper View Post
In terms on income equality, in terms of middle class buying power, etc.

Income inequality isn't desirable, but what if purchase power of the lowest class rose over that same period. The rich got richer, yes, but the poor got richer too.

What was the buying power of the poor when inflation was double digits in the 70's?

The middle class buying power. Ah yes, the shrinking middle class. how many computers, cars, televisions, electronic equipment, did the middle class have back in the 70's. How much was gas per gallon in the 70's. Food prices, adjusted for inflation. What is the evidence the middle class today has less purchasing power than they did pre-Reagan.

More on the shrinking middle class. Ok. Yes these numbers are from 2007, pre crisis. The Crisis is an outlier, so it'll be a few years before we know the lasting effects of it.

Go to page 29. They tally up the total number of households that make money in each category. If you look at the row starting in 1981 you see the percentages of each category. Fast forward to the top 2006. In almost each category, and especially from 25k-75k they all drop. So this reinforces the notion that the middle class shrunk, if you define the middle class as earning $25,000 - $75,000. However, there is a problem. The notion that a shrinking middle class is bad requires us to believe that families dropped out of the middle class and into the lower class, >$25,000.

But if you look at the numbers for those earning less than $25,000 they all drop too. From 30.8% in 1981, to down to 25.2%. Huh? How does that work?

So those making 25k - 75k went from 50.5% in 1981 to 44.3% in 2006. So yes, the middle class shrunk 6.2% of all taxpaying households.

So we should see an increase in the lowest $25,000 but we don't. We see that it shrunk as well, from 30.8% to 25.2%.

That means 5.6% of households who made less than $25,000 moved up a class (defined by the $25,000 barrier) into the middle class. But the middle class also shed households, so 11.8% of households moved up over the $75,000 barrier into the upper class. These are inflation adjusted numbers.

So when Politicians talk about a shrinking middle class they hide the fact that the middle class was shrinking into the upper class.

Other than politically, How is that a bad thing???? Everyone moved up. So politicians are crying about a shrinking lower and middle class. Tell me how that is undesirable? Only in a spread the wealth communist society. Everybody is rich or nobody is rich (which is where it usually ends up in such societies).

In every society there will always be a pyramid. I'd like to see that pyramid smoothed out. Sure. I'm greedy, but I'm not selfish. I want everyone to be successful. Trust me. I love my fellow countrymen. But a pyramid will always exist.

Could we do more? Yes. But we also had a shrinking of lower class as well. They don't tell you about that!!!!! It doesn't fit their narrative.

Again this is pre-2006. We have to watch the next 10 years to see how 2007-now shakes out.
11-18-2011 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Snowolf View Post
I did not take this as Snowjeeper`s point at all. If there was ACTUALLY a viable candidate in this list of current misfits on the GOP side I would give them due consideration and I think Snowjeeper would too. I mean seriously, look at these retards...Perry? Cain? now Newt freaking Gingrich who was kicked out of the Speaker of the House position by his own party? Then take a serious look at what the entire Republican party has become! A group of extremist religious zealots who would dismantle every decent thing this country has achieved for their corporate masters. Ronald Reagan would not be allowed in today`s Republican party because he would be "too liberal"

Stop drinking the Kool Aid dude....

Obama, for all of his shortcomings and being a corporate whore like the rest is still the lesser of all evils...

I will agree that this is a sad commentary on our political structure though...
SW, I have always had respect for your post and your ability to keep a level head...The question still stands though...what exactly does the president do? It sure as hell isn't run the country. I hate to say it, but does it really matter who is in office...hell you could probably put Palin in there and get the same result.
There has been a lot of speculation and flat out inaccuracies thrown out in this thread as well as others re. politics. My favorite is the argument about greed, etc...ever see how many Democrats are billionaires...check it out...Warren Buffet???? Lets get it straight, you aren't involved in politics unless you are an egotistical greedy bastard...Republican or Democrat.
11-18-2011 04:54 PM
snowjeeper In terms on income equality, in terms of middle class buying power, etc.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome