The want or don't want conundrum

[murral stark]

I don't think he will ignore me. I am too easy of a target for him to call a "FOOL' because I am not a staunch republican such as himself. I too have seen most of the problems of this country created by republicans starting with Reagan. I just really want to know when the money is going to "trickle down" and when are the "job creators" going to create the jobs? I have read on here that it is Obama's fault that the jobs aren't being created. The so called "job creators" aren't doing it. Obama, nor any other president, regardless of party, can make companies hire people. That is up to the "job creators" to do. When they are good and ready, they will create jobs, and it doesn't matter who is in the white house. For anybody that is interested, my company is hiring every day. Pretty good starting wage too. $11 to start going up to $13. The thing that puzzles me is, with all of the jobs that we have open, we can't get anybody to come to work for us. I have Republican and Democrat friends that are unemployed, and I offered to get them a job. They told me no way would they do what I do for a living. They would rather milk out their unemployment and do nothing instead of work in a production job.

[menmon]

As 'cheeseheads' go, your as big into class envy as anyone I have heard of. What union do you belong to?

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Ever consider having somebody else write your posts?

From another Wisconsinite, a slightly different interpretation of what Romney had to say.

UB

Paul Ryan: “Under The Obama Economy, Government Dependency Is Up”

Written By:
Rob Port
Sep 19, 2012



While admitting that his running mate Mitt Romney was “obviously inarticulate” in talking about the 47% of voters who don’t have an income tax burden, Vice President candidate Paul Ryan points to the larger issue. Under Obama, we have fewer Americans who are self-sufficient and more Americans who are dependent on the government.

Via NBC:

“He was obviously inarticulate in making this point,” Ryan said in an interview with KRNV. “The point we’re trying to make here is under the Obama economy, government dependency is up and economic stagnation is up, and what we’re trying to achieve is getting people off of government dependency and back to a job that pays well and gets them onto a path of prosperity.” …

Asked if Romney regrets what he said, Ryan responded: “Oh, I think he would have said it differently, that’s for sure, but the point still stands. We have too many people becoming too dependent upon government because of the poor economic policies of the Obama administration.”

I don’t know how you argue with this. Is there anyone out there who will (publicly, anyway) defend higher levels of government dependence as a positive trend? Cutting through all the nonsense about Romney being a rich, out-of-touch plutocrat, under Obama what we have is fewer people working, and more people depending on the government.

That’s Obama’s record, and it needs to change.

You act as belonging to a union is a bad thing. Most folks are proud of their brotherhood of workers!

[HPL]

You act as belonging to a union is a bad thing. Most folks are proud of their brotherhood of workers!

You mean most "union members". I don't think most folks in the US are proud of other people's membership in unions. Personally I know of friendships broken when someone joined a union and, whereas, unions may have had a place at one time, and may even have a purpose now, they are way too powerful and have been demonstrably corrupt, even having had close ties to organized crime.

[menmon]

You mean most "union members". I don't think most folks in the US are proud of other people's membership in unions. Personally I know of friendships broken when someone joined a union and, whereas, unions may have had a place at one time, and may even have a purpose now, they are way too powerful and have been demonstrably corrupt, even having had close ties to organized crime.

If there was ever a need for unions there is now. Unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.

[starjack]

if there was ever a need for unions there is now. unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.

ha ha ha ha ha teamster regards

[BonMallari]

If there was ever a need for unions there is now. Unions are not corrupt and their power has been limited much by government. They do have lots of members money, but that is better than trusting the company with it.

Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

[menmon]

Watch too many movies

[menmon]

Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

My dad was a Business Manager and when he retired was the International VP for the 7 district of the IBEW (electricians). If anyone knows how unions work I think I'm qualified.

[charly_t]

Are you a member of a union ? because you have no idea what you are talking about...I am a member of Culinary #226, which is an affiliate of the infamous SEIU...

Bon, you're feeding a troll, vbeg.

[Pete]

Well, JD, whereas I think you have a point in the general thesis of your post, I believe that your chosen course of action is somewhat misguided. I would posit that the best course of action would be to fight very hard during the preliminary part of the electoral process to either make a third party viable, or to attempt to get a more suitable candidate nominated in one of the major parties. Donate time and money to the cause, etc. If you can't get them on the presidential ticket, work hard to get candidates from that 3rd party elected to the congress or senate. However, if you live in a state that is in play, and you feel that one of the major candidates is better (or for that matter worse) for the country (not the absolute best candidate possible, just better) you should vote for one of the candidates that could actually win (unless of course it is Obama ;-0) ) Sorry, this position may not be worded as elegantly I would have liked. May try to flesh it out a bit later.

HPL

That is an impossible thing to do for someone who is principled. Most people sit around and strategize and will find compromise even to the point of weakening. Such as voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
Some know that the only way things will change is to clean house and roll heads. What politician does anyone know who is capable of doing that. Not one. This nation is screwed and can only be fixed by people who are principled and are willing to go to war within the ranks to fix it. Unless that happens ,,its the same ole same ole,or worse.
Pete