Reasons to Vote Democrat

[harpman1]

Your Minkness:

I'm not sure I comprendo your question.

"One per"...

Please be 'splainin to my most elderly self.

Some muchos & a gracias.

[mrroqout]

Obama " Empty Rhetoric We Can Belive In!"

[Mink]

Aug 29, 2008 19:51:52 GMT -5 harpman1 said:

Your Minkness:

I'm not sure I comprendo your question.

"One per"...

Please be 'splainin to my most elderly self.

Some muchos & a gracias.

Harpman1, let me remind you here:

Me: "Tell me how the Republicans have benefitted business in the last 7 years? Tell me how they (Republicans) expect to pay down the deficit created in the last 7 years? "

You: "With economic growth spurred by low taxes, reduced environmental regulation, and affordable domestic oil."

I just wanted an example from economic growth spurrd by low taxes, an example for reduced environmental regulation and an example for affordable domestic oil. One example for each reason you think the Republicans have benefitted business in the last 7 years.

Also , what is the plan the Republicans have for paying down the deficit created in the last 7 years?

No, this isn't "jeopardy", but good luck

[harpman1]

Okay, thanks.
First, lower taxes always spurs investment. From better tools to spec houses, wealth is being created through the free & open exchange of goods & services, and the risk to which capital is subject. Most win most of the time, but some lose some of the time. The net result is a higher standard of living tied to a steady economic expansion.
Does it always go up? No. But as Churchill said, Capitalism is the worst economic system on Earth, except for all the others. What that means is that there will always be sad examples of hard luck & failure, but in any other system, no real chance for success even exists.
And investment, tied to the basic belief that people will spend much more wisely than govt., is the most important element of capitalism.

Second, the standards for wise and sound environmental regulation of human activity, and the current system in place, are as different as they can be. The EPA and all it's little EPettes have the same mandate as all beaureaucracies; namely, to keep & expand their realm & power. If, no, when they are keelhauled & dismissed, America will be able to exercise it's wisdom about itself free of sadistic emissaries "here to help". Each time a judge is placed in the position of forester or cattle rancher, he blows it, and hurts good people & good businesses.
I trust the American people and the businesses they own & work at to care if their kids can work & live there as well.

Third, that's been flogged in thread after thread for months. I think we should use our own oil first & now, that it will have a dramatic impact on the market immediately, & you disagree.
That's cool, but I still hold it up as a legitimate & valid contention. When we drill, drill, drill, we'll see then what happens.

And that's one per!

[The New Guy]

still waiting for the definition of "working family".......

any takers?

[subdjoe]

That would the any family not in the political arena at the State or Federal level.

[crossride]

Aug 30, 2008 8:02:59 GMT -5 The New Guy said:

still waiting for the definition of "working family".......

any takers?

Any family that does not include a white male adult?

[The New Guy]

oh, these are good definitions. any more?

[harpman1]

A working family is a family that only votes Democrat.

All other families are privileged winners of lifes lottery.

[JustMyOpinion]

A family is considered a working family when, “All family members age 15 and older either have a combined work effort of 39 weeks or more in the prior 12 months OR all family members age 15 and older have a combined work effort of 26 to 39 weeks in the prior 12 months, and one unemployed parent looked for work in the prior four weeks” (Waldron, Roberts, & Reamer, 2004, p.12).

“Working families defined: average annual hours worked per year across all adult family members (age 18 to 65) exceeds 1,000 hours. Other methods of defining a working family have typically focused solely on the most active worker in the household. In order to see how the above definition compares to these single-worker definitions, three alternatives are generated based on ascending levels of workforce attachment. Alternative one: working at least 14 weeks for 35 plus hours per week, or working at least 27 weeks for 20 plus hours per week. Alternative two: working at least 27 weeks for 35 plus hours per week or working at least 40 weeks for 20 hours per week. Alternative three: working at least 40 weeks for 35 plus hours per week (Mills, Whitacre, & Hilmer, 2005).”

“A working family is defined as one in which total number of hours worked by all adult members of the family is 20 or more hours per week (Hargraves, 2004).”

“Working families are defined as families with a non-elderly, non-disabled head of household whose income is reported by HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] to be ‘primarily from earnings.’ Most of these households have children, but some do not (Sard, & Fischer, 2003).”

“Low- to moderate-income working families are defined as those who work the equivalent of a full-time job and earn between the minimum wage of $10,712 and up to 120 percent of the median income in their area (Lipman, 2002).”

“Today everybody is part of a working family. There’s no single model; it’s not the old stereotype of the male breadwinner with the wife at home taking care of the family and community needs. That situation represents less than twenty percent of people that work today. We have working families of all varieties, from the sole breadwinner to the majority of families where there are two parents in the workforce, not necessarily both working full-time, but with various working time arrangements. Other possible situations include single parent families where one parent has full responsibility for all work and family needs as well as families where parents are not in the workforce and the children are growing up on public assistance without any role models in the workplace. There are also other variations of working families, from people with partners who have children and are sharing responsibility for them to grandparents and other relatives involved in parenting and economic support. Families are very diverse. Likewise, workers are very diverse; some work part-time, some work full-time, some have situations in which there’s steady employment, and others work from time to time (Casey & Corday, 2006).”

Source:



wfnetwork.bc.edu/glossary_template.php?term=Working%20Family,%20Definition(s)%20of

[The New Guy]

so my wife, myself, and two kids working full time would seem to fit the bill of "working family." but somehow, i don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling that obama is going to give me a tax break. why not?

answer: because in his mind working families cannot earn more than a certain dollar amount. to me, a working family is one who gets their asses out of bed every day and goes to work.

[Mink]

Aug 30, 2008 1:36:50 GMT -5 harpman1 said:

Okay, thanks.
First, lower taxes always spurs investment. From better tools to spec houses, wealth is being created through the free & open exchange of goods & services, and the risk to which capital is subject. Most win most of the time, but some lose some of the time. The net result is a higher standard of living tied to a steady economic expansion.
Does it always go up? No. But as Churchill said, Capitalism is the worst economic system on Earth, except for all the others. What that means is that there will always be sad examples of hard luck & failure, but in any other system, no real chance for success even exists.
And investment, tied to the basic belief that people will spend much more wisely than govt., is the most important element of capitalism.

Second, the standards for wise and sound environmental regulation of human activity, and the current system in place, are as different as they can be. The EPA and all it's little EPettes have the same mandate as all beaureaucracies; namely, to keep & expand their realm & power. If, no, when they are keelhauled & dismissed, America will be able to exercise it's wisdom about itself free of sadistic emissaries "here to help". Each time a judge is placed in the position of forester or cattle rancher, he blows it, and hurts good people & good businesses.
I trust the American people and the businesses they own & work at to care if their kids can work & live there as well.

Third, that's been flogged in thread after thread for months. I think we should use our own oil first & now, that it will have a dramatic impact on the market immediately, & you disagree.
That's cool, but I still hold it up as a legitimate & valid contention. When we drill, drill, drill, we'll see then what happens.

And that's one per!

Thanks harpman1 for the examples, although I don't think they worked for the Repulicans this time around.

First example calls for lower taxes spurring investment. It seems more business and companies seemed to either close down or leave the country causing many layoffs or lost jobs.

Second example for reduced environmental regulation has caused more problems instead of solving anything. Maybe I need a specific here to better understand your point.

Third example of domestic oil drilling will not only take years for production, but will cost millions, not to mention ruin our environment. This one hasn't been implemented so how can you say it has worked?