53% of Americans Think Republicans are Too Extreme

[Samson]

People also believe that 1 in 4 are gay:

U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian

Polls have become a political weapon

I'd say more like 2%

Agreed. However, when you apply the media's obsession with "inclusion" in seemingly all aspects of television and cinema, is it any wonder that "mainstream straight America" has come to believe that the gay lifestyle is more prevelant than it is in reality? Remember, to Hollywood, perception IS reality.

50% of Hollywood is queer.

 

[AmyNation]

The precent of the population that is gay is anywhere from 2-10% depending on what study you look at.

You have a cast of 10 people, 1 being gay is average.

 

[kwc57]

Who cares what Americans think at this point?! They showed how much they thought when they re-elected Obama.

and apparently we now have computers in half-way houses. Great. Lucky you!!

And your mom's basement too. Great. Lucky you!!

 

[Toro]

People also believe that 1 in 4 are gay:

U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian

Polls have become a political weapon

I'd say more like 2%

Yes, I agree.

 

[PredFan]

In other news:

56% of Americans think that 71% of americans put 90% too much faith in statistics, 98% of the time.

 

[Dragonlady]

So contrary to what the Obama admin has been telling us, the middle class is NOT growing?

What would ever make you think the middle class is growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

Eroding middle class falls to 51%, survey finds - Los Angeles Times

America's Middle Class Shrinks Further. Now, Blacks And Whites Equally Broke - Forbes

However, no matter how you slice it, placing additional tax burden on the job creators and the investor class helps no one. Not even the government.

Neo-con myths. The top 1% are not the job creators you have been lead to believe they are. That was the Republican excuse for cutting taxes - to help the job creators, but just the opposite happened.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Don't Lead To U.S. Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes combined. Raising taxes on top wage earners does not kill jobs.

This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses.

You also said nobody works full-time in retail when I pointed out that Walmart only hires part time workers to keep costs down as part of wage suppression tactics. In Canada, people work full-time in retail as well as in other countries, and they used to work full-time in the US. That was before Walmart used their wage suppression tactics.

But keep blaming Obama for the economic woes, not Walmart and the other similar vulture corporations. Not those who use government programs to pad their profits.

 

[Samson]

So contrary to what the Obama admin has been telling us, the middle class is NOT growing?

What would ever make you think the middle class is growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

Eroding middle class falls to 51%, survey finds - Los Angeles Times

America's Middle Class Shrinks Further. Now, Blacks And Whites Equally Broke - Forbes

However, no matter how you slice it, placing additional tax burden on the job creators and the investor class helps no one. Not even the government.

Neo-con myths. The top 1% are not the job creators you have been lead to believe they are. That was the Republican excuse for cutting taxes - to help the job creators, but just the opposite happened.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Don't Lead To U.S. Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes combined. Raising taxes on top wage earners does not kill jobs.

This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses.

You also said nobody works full-time in retail when I pointed out that Walmart only hires part time workers to keep costs down as part of wage suppression tactics. In Canada, people work full-time in retail as well as in other countries, and they used to work full-time in the US. That was before Walmart used their wage suppression tactics.

But keep blaming Obama for the economic woes, not Walmart and the other similar vulture corporations. Not those who use government programs to pad their profits.

As usual, your blithering is all over the map....."Neocon Myths....Clinton Created Jobs....Wal-Mart...wage suppression tactics"




idiot.


Your stupidity is hilarious.

A. Clinton did not "create" jobs any more than any other president.

B. Its called Minimum Wage, and Wal-Mart pays it

However, your concepts of what "Investor Money" does is definately does the most to demonstrate your intellectual inferiourity.




Please continue. Your explainations provide great comic relief.

 

[Dragonlady]

However, your concepts of what "Investor Money" does is definately does the most to demonstrate your intellectual inferiourity.

I guess my entire education and a 40 year career in banking, finance and law have been a total waste. Especially my work in corporate governance, preparing documentation and filings in advance of IPO's, and documenting shares purchases, investments and lending. Who knew??

Oh, I marked a couple of words you might want to look up: it's "definitely" and "inferiority". I don't usually correct other posters' spelling because I often need to edit my own posts for spelling and grammar, but it takes a special kind of idiot to to claim another poster is lacking in intellectual ability while misspelling "inferiority".

 

[Samson]

However, your concepts of what "Investor Money" does is definately does the most to demonstrate your intellectual inferiourity.

I guess my entire education and a 40 year career in banking, finance and law have been a total waste. Especially my work in corporate governance, preparing documentation and filings in advance of IPO's, and documenting shares purchases, investments and lending. Who knew??

Oh, I marked a couple of words you might want to look up: it's "definitely" and "inferiority". I don't usually correct other posters' spelling because I often need to edit my own posts for spelling and grammar, but it takes a special kind of idiot to to claim another poster is lacking in intellectual ability while misspelling "inferiority".

You make a great secretary.

Now learn to make coffee, and get a job.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The precent of the population that is gay is anywhere from 2-10% depending on what study you look at.

You have a cast of 10 people, 1 being gay is average.

Don't feed the trolls.

They're reproduce and gawd knows, we already have more than enough.

 

[Dragonlady]

You make a great secretary.

Now learn to make coffee, and get a job.

I'm retired. I'm letting my husband support me until he's old enough to retire. He's younger than me.

I did my own coffee and and so did my secretary. I had one boss who made ME coffee because my time was more valuable than his - if I wasn't working, he wasn't billing (his words, not mine). Smart man - very wealthy. He specialized in bringing new products to market - obtaining patents and trade marks, setting up manufacturing, issuing a prospsectus for investors.

 

[Barb]

However, your concepts of what "Investor Money" does is definately does the most to demonstrate your intellectual inferiourity.

I guess my entire education and a 40 year career in banking, finance and law have been a total waste. Especially my work in corporate governance, preparing documentation and filings in advance of IPO's, and documenting shares purchases, investments and lending. Who knew??

Oh, I marked a couple of words you might want to look up: it's "definitely" and "inferiority". I don't usually correct other posters' spelling because I often need to edit my own posts for spelling and grammar, but it takes a special kind of idiot to to claim another poster is lacking in intellectual ability while misspelling "inferiority".

That's our Samson

 

[thereisnospoon]

Agreed. However, when you apply the media's obsession with "inclusion" in seemingly all aspects of television and cinema, is it any wonder that "mainstream straight America" has come to believe that the gay lifestyle is more prevelant than it is in reality? Remember, to Hollywood, perception IS reality.

I don't think that the media is obsessed with inclusion so much as they now have something new they can add to the story mix - openly gay characters and stories, which have previously not been available, or had been only hinted at.

Even with this level of inclusion, the number of gay characters and story lines is nowhere close to 25%. Usually it's one character in an ensemble cast.

Starting in the early 90's tv show writers and producers have been doing issues and causes.
First it was 90210 discussing the merits of multiculturalism.
UGH...
TV Shows have been portraying children out of wedlock as though THIS were the proper family structure.
TV and movies have been portraying alternative lifestyles as completely normal and have made out the intact family unit as outside the norm.
Hollywood has been bashing Christianity with impunity.
Your comment..."Even with this level of inclusion, the number of gay characters and story lines is nowhere close to 25%. Usually it's one character in an ensemble cast."...appears more like a complaint rather than an observation. As though every show should be 75% gay and 25% straight.
We have black liberals complaining that this movie or that tv show does not emplly enough black actors. And when blacks are acting, the same leaders complain the tv show or movie is exploiting blacks.
There is just no way to make you libs happy. You complain about everything. And when the complaint is addressed, you complain about the solution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So contrary to what the Obama admin has been telling us, the middle class is NOT growing?

What would ever make you think the middle class is growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

Eroding middle class falls to 51%, survey finds - Los Angeles Times

America's Middle Class Shrinks Further. Now, Blacks And Whites Equally Broke - Forbes

However, no matter how you slice it, placing additional tax burden on the job creators and the investor class helps no one. Not even the government.

Neo-con myths. The top 1% are not the job creators you have been lead to believe they are. That was the Republican excuse for cutting taxes - to help the job creators, but just the opposite happened.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Don't Lead To U.S. Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes combined. Raising taxes on top wage earners does not kill jobs.

This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses.

You also said nobody works full-time in retail when I pointed out that Walmart only hires part time workers to keep costs down as part of wage suppression tactics. In Canada, people work full-time in retail as well as in other countries, and they used to work full-time in the US. That was before Walmart used their wage suppression tactics.

But keep blaming Obama for the economic woes, not Walmart and the other similar vulture corporations. Not those who use government programs to pad their profits.

Well said.

The right’s adherence to the fallacy of ‘trickle-down’ economics is purely partisan, predicated on no economic facts.

The top one percent do not use tax breaks to ‘create jobs,’ they use such windfalls to maximize corporate profits and enrich shareholders; the last thing they want to do is create jobs, where an expanding payroll is a drain on profits.

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

 

[Dragonlady]

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

 

[RandallFlagg]

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

I have no issue with profits but I do have an issue with greed and exploitation. I want EVERYONE to do well: I want companies to make a reasonable profit; I want investors to get a reasonable return on their investments; I want workers to be paid a "living wage", that is income adequate to support themselves and their families and contribute their fair share of taxes. Then everybody wins. The way things are now are great for the shareholders and the corporations, but not their workers, not the taxpayers, and not the government.

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

 

[RandallFlagg]

Agreed. However, when you apply the media's obsession with "inclusion" in seemingly all aspects of television and cinema, is it any wonder that "mainstream straight America" has come to believe that the gay lifestyle is more prevelant than it is in reality? Remember, to Hollywood, perception IS reality.

I don't think that the media is obsessed with inclusion so much as they now have something new they can add to the story mix - openly gay characters and stories, which have previously not been available, or had been only hinted at.

Even with this level of inclusion, the number of gay characters and story lines is nowhere close to 25%. Usually it's one character in an ensemble cast.

Starting in the early 90's tv show writers and producers have been doing issues and causes.
First it was 90210 discussing the merits of multiculturalism.
UGH...
TV Shows have been portraying children out of wedlock as though THIS were the proper family structure.
TV and movies have been portraying alternative lifestyles as completely normal and have made out the intact family unit as outside the norm.
Hollywood has been bashing Christianity with impunity.
Your comment..."Even with this level of inclusion, the number of gay characters and story lines is nowhere close to 25%. Usually it's one character in an ensemble cast."...appears more like a complaint rather than an observation. As though every show should be 75% gay and 25% straight.
We have black liberals complaining that this movie or that tv show does not emplly enough black actors. And when blacks are acting, the same leaders complain the tv show or movie is exploiting blacks.
There is just no way to make you libs happy. You complain about everything. And when the complaint is addressed, you complain about the solution.

Very strong post! I congratulate you. You couldn't be more correct. Hollywood ( and the entertainment industry, in general) has always held to the idea that they are a "reflection" of society. This became utter nonsense the day W.D. Griffith began his career.

Hollywood has, in it's history, a record for lies and manipulation of the "truth" in order to manipulate box office sales. With the advent of television, it was proposed that this "new media" could be used to influence everything from the way we washed our dishes and clothing, to the way the nuclear family "should" look. It has been used for everything from supporting a new product (advertising) to the schools are children should attend (family values) to "mega-churches" (The Crystal Cathedral), to how we ingest our News and, more importantly WHAT we receive - and WHO makes those decisions.

Over the years, our "values" to a certain extent, have been spoon fed to us by a largely unscrupulous industry that puts THEIR profit interests into what sells and nothing else. It really is that simple.

Take McDonalds as a case in point. In the late 50s and 60s, McDonalds was busily making its "mark" in America; opening a record number of stores around the country. However, when they began advertising on ABC, CBS and NBC, they went world-wide and never looked back. They became successful by selling their brand to the largely White, middle and lower-middle class adults and children around the US and later, the world. They quickly became a monolith and everyone quickly began following their example.

Seen a McDonalds commercial lately? Then you will no doubt notice that McDonalds RARELY features white folks on their commercials. Why? They HAVE white America. They have now moved on to a Black, Hispanic, Multi-ethnic (whatever that is) demographic. Always look to the future.

Remember, with Hollywood, and those that control what is produced in LA and New York, THEY decide what is perception - and what is reality. Those decisions have been made and the future, unfortunately, doesn't include what was once perceived as "normal" America. Those days are dead and gone.

 

[Pasco08]

Well if this board is any indication then they are right.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's, of course, very kind of you, don't you think? And who do YOU propose, should be the arbiter of making those decisions; about who makes how much and when is enough - enough?

Since corporations exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits, and they hold the power over who works and who doesn't, labour law exists to prevent the unreasonable expoitation of workers. Basically, you can have reasonable laws regarding labour standards, or you can have unions.

In the absence of the former, the labour union movement grew in the late 1800's and early 1900's, when labour and safety standards were non-existent. There is now a huge movement afoot to unionize Walmart because of the exploitation of it's workers. Then the unions are planning on the rest of the big-box retailers.

As you said, those who don't learn from their mistakes, are condemned to repeat them. Unions or regulations - which would you prefer?

One would assume that reading your other humorous postings, That, of course, those decisions should be left up to an omnipotent and benevolent Central Government, shouldn't it. I mean, that's the only "fair and equitable" way to distribute others' profits - isn't it?

I love how those on the right think that the ONLY reason a company is profitable, is because the owner worked hard and made it a success. Any smart employer knows their success rise or falls on the backs of its workers and a successful company rewards it's employees first - before the shareholders, because without them, the employer has nothing. Sadly, there are more greedy employers than smart ones so that's where government regulations come in.

The corporations also use public roads, police, fire, and a host of other public services. They benefit from doing business in a stable, peaceful economy with a highly educated work force. Transportation systems are readily available to get their goods to market. The government has negotiated favourable trading arrangements and tarrifs for their imports/exports. Multi-nationals also benefit from having "American interests" abroad protected by the military.

American companies are successful because their government has provided them with the tools they need and which they aren't able to provide for themselves. As I pointed out in another, there are no large multi-national corporations employing thousands of people in countries without a strong central government, and none in countries with no income tax structure.

There are lots of countries in the world where you don't pay income tax - nearly all of which are oil-producing states in the Middle East, or tropical island nations who rely on tourism for their income. Andorra and Monaco are the only European nations with no income tax.

And who should pay the billions and billions of dollars that companies pay out ( from their bottom lines) for R&D? Marketing? Advertising? Again, one can only assume that in your "All for the collective and the collective for all" approach that the "People's government" would shoulder that responsibility, as well?

Unfortunately, that was the idea in the USSR and Red China. Hopefully, you see how far that got those folks.......

Why do you right-wing types always bring up the communist models? Regardless of what you may think, pure capitalism isn't working any better than communism, except that the fall of communism didn't crash the world's economy.

There needs to be a BALANCE. I know this is a foreign concept to right-wingers. In order for some to be wealthy, many must be poor. A social democracy recognizes that not all can or will succeed and provides a social safety net for those who don't thrive in a capitalistic society.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

We've already had two world-wide depressions because of Republican transfers of wealth upward. The Robber Barons of the late 1800's and early 1900's crashed the economy in 1929, and Reagan Republicans and his successors did it again in 2008. How many times does this have to happen before you right-wingers learn?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So contrary to what the Obama admin has been telling us, the middle class is NOT growing?

What would ever make you think the middle class is growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/middle-class-areas-shrink-as-income-gap-grows-report-finds.html

Eroding middle class falls to 51%, survey finds - Los Angeles Times

America's Middle Class Shrinks Further. Now, Blacks And Whites Equally Broke - Forbes

However, no matter how you slice it, placing additional tax burden on the job creators and the investor class helps no one. Not even the government.

Neo-con myths. The top 1% are not the job creators you have been lead to believe they are. That was the Republican excuse for cutting taxes - to help the job creators, but just the opposite happened.

Tax Cuts For The Rich Don't Lead To U.S. Economic Growth, But Income Inequality: Study

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan and both Bushes combined. Raising taxes on top wage earners does not kill jobs.

This idea that investors provide working capital reveals total igorance about what investing in the stock market does. Investor money does not pay wages or operating expenses. That comes out of income and operating expenses, not capital. Any business which has to dip into capital to pay wages and day-to-day operating expenses is in financial trouble. Investment pays for plant and equipment and capital investments - never wages or operating expenses.

You also said nobody works full-time in retail when I pointed out that Walmart only hires part time workers to keep costs down as part of wage suppression tactics. In Canada, people work full-time in retail as well as in other countries, and they used to work full-time in the US. That was before Walmart used their wage suppression tactics.

But keep blaming Obama for the economic woes, not Walmart and the other similar vulture corporations. Not those who use government programs to pad their profits.

Well said.

The right’s adherence to the fallacy of ‘trickle-down’ economics is purely partisan, predicated on no economic facts.

The top one percent do not use tax breaks to ‘create jobs,’ they use such windfalls to maximize corporate profits and enrich shareholders; the last thing they want to do is create jobs, where an expanding payroll is a drain on profits.

And that’s perfectly appropriate, corporations are in business to make a profit, not employ people. But that doesn’t mean we must enrich corporate profits at taxpayers’ expense.

All of this whining criticizing trickle down economics. To that I must ask, what is YOUR solution?
Here is a perfect example of how trickle down provides the most for the many.
North Dakota's gas and oil fields.
Once the region was opened up to oil and gas harvesting, the income levels of the people in the region have quadrupled. Housing, stores, lodging, etc...
The left despises trickle down due to their mentality of entitlement and instant gratification.
You people cannot stand the fact that there are those who have more than you. You see wealth as criminal.
That joeB 131 has actually stated on this board that he believes wealthy people got that way by "stealing" from others.
You people think you are owed something. So you petition government to further your socialist agenda.
Where did you ever get the idea that a tax increase created prosperity?
Clinton or any other president cannot create a single job.
And please, no more of this crap about Obama. In three weeks he's been on the job for 4 yrs. IN the eyes of the left, when does Obama take responsibility for anything? Only if things get well again? Don't even try that shit.