Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You may not like where I'm at but I really don't care. I've frankly never seen such a narrow minded bunch of people as you guys are if a person deviates from the LP liberal norm.>> Well, of course yes I have... on the Branson board. But outside of their disgusting religious bigotry, you really are two sides of the same coin. I will give you guys credit though for more intellectual arguments and the use of multi-syllabic words. But your minds are just as closed to considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think so, RT. In fact, several people here were asking you specifically to explain why the sudden shift - they weren't just saying "RT is a no good so and so now" the way the Branson folks might if they thought you were a "muslim-lover" (as you said); they were refuting your points (which is fair) and asking what changed your mind. You told them, essentially, with your personal situation, and that's valid for you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <A key quote "In other cases, lawmakers do it to signal objections to the details of a measure that they support in principle. " The last example in the article fits this nicely. (Not saying that it always applies"). The article notes that his 139 "present" votes work out to about 1 in every 31 votes.> Which means that 97% of the time he voted yes or no. 3% of the time he voted present, either to signal basic approval of a bill but trouble with some specifics, or perhaps to avoid ticking people off. Either way... 3% of the time vs. 97%? I'm sorry, I just can't get that worked up about that one.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But your minds are just as closed to considering a viewpoint that differs from your own.<< Why? Because your personal financial story didn't convince me to vote for Obama? Good Lord. If it benefits you, you're entitled to vote for McCain. Good for you, I truly wish you a long and happy retirement. You can vote for him if you just like his face, his personal story, whatever you like. But while it helps me understand where you're coming from, it isn't something particularly compelling to me to make me switch to Team McCain. Your explanation is your personal story, and it doesn't make the case for what is better for the country as a whole. And now you want to take your ball and run home, while declaring people here closed-minded. You know, everyone here has slogged through this 2-year long campaign, has considered the options along the way. Just because you had an epiphany when Sarah Palin was added to the ticket does not mean others are closed-minded because the tactic didn't work with them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But while it helps me understand where you're coming from, it isn't something particularly compelling to me to make me switch to Team McCain. Your explanation is your personal story, and it doesn't make the case for what is better for the country as a whole.>> I don't remember ever asking anyone to change their vote. I was merely explaining why I was voting for McCain. And I was constantly told that my explanations were incorrect and that my reasons were poor. My reasons were fine for me. I never said they should apply to anyone else. When it comes right down to it most people vote in what they perceive to be in their self interest. I am doing nothing different. I've reviewed the various threads and for the most part there was only one person who treated me really harshly, and that was just a continuation of prior behavior. I just decided it made no sense to continue. I'm not going to change your mind... I don't even really want to. And you're not going to change mine. So why bother with the arguments? It is not worth the stress. I didn’t say I was going to take my football and go home. I said I was not going to defend my political or retirement choices any more. That is certainly a reasonable decision for me to make.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The truth is that a lot of the time we form our opinion based on lots of small pieces of data, from lots of different sources. It's often hard to adequately remember and summarize them all in the rapid back and forth of a message board, let alone go back and find links that back up them all.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Could I get a link to this infamous "branson board"? I must have been out that day.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << My retiring early doesn't cost anyone a dime more than if I retired at 62. Retiring at 62 doesn't cost anyone a dime more than retiring at 65 unless I live past 78 which given family history I doubt I will. >> I have no idea what type of financial planning you have done for retirement, but generally retirees are on a fixed income that doesn't appreciate a great deal through the period of retirement. That differentiates this group from most people who are gainfully employed. While your fixed income in 2009 will probably make you every bit of a consumer that you were when fully employed, time will erode your consumption power with each passing year. Additionally, you will incur health care and other costs that make your ongoing life more expensive than it was when you were younger. These are generally the facts of life. Maybe you have a really impressive retirement plan that increases your income annually to match inflation and the same sort of wage gains that you saw during your working years. The majority of the population doesn't have that. This is why the United States doesn't have a bright economic future looking ahead. A nation of fixed incomes and people with deteriorating health is very expensive to maintain. I would love for everyone to retire early. It's my goal to have saved enough so that I can retire around age 45 with my own savings + military pension. That would be wonderful, but I also know that I become more of a burden on society than a contributor at that point. Those are just the facts of life. Sorry if no one has ever pointed that out to you before. << As far as contributing to society goes, the University will be able to hire two people fresh out of college for the amount they were paying me. >> Are they really going to hire 2 new people to replace 1 retiree? How long will those 2 positions remain before they get folded together? Most workplaces are looking forward to the Baby Boom retirement as a way to further downsize their workforce, not increase it. It would be odd for a place of business, even if it's a government funded university, to look to expand the payroll for a position that did just fine with one person for a period of years.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy And I still don't understand how McCain's economic positions are beneficial at all to RT or anyone else. He is going to continue the same crummy economic policies of GWB that have led to increased inflation and erosion of incomes across a broad swath of the middle class. If you are headed for a fixed income lifestyle, the last person you want running the economy is John McCain.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I said I was not going to defend my political or retirement choices any more.<< Which is up to you. But you brought up your retirement choices, no one asked you to go into that detail. People were curious as to why the about-face happened, now we know, and on we go. How would it go, a conversation here without defending your political choices? Poster A: I like Mccain. Poster B: I like Obama. The end. Everyone defends their political choices if they choose to post in this section. In other sections, people defend their favorite ride. Or DVC. Or Disneyland churros. And God only knows why anyone would defend Disneyland churros.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Could I get a link to this infamous "branson board"? I must have been out that day.>> <a href="http://www.1branson.com/forum/" target="_blank">http://www.1branson.com/forum/</a> You do not need to register to read, just to post. Frankly, don't bother posting. Whenever a new person comes in and immediately starts disagreeing with the McCain Mob they are banned as a troll. You would have to hang around for a while making fairly innocuous posts in areas other than the “Current Events Corner” before getting involved in heated conversations. Frankly, it is not worth the trouble. I hang out there primarily for information about the area... places to eat, shows to see, etc. If I had been smart I would have never become involved in the political stuff. Just like I should have never become involved in it here.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Maybe you have a really impressive retirement plan that increases your income annually to match inflation and the same sort of wage gains that you saw during your working years.>> Yes, I do. The University also deposits the value of your accumulated vacation tax free into a Healthcare Savings Account when you retire. For two long-term employees like my wife and myself that will be over $30,000. That combined with fully paid Healthcare for the first three years after retirement will cover our medical expenses. Our budget allows for continuation of the University coverage at our personal expense until we are eligible for Medicare. Not that any of this is really anyone's business, but you asked. I am certainly not doing this on a whim. I have a spreadsheet with anticipated monthly income, expense, and savings drawdown for the next eight years. I've run everything by my Financial Planner. They tend to be a pretty conservative bunch, so when he said he saw no reason why I shouldn't proceed with my plan I felt I was on pretty secure ground. <<Are they really going to hire 2 new people to replace 1 retiree? How long will those 2 positions remain before they get folded together?>> The University offered the Retirement Incentive Option because they want to redirect whatever money they can to hiring top notch faculty and increasing research. They have a goal of becoming one of the top three research universities in the world. Whether they will ever get there or not remains to be seen, but they are doing everything they can to redirect money in that area. So will they buy two new computer guys with my salary? No. The salary will be directed toward fulfilling their research goals. I hope I don’t sound defensive, but frankly it really rubbed me the wrong way to be told that basically I would be a leech on society. Neither my wife nor I have a college degree. We have worked our butts off getting where we are today. Let me tell you, especially at a University, anyone without a degree has to be twice as good as someone with a degree to advance. We have accomplished things that I think are pretty remarkable for a couple of people with High School educations. To then be told we are taking from society is more than a little irritating.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I still don't understand how McCain's economic positions are beneficial at all to RT or anyone else.> If you can't understand that many people think keeping federal taxes and spending low and not overburdening businesses with regulations keeps the economy growing, thereby providing jobs and/or a higher quality of life to more people, than nobody is going to convince you that Sen McCain's policies are going to help you. <He is going to continue the same crummy economic policies of GWB that have led to increased inflation and erosion of incomes across a broad swath of the middle class.> What's the basis for your claim about middle-class incomes? I seem to remember reading recently that the income gap has narrowed, and that real wages just hit an all time high.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Either way... 3% of the time vs. 97%? I'm sorry, I just can't get that worked up about that one.<< And this is the crux of my puzzlement at RT's approach. I really don't want to keep making this about him, but some people wonder why some of us don't get it. We don't get it cause it's not the RT we knew. This whole "Obama voting present" thing is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. RT decided on McCain, and has since clarified that this is primarily for financial reasons. Fair enough; it's not the approach I'd take, but I'm not facing retirement, either. But once RT made up his mind, now he's grasping at straws to make Obama worse than McCain. That's what a lot of us are jumping all over. If someone's going to try and pretend that voting present 3% of the time is a big deal, or any number other claims that just don't hold water, it's only natural that Obama supporters are going to respond. I've already said that I respect and like RT, but I will also respond when poor reasoning and logic is employed to defend McCain/Palin. That doesn't make me judgmental, elitist, or anything else.
Originally Posted By dshyates "spending low and not overburdening businesses with regulations keeps the economy growing" Like deregulation has helped many folks buy homes. How's that working out?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I seem to remember reading recently that the income gap has narrowed, and that real wages just hit an all time high.> You're always "seeming to remember reading" something... got a link? Here's one. It's from 2006, but I couldn't find anything more recent quickly, and at any rate a lot of people have taken big financial hits since then and unemployment has risen, so these stats may be a bit BETTER than the current ones: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=eae4ab9ab2ce13d5&hp&ex=1156824000&partner=homepage&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...f=slogin</a> "The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period. As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. " (snip) "At the very top of the income spectrum, many workers have continued to receive raises that outpace inflation, and the gains have been large enough to keep average income and consumer spending rising." (It's always important to differentiate average income - which can be skewed by outrageously high salaries at the top - and median income.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're always "seeming to remember reading" something... got a link?> "Incomes Up, Inequality Down" <a href="http://www.ftportfolios.com/Commentary/EconomicResearch/2008/9/2/incomes_up,_inequality_down" target="_blank">http://www.ftportfolios.com/Co...ity_down</a>
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <More of it though was concern about Obama's 129 "present" votes in the Illinois Legislature. Why the hell would he do that? Can the man not make up his mind? < I have been begging people here to listen to someone in Illinois and at least do the research on all the things he got'credit' forhere and hisreal record. Also to look at Emil Jones - his main sponsor in Illinois and a real bad man-who set the plate for Obama - ( you don't have to guess at this Emil will tell you so if you do the research) - If after all you research and read you are stillan Obama supporter - then that's fine- but gothru the stuff here and the state ofthe government in Illinois ( whereDemocrats control every aspect ofthe state - and wepay the highest gas taxes have the highest sales tax 10.75% in Cook County - oay the highest utility rates in the country and have a transit system that every year threatens shut down before they cut more service. Illinois government makes California's look like it runs like a Rolex --- Obama was a child of this system --and all the cronies here will latch on if he gets the big gig...
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ You forgot to mention that before 2006 and 2007, incomes hadn't risen since 2000. Great work GWB! Stagnate wages for 6 years and then cry victory when they finally catch up where they once were! What a joke! <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/business/economy/26income.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08...ome.html</a> Oh, and by the way, incomes are headed down again in 2008 -- along with employment and every other metric that might suggest a healthy economy. Great work Republicans! 4 more years of economic stagnation! Vote McHoover for Depression President!
