Page 155 of 189 FirstFirst ... 55105145153154155156157165 ... LastLast
Results 1,541 to 1,550 of 1884

Thread: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

  1. #1541
    Guru
    LuckyDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Carrollton, TX
    Last Seen
    05-13-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,758

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    They could use it to make more jobs instead, since that is what this is all about. Maybe if companies and groups were donating less money to candidates and campaigns and parties, and rather using that money to hire more American workers and/or pay them better, perhaps the entire country could actually be doing better.
    If they are the big, evil capitalists those who fear them claim, why wouldn't they be doing just that? Hiring more workers to exploit and draw wealth from?

  2. #1542
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyDan View Post
    This should be fun.

    Public health and oil profits are related how?
    They are not, that is my point. Believe it or not, more people are interested in their health than they are with oil companies getting more profits.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #1543
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Therefore you believe then that you should pay someone else's retirement? Why not just get a name and send a monthly check?

    have no problem being forced into "contributing" to SS for your entire work life and then not getting anything back when you retire? Explain that logic?

    The real problem isn't SS, the real problem is when LBJ put SS on budget and used the surplus to fund other govt. spending programs. That has left Intergovt. holdings with trillions in IOU's as every Administration and Congress since has used that money for whatever they want leaving a shortfall now and in the future.
    The point of providing social insurance is so that those who reach retirement age without adequate savings will not have to live out the remainder of their life in utter poverty. However, if you are not in poverty and have a liquid net worth of over $500,000.00, not being able to draw from S.S.

    I understand you are not a fan of real economic analysis, but you never know:

    This study presents an analysis of trends in mortality differentials and life expectancy by average relative earnings for male Social Security–covered workers aged 60 or older. Mortality differentials, cohort life expectancies, and period life expectancies by average relative earnings are estimated. Period life expectancy estimates for the United States are also compared with those of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. In general, for birth cohorts spanning the years 1912–1941 (or deaths spanning the years 1972–2001 at ages 60–89), the top half of the average relative earnings distribution has experienced faster mortality improvement than has the bottom half. The sample is expected to be selectively healthier than the general population because of a requirement that men included in the sample have some positive earnings from ages 45 through 55. This requirement is expected to exclude some of the most at-risk members of the U.S. population because of the strong correlation between labor force participation and health.
    snip

    Regardless of the important caveat about sample frailty, it remains true that eliminating the gap in probabilities of death by socioeconomic status by lowering probabilities of death for lower-earning males would increase average male life expectancy in the United States. One important contribution of this study is to highlight that the segment of the male Social Security–covered worker population experiencing slower mortality improvement is large—that is, the entire bottom half of the population, rather than just a limited group of disadvantaged at the lowest end of the earnings distribution. This finding is consistent with research that finds that the link between socioeconomic status and health tends to be a gradient—with increases in socioeconomic status being associated with improvements in health throughout the entire distribution of socioeconomic class, rather than just being a function of extreme poverty (Pamuk and others 1998, 25). One should also recall that the sample used in this paper is expected to be selectively healthier than the total U.S. population because of the requirement that men have some positive earnings between ages 45 and 55. The most disadvantaged members of society are probably excluded from this sample; thus it is possible that probabilities of death for the bottom half of the sample are somewhat lower relative to what they would be for a sample representative of the entire U.S. population.
    Source
    Last edited by Kushinator; 08-25-11 at 01:20 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #1544
    Guru
    LuckyDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Carrollton, TX
    Last Seen
    05-13-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,758

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    They are not, that is my point. Believe it or not, more people are interested in their health than they are with oil companies getting more profits.
    And more people are interested in getting laid than they are in their health plan. There too, one has nothing whatever to do with the other.

    You said,

    And a voter that would give so much as thought of voting for a president who wanted to sacrifice public health to increase oil company profits should have his head examined.
    I ask again, what does the health of the oil industry have to do with the health of the public? In what ways would a president friendly to oil threaten the health of the public? In what ways would public health be sacrificed?

  5. #1545
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by SlackMaster View Post
    Just curious. You keep pasting this into your posts as if we haven't responded to it already. It hasn't convinced us thus far. Do you think posting it a tenth time will convince us?
    Are you kidding, without exaggeration, he has posted that at least 100 times.

  6. #1546
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyDan View Post
    If they are the big, evil capitalists those who fear them claim, why wouldn't they be doing just that? Hiring more workers to exploit and draw wealth from?
    And if trickle down economics actually worked the way some feel it does, then we would see much less donating of money to candidates and parties, and a lot more jobs being created.

    Big companies and people who run them aren't inherently evil, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of them do what's best for this country rather than what's better for themselves, including doing things like donating to political candidates just to get their own way. That money could probably be used to make more jobs and/or raise a salary or two or maybe offer affordable health insurance to some of their employees.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #1547
    Guru
    LuckyDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Carrollton, TX
    Last Seen
    05-13-13 @ 11:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    2,758

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    And if trickle down economics actually worked the way some feel it does, then we would see much less donating of money to candidates and parties, and a lot more jobs being created.

    Big companies and people who run them aren't inherently evil, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of them do what's best for this country rather than what's better for themselves, including doing things like donating to political candidates just to get their own way. That money could probably be used to make more jobs and/or raise a salary or two or maybe offer affordable health insurance to some of their employees.
    The obligation of a company is to it's customers, employees and shareholders, not the country, though in serving those three, it serves the country in which it operates.

    But I have to ask, if you want to see more employees of oil companies, would you agree to more domestic drilling?

  8. #1548
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyDan View Post
    And more people are interested in getting laid than they are in their health plan. There too, one has nothing whatever to do with the other.

    You said,



    I ask again, what does the health of the oil industry have to do with the health of the public? In what ways would a president friendly to oil threaten the health of the public? In what ways would public health be sacrificed?
    Are you serious? Cutting public health regulations adversely affects public health.

    And let's review Perry's record:

    "His record as Texas governor matches the rhetoric. He filed a lawsuit against the EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations on behalf of the state, a suit widely expected to fail. Perry has said that he prays daily for the EPA rules to be reversed. He has consistently defended oil and coal interests in Texas, notably dubbing the BP oil well blowout an “act of God” and opposing the Obama administration’s efforts to regulate offshore drilling in the wake of the disaster. He also fast-tracked environmental permits for a number of coal plants in 2005, cutting in half the normal review period. His transportation agenda similarly does not reflect any concern about emissions, as he did not compete for federal high speed rail funding and has kept state funds focused on roads rather than mass transit."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss=ezra-klein


    Americans dislike Perry for the same reasons big oil like him!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #1549
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyDan View Post
    The obligation of a company is to it's customers, employees and shareholders, not the country, though in serving those three, it serves the country in which it operates.
    Correct, and the obligation of a public representative is to protect public health from industry that does not have that obligation, as you just pointed out.

    That is why they are called public representatives, and not oil representatives.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #1550
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,054

    Re: Rasmussen: Rick Perry now up 11 points on GOP field

    Quote Originally Posted by LuckyDan View Post
    The obligation of a company is to it's customers, employees and shareholders, not the country, though in serving those three, it serves the country in which it operates.

    But I have to ask, if you want to see more employees of oil companies, would you agree to more domestic drilling?
    They do have an obligation to Americans. If they are getting government money and backing by screwing over the rest of us Americans with policies that heavily favor them just because they have the money to do so, they should be giving a good deal back, even if just to help themselves.

    To a point, I do, although I would rather see alternative fuel made bigger than oil. I don't have a problem with domestic drilling, but considering I had distant relatives who were being paid by the government (at least before 2000, not sure about now) to keep their oil wells closed, I think it may be more prudent to check those out first. And I do insist that they meet certain safety and environmental standards to avoid causing more pollution.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •