The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 97 of 97
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daydream Believer View Post
    It was about then the I had to tell her that I sincerely hope Obama can do what he's promised to avoid sequestration because her other part time job depends on it.

    Ummm this...another concept the Blue fails to grasp. I have let go of all of my farm help because of this mess.

    There are many many opportunities on my farm for someone to earn some money. Sadly now that Obama is back in office I will not hire out those jobs.

    I will do them myself or they won't happen.

    People are going to save and save more-this means things like horse show budgets, eating out, etc are going to be off the budget list-that means more restaurants and other small business will be closing.

    Why is this so difficult to grasp?

    BUT hey! How about that free birth control!


    12 members found this post helpful.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Sep. 18, 2003
    Posts
    4,603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katarine View Post
    I'm with you on the sitting on the bench part, I just can't quite sit on the D bench. I brought my own chair, I guess. I told DH Monday night that the Christian in Christian Conversative will ruin this election for the Republicans. That the fact that Mitt is about as warm and engaging as a wet fish.

    And yes, Karl Rove is a bad man. I'm with you there. But he's not 'the' party. Is it time he left the room? Yup.
    No, he's not the party, nor is the conservative Christian wing. But ... unfortunately for the party, anyone who runs or wants to be re-elected has to take them into consideration in everything they do or risk being labeled as a RINO. I could give you a lot of examples, but you know what I mean.

    When I was growing up and until about 25 years ago (I've been voting a long LONG time), the Republican party stood for fiscal conservatism, a strong military and tough, but fair foreign policy. Now I don't know what it stands for.
    __________________________
    "... if you think i'm MAD, today, of all days,
    the best day in ten years,
    you are SORELY MISTAKEN, MY LITTLE ANCHOVY."


    5 members found this post helpful.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct. 16, 2008
    Location
    Central Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,270

    Default

    LOL, Noms. Well said, well articulated, exhuming professionalism, spicy while managing to keep a bit of humor. What a stark contrast from the red states letter, which is nothing but ass. Maybe something to do with the difference between the Red and Blue whether they focus more on education or kissing up criminals?


    6 members found this post helpful.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daydream Believer View Post

    I had a conversation yesterday that sort of summed up all the frustration that I feel and many others who voted for Romney feel. I voted for my livelihood/home and for the person who I felt could help the economy the most and get people back to work as Obama's stated agenda is to cut Defense spending dramatically..which of course means those who work in defense will now have to make a living some other way...just like coal and all those who support that industry. We all know with a real unemployment rate of over 14% that doing that isn't going to be easy. So anyway, the stakes are pretty high..big issues all of them.
    I have an honest question because I don't understand. Someone mentioned earlier, and quite disrespectfully, that the government funds defense but does not create jobs. So, the government is going to cut defense spending and therefore people in the industry are afraid of losing their jobs.

    I feel like one of the most difficult decisions in considering defense spending is not our actual defense but the fact that there are so many people (many highly paid, white collar) who would be tossed out on the streets.

    How is the government not creating jobs with defense spending?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcher View Post
    I have an honest question because I don't understand. Someone mentioned earlier, and quite disrespectfully, that the government funds defense but does not create jobs. So, the government is going to cut defense spending and therefore people in the industry are afraid of losing their jobs.

    I feel like one of the most difficult decisions in considering defense spending is not our actual defense but the fact that there are so many people (many highly paid, white collar) who would be tossed out on the streets.

    How is the government not creating jobs with defense spending?
    Yes you are right,defense spending is a large job creator, it benefits all Americans by making the country safe.

    My opinion is that Obama believes defense budget is bloated and open to serious cuts. But that would mean a lot of folks would lose their jobs.

    What he does not want to cut is the Entitlement spending, that part of the fed budget is close to $1 trillion per year. That just happens to be pretty close to the amount of annual deficit. SS, medicare spending is probably over 2/3 of the trillion spending. Someone is going to have to deal with this at some point.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,670

    Default

    The government's job is not to create private sector jobs.

    The government's job is to provide for a military.

    The folks griping about the government NOT creating jobs for them aren't going to to be the ones entering the military or working defense jobs by the droves. They're griping about the lack of private sector jobs, not the creation of defense jobs. Angry because the military folks and those working in defense have had jobs, while so many of the college educated folks haven't been able to find work in their fields. Or for salaries that will cover cost of living and student debt.

    I well understand that fear and frustration...I'd be scared and pissed too if I went tens of thousands in debt for a college degree and then couldn't get a job doing what I trained for or a job that will cover the extra massive debt AND be capable of covering living expenses. (and keeping my horses, after all this is an equine BB and most of us have horses)

    But since college has become The Thing for so many more people than in the past, there just aren't enough jobs to cover the graduates every year. Add in the crushing economy, jobs going overseas, jobs being downsized, etc...it's scary out there.

    However you can't have the government creating high salary jobs so that all the graduates get the jobs they need to pay off their debt and live on.

    Now these same folks are feeling "better" a bit because the defense related jobs may/will go too. Hoping some of that money from those jobs gets rerouted to private sector jobs so they can find a well paying job, pay off debt, have a home and the extras this country has gotten used to. (every bell, whistle and electronic and horses)

    Yeah, we know. Many people dislike the military. No, not hate it. It's the in thing to be all "I support the soldiers!" and display flags, etc. They like to repeat the "bring them home!" It's the PC thing to be for.

    Go ask the military overseas what THEY want. Polls taken among them show an overwhelming "keep us where we're needed."

    Support the soldiers...but cut their jobs! And their pay! I went to college and should have a job, they enlisted and don't need their $19k per year to protect people and enable me to live in a free country. (that we're voting to remove freedoms from) Not a single "Let's RAISE their pay! Let's fund more equipment and safety measures for them!" to show actual care. Care is only given if/when it doesn't inconvenience them.

    So no...it's not the same thing to create/fund the military/defense as it is to create private sector jobs. It's an "if you;'re funding them, why not us???" complaint.

    So why not enlist? Health, vaca, job security, housing, dental, eye, free training AND 100% tuition coverage. Also better options of being hired after active duty. Ya know...*really* support those military people instead of lip service.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    8 members found this post helpful.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2008
    Location
    SE, PA
    Posts
    1,074

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LMH View Post
    Ummm this...another concept the Blue fails to grasp. I have let go of all of my farm help because of this mess.

    There are many many opportunities on my farm for someone to earn some money. Sadly now that Obama is back in office I will not hire out those jobs.

    I will do them myself or they won't happen.

    People are going to save and save more-this means things like horse show budgets, eating out, etc are going to be off the budget list-that means more restaurants and other small business will be closing.

    Why is this so difficult to grasp?

    BUT hey! How about that free birth control!
    Exactly!! DH & I both work full time jobs AND try to run a boarding/lesson/training business. We have both often worked two jobs a piece just to get ahead. We didn't buy a house above our means and we only buy what we can afford. Yet, we are now hearing that we are "privledged" and must be expected to pay more in taxes etc. So where is the incentive to do well and be fiscally responsible? If you bust you a$$ and get to a certain economic point, you get smacked in the face. It's the "ribbons for all" no matter how well you really did mentality.
    Our horses know our secrets; we braid our tears into their manes and whisper our hopes into their ears.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Oct. 8, 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    9,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noms View Post
    SS, medicare spending is probably over 2/3 of the trillion spending. Someone is going to have to deal with this at some point.
    And this means a lot of jobs too.

    No matter where they cut/trim/streamline: SOMEONE is going to be adversely affected. Is my job worth less than someone else's because I make sure old people get their mail from SS, and they shuffle paperwork for a weapons development program?

    There's no way to make everybody really happy. And anytime you talk about cuts, SOMEONE is going to hurt as a result. Remember that deep cuts or changes to entitlement programs also mean jobs.


    The reality is that the defense budget IS bloated. There are redundancies, money being spent on things that don't actually make us safer, and lots of bureaucracy. The entitlement systems are also bloated. There are redundancies, money being spent on things that don't help the citizens of the country, and lots of bureaucracy. Cuts, or at least streamlining, are needed in both sectors. That likely will mean job loss. And it sucks. I guess I'm tired of defense being treated as a kind of sacred cow - I don't care what your party affiliation is, there are problems there that need to be addressed.
    "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

    My CANTER blog.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jul. 12, 2010
    Posts
    1,033

    Default

    This.

    It astonishes me that anyone could have been so fooled by the mainstream media about the women's rights thing.

    Ok, yes, Romney not a fan of Roe V Wade, but really? I guess people really thought that was more important to him than 23 million people out of work, trillions in debt, al Qeada laughing at us over 4 dead Americans, etc., etc.
    And, why exactly should Planned PArent get to have all that government money to perfom almost 42% of all the abortions performed in this country?

    I am pro choice, but come on.
    Also, I wonder how many wnet to the polls thinking that Romney wanted to run Planned Parenthood out of business, and that planned parenthood did mammograms as Obama said?

    Roe V Wade:
    #3. On Roe v. Wade. Here’s how the Dispatch framed his response. “He conceded that the country is not ready to amend the Constitution to repeal the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, so he would not push for such a change.” Then the newspaper quoted Romney directly.

    “That’s not where America is now,” he said. “I would love us to be in a situation where the American people decide let’s not have abortion. But that’s not where we are. That’s why I think the most effective next step is to have the court return the decision.”

    Romney also said, “And it is my preference that would return to the states and to the people and their elected representatives the issue of abortion–as opposed to having the federal government impose, the Supreme Court impose its view on a one-vote majority. But that’s something that will be up to the court. That’s not something I can decide as president, that’s something which the court would have to decide.”


    We, too are faced with pulling in our horns even more. My husband, a small business owner, will forgo addint the two full time employees he planned to hire this year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daydream Believer View Post
    I'm sorry to hear you are in a similar situation. My husband is a retired Army officer as well and his skills are somewhat hard to change at 53 years old. No idea what we'll do if this happens. There are a lot of other things to consider such as our animals and we all know the condition of the horse industry.

    I had a conversation yesterday that sort of summed up all the frustration that I feel and many others who voted for Romney feel. I voted for my livelihood/home and for the person who I felt could help the economy the most and get people back to work as Obama's stated agenda is to cut Defense spending dramatically..which of course means those who work in defense will now have to make a living some other way...just like coal and all those who support that industry. We all know with a real unemployment rate of over 14% that doing that isn't going to be easy. So anyway, the stakes are pretty high..big issues all of them.

    So I go out yesterday and run errands and am confronted by a young woman I know pretty well. She works for me part time. She is 26, single but lives with a boyfriend and lives in her parents home as they have no means to move out and get their own place, she is college educated but can only find a part time job making $10/hr. So she tells me she can't understand why people are so upset that they lost...in her words it's "like a funeral" and that a friend of hers is not speaking to her any more due to her vote for Obama. She tells me she voted not for jobs or higher pay or a better economy or any of that but for abortion rights which she may or may not need one day. She seems to not care about what will happen one day when Mommy and Daddy can't take care of her and she can't make enough to house and feed herself. I just told her that while I understand that her issue might be important to her a lot of people have their entire livelihoods on the line and now feel a lot more threatened than they did before. I get a blank look. It was about then the I had to tell her that I sincerely hope Obama can do what he's promised to avoid sequestration because her other part time job depends on it. I got an odd look from her and I think the importance of this election finally sunk in. I hope so...

    I guess that sums up a lot of the frustration. I know I'm no more deserving than anyone else to have a home and a livelihood but we have worked so very hard to get where we are over our lifetimes. I think Romney understood that it's stupid to shoot off your foot to spite your toe in issues like coal and defense and putting millions more out of work, but I get the impression that Obama simply does not care how many more people he bankrupts on his way to achieving his social agenda.
    Last edited by redalter; Nov. 9, 2012 at 01:03 PM. Reason: thoughts


    8 members found this post helpful.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct. 1, 2004
    Location
    Magnolia, TX
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcher View Post
    I have an honest question because I don't understand. Someone mentioned earlier, and quite disrespectfully, that the government funds defense but does not create jobs. So, the government is going to cut defense spending and therefore people in the industry are afraid of losing their jobs.

    I feel like one of the most difficult decisions in considering defense spending is not our actual defense but the fact that there are so many people (many highly paid, white collar) who would be tossed out on the streets.

    How is the government not creating jobs with defense spending?
    Defense of the nation is a specific role assigned to government. It's one of the few areas our government should be spending. It directly creates jobs (military) and indirectly creates jobs (defense contractors). Defense contractors are private sector companies, who bid on the contracts and then do what they have to do (i.e., hire manpower) to complete the scope of work. But it is not the government's role to tell the contractor whom to hire, how many, etc., nor it is the government's role to hire contractors just to put people in work. The government's concern is (should be) obtaining the product(s) to adequately defend the country, whereas filling jobs is the contractor's concern on an as-needed basis. Cuts to spending cut the need, ergo cutting the jobs.
    Jer 29: 11-13


    4 members found this post helpful.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2008
    Location
    SE, PA
    Posts
    1,074

    Default

    Just remembered this and it pretty much sums it up:

    An Educational Political Joke

    Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.


    During our friendly conversation, I asked their little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.


    She said she wanted to be President some day.


    Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”


    She replied… “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”
    Her parents beamed with pride!


    Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her.


    What do you mean?” she replied.


    So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”


    She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”


    I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”


    Her parents aren’t speaking to me anymore.
    Our horses know our secrets; we braid our tears into their manes and whisper our hopes into their ears.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    NorthEast
    Posts
    24,670

    Default

    The reality is that the defense budget IS bloated. There are redundancies, money being spent on things that don't actually make us safer, and lots of bureaucracy. The entitlement systems are also bloated. There are redundancies, money being spent on things that don't help the citizens of the country, and lots of bureaucracy. Cuts, or at least streamlining, are needed in both sectors. That likely will mean job loss. And it sucks. I guess I'm tired of defense being treated as a kind of sacred cow - I don't care what your party affiliation is, there are problems there that need to be addressed
    Agreed. There are way too many screw ups in defense spending. That does need to be looked into and a hatchet taken to those who are orchestrating the skimming, bloating and pocket lining. It's ridiculous.

    However it's just like everything else that is run by the government...get ANYTHING run by a bunch of politics of *either* party and watch the pocket lining, lying and skimming commence. I think all government programs should be treated like any business and have outside streamliners brought in to fix the fark ups and then any and all that were complicit in all the illegal goings on to be punished. Instead of elected or re-elected.

    The difference between them seems to be calling defense the sacred cow that's screwed up and needs to be fixed but heartily defending other government funding as "untouchable" such as the help and hand out sectors. IMO, every single one needs outside NON-politicians monitoring them and repairing what red and blue politicians break. None are untouchable.
    You jump in the saddle,
    Hold onto the bridle!
    Jump in the line!
    ...Belefonte


    4 members found this post helpful.

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Sep. 19, 2008
    Location
    Half past the point of oblivion
    Posts
    925

    Default

    You know what I'm really sick and f-ing tired of? Republicans who scream and cry that Democrats will bankrupt the country and that Democrats refuse to have any fiscal responsibility and Republicans watch the bank and worry about paying the debt.

    Well, I call that bullshit. Conservatives only want to watch the spending when it goes to help out people. They'll spend every damned dollar they can beg, borrow or steal to wage war on half an excuse, and then the billionaires who profit from war will reinvest that money to get someone elected who will keep their companies profitable.

    "Look how much Obamacare is going to cost" they cry. And the minute I ask how much money (and lives) we've spent in Iraq/Afghanistan they say I must be soft on terror or that Obama is a Muslim or some other bullshit. And I'm a vet, I'm not anti-war but we haven't had just cause, and no one is winning except defense contractors. Anyone remember DDE's warning about the military-industrial complex?

    When I say I'm a moderate what I mean is I swing way left on some things and way right on others. I'm so sick of the nastiness on both sides. And I'm really sorry I was bored enough to open this thread. I'm pretty carefully not reading posters names so I can continue to respect you in a few weeks. And that is people on both sides, BTW.
    Holy crap, how does Darwin keep missing you? ~Lauruffian


    5 members found this post helpful.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Aug. 4, 2011
    Posts
    1,668

    Default

    Obama has no fiscal responsibility, he has not lead the budget process at any time since he has been elected.

    He will continue to add to the US debt, it is $16 trillion, it could be $20 trillion by the time he leaves office. At that point the INTEREST that we owe on that debt will be clost to $1 trillion per year.

    Obama ran his reelection on social issues, not the economy, so I call bs on him and democrats because, even if he taxed 100% of the income on the 1% it would barely make a dent, barely make a dent.

    SO the ONLY option is to cut spending, cut spending, and raise taxes on EVERYONE.


    ETA: I read that a conservative estimate of the total cost of both Bush wars was $2 - $3 Trillion. So reps did not beg borrow steal as much as Obama did in the first 4 years he was prez.
    Last edited by Noms; Nov. 9, 2012 at 01:35 PM. Reason: ETA


    8 members found this post helpful.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,097

    Default

    Sorry that we liberals won't tolerate your intolerance, conservatives.
    "A horse gallops with his lungs, perseveres with his heart, and wins with his character." - Tesio


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sketcher View Post
    I have an honest question because I don't understand. Someone mentioned earlier, and quite disrespectfully, that the government funds defense but does not create jobs. So, the government is going to cut defense spending and therefore people in the industry are afraid of losing their jobs.

    I feel like one of the most difficult decisions in considering defense spending is not our actual defense but the fact that there are so many people (many highly paid, white collar) who would be tossed out on the streets.

    How is the government not creating jobs with defense spending?
    Well, yes because we have a government, quite a few jobs are created servicing the gov't and that includes the military which most people think is necessary. The military is a branch of the federal gov't. Obviously having a military requires support personnel as does any facet of the gov't but it's not the same thing as throwing stimulus money around hoping it helps jobs become created. I'll address that more in a bit. So increase or decrease the gov't in scope/size and you have more or less jobs but keep in mind those jobs are overhead and not revenue producing in any sense such as you get in the private sector. That is what that person meant when they said gov't is a taker and not a giver. All those entitlements (except the earned ones) were funded by taking from someone else either by taxes or by borrowing to give to someone else. I'm talking welfare...ie food stamps, etc...

    In our case, my husband is not a government employee directly. He works in a small company, a fully owned subsidiary of Boeing, that was created by and made up of nearly all former military..many retired NCO's and officers. That was by design as the company contracts to support the military with various software programs and has people stationed all over the world supporting our military operations. These people, with their experience, understand already how the military works and can relate and interact with them effectively. His company has already survived a bunch of layoffs and cuts as the economy got tougher and tougher in the last four years but this industry is highly competitive and if defense is cut, there are just that many fewer contracts out there. To say the least there are a lot of scared people here in Hampton Roads area which has a lot of these sort of people as well as millions of others who work directly for the government and in the shipyards building navy ships. Sequestration and heavy defense cuts could totally destroy the economy here and there are not many other jobs to be had..so where do these unemployed people go next? I have no idea...

    I often wondered how spending the green energy stimulus money the way they did was really going to work? It was a "if you build it, they will come" sort of thinking...build Solyndra and battery companies but if you don't have a market yet for what they are offering, what point is there in creating it? That is a good example of gov't trying to create jobs that failed and failed in a big way.

    Instead wouldn't it have made a whole lot more sense to use stimulus money to try and give households across America, as many as possible, some sort of "green" energy equipment...a solar panel, a solar hot water heater, a wind turbine, geothermal, etc... I haven't crunched the numbers but 90 billion would have paid for a LOT of households to have some sort of green energy. What I think would have happened next is several things...people would have saved money on their energy bills, more businesses would have sprung up to service this new opportunity, energy would have been saved and people would realize this is a GOOD thing and could have used their savings from this and earned income to invest in more. THEN bigger operations could have sprung up like Solyndra using private equity and not taxpayer money or borrowed capital and we could really have jumpstarted a green energy revolution. To me, this would have been a much smarter answer than the gov't building futuristic companies when the economy was in near collapse and no one could afford what they were offering.

    Now instead we have the gov't intentionally destroying the coal industry and the jobs in it...God knows how many people are affected as it reaches way past just minors but into support personnel of all kinds...railroad employees, truck drivers, office staff, etc..., but there is no where for these people to go either at the very low rates of job creation we have now. Unemployment can only go up in that scenario and while I understand global warming and all that is a problem, that is what I mean by shooting off your foot to spite your toe. You destroy your own economy in an attempt to do what seems like a "good" thing with excessive gov't regulation intended to push a green agenda.

    I know I digressed a bit but I hope that helps you understand. I was a CPA in my former life and spent a long time working in cost accounting in industry. I'm not an economist but I think a lot of it is just common sense.


    11 members found this post helpful.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2012
    Posts
    1,994

    Default

    What I didn't like about this letter is looking at it and seeing some veiled racial undertones...the whole "urban versus suburban" mom thing and such. Maybe I'm just so sensitive from seeing so many people around me knowingly make racial comments, but to me, that made it sound like white suburban moms are inherently better than city-living minority moms, and those kinds of comment don't sit well with me.


    8 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Dear Red States:
    By sketcher in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: Nov. 8, 2012, 07:42 PM
  2. Zirocco Blue [Mr. Blue x Voltaire x Le Tot de Semilly] Fans!
    By Prima Equestrian in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Apr. 27, 2012, 09:20 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Apr. 3, 2012, 10:47 AM
  4. Who likes Stubben & Royal Blue/Baby Blue?
    By Late in forum Eventing
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Mar. 30, 2011, 03:15 PM
  5. Blue Roan/Breeding for blue roan color question?
    By Manes&Tails in forum Off Course
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Oct. 16, 2010, 05:34 PM

Posting Permissions

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