The issues for being left of center...Now...

[gator996]

Are you for...



1. Equal pay - should anyone be paid less based on birth?

Even when the historic record of salary paid shows sex bias?




2. At a time of economic national crisis, should the most "well off" contribute more to the continuation of the system we have?


Who has the greatest interest in preserving the current system?







3. If you are for everyone paying (federal income tax) into the government, then are you also for everyone of those people also having a vote?


Shouldn't 100% participation be the goal?






4. Should the "rights" afforded all American citizens be denied based on sexual preference, race, sex, or any other "demographic" if they are "full" citizens in every other sense?

Whether or not you believe in "gay" marriage...can you deny them the benefits afforded to others solely based on their sexual preference?







5. Should government (the people) try to make society better or should it only be "administrative" in its operation?

What is its "right" size?








6. Is the private sector deserving of any confidence?

Are the "scandals'" of the corporate sector any better than the failings of public sector government?

Anyone have recourse to the management of Enron, AIG, or GM ????








7. Do you believe in the 47% video?
Do you think the top 1% thinks you're scum or a equal citizen of the USA?

Do you think Romney was talking about you?

Do you want handouts?

Do you not take responsibility for your life?






8. What level of state inclusion are you comfortable with?


Patriot Act?

Immigration law?

Abortion?

Efficent markets?

Civil rights?










.

[bluelang]

your questions are weird and don't make much sense.

1) all pay should be based on merit.
2) what system?
3) 100% do participate. some just end up owing less. and i understand the question behind this, but this is an extremely nuanced question with no simple answer. if you pull the safety net out from the federal level, the states will just have to take it up. or do you prefer higher crime?
4) government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, but of course any consideration given to any must be given to all.
5) question is too broad. government serves a valuable role in "making society better," but obviously there's an ebb and flow over time of governmental powers doing too little / too much.
6) the laws in place need to be enforced. the gaps need to be addressed. financials are a complex area, and while they serve a purpose in the economy they should not be confused for the economy itself.
7) i'm part of the 1%, and i don't think of myself as scum.
8) sure, all of that to some extent. but nothing is black-and-white. by definition, the federal government has an unmatched opportunity to leverage scale.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by bluelang

your questions are weird and don't make much sense.

1) all pay should be based on merit.
2) what system?
3) 100% do participate. some just end up owing less. and i understand the question behind this, but this is an extremely nuanced question with no simple answer. if you pull the safety net out from the federal level, the states will just have to take it up. or do you prefer higher crime?
4) government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place, but of course any consideration given to any must be given to all.
5) question is too broad. government serves a valuable role in "making society better," but obviously there's an ebb and flow over time of governmental powers doing too little / too much.
6) the laws in place need to be enforced. the gaps need to be addressed. financials are a complex area, and while they serve a purpose in the economy they should not be confused for the economy itself.
7) i'm part of the 1%, and i don't think of myself as scum.
8) sure, all of that to some extent. but nothing is black-and-white. by definition, the federal government has an unmatched opportunity to leverage scale.

Your answer to #1 is kinda obvious but isn't occuring...
What do you do when pay isn't based on merit but biased by sex?
(Lilly Ledbetter Act)

Question #2...the American system of government

Question #3...don't know what you are responding to...this question is there for those who believe that everyone should pay taxes..."have skin in the game"

Does paying in get you a vote?

Question #4...Your position is left of the GOP and maybe becoming more center every day that passes

Question #5..too broad? This lies at the very heart of the shrinking government/government spending debate....

Question #6...Is directed at the idea of privatization of much of what the government does. Have no understanding or comprehension what you're responding to here...

Question#7...I hope you don't think of yourself as scum but that wasn't the question asked.

Question #8...Again, I don't understand your answer. In the case of abortion what does your "to some extent" answer mean?



.

[gatordowneast]

If our country has shifted to the left of center, we are in big trouble. Left of center means financially irresponsible in the name of fairness and being culturally hijacked by the misfits, slackers and freaks in the name of political correctness. It has absolutely zero to do with questions posed by 996. Not sure what planet he is on.

[g8orbill]

1- it is not just a black and white answer-if all things were equal(time with company and qualifications the same) then no there should not be a different pay based upon sex

2-I think EVERYONE needs to contribute to our income tax system- look at your thoughts on question 1-then it appears you want the exact opposite on question 2

3- I don't really see where any American citizen outside of convicted felons are denied the right to vote

4- I will never understand 2 men having sex- my bigger question is why are we spending so much time on an issue that affects such a small portion of our total population-give them civil unions and move on-a marriage can only be between a man and a woman

5-our guvment is totally out of control and in my view liberals want to make it even larger until it just about controls everything we do-I do not think this si what the founders envisioned

6-if there are illegalities involved then those responsible should be punished-if it is merely poor management decisions then the company has an obligation to its shareholders to fix it-I do not believe in guvment bailouts-let them fail-there will always be someone else to take their place

7-bait question

8-Patriot Act- way too much guvment
Abortion is murder-the fact that abortion is uded as a means of birth control is criminal-people need to be responsible-if you are going to have sex-put a sock on it

what civil rights are you deprived of?

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by gator996

Your answer to #1 is kinda obvious but isn't occuring...
What do you do when pay isn't based on merit but biased by sex?
(Lilly Ledbetter Act)

Question #2...the American system of government

Question #3...don't know what you are responding to...this question is there for those who believe that everyone should pay taxes..."have skin in the game"

Does paying in get you a vote?

Question #4...Your position is left of the GOP and maybe becoming more center every day that passes

Question #5..too broad? This lies at the very heart of the shrinking government/government spending debate....

Question #6...Is directed at the idea of privatization of much of what the government does. Have no understanding or comprehension what you're responding to here...

Question#7...I hope you don't think of yourself as scum but that wasn't the question asked.

Question #8...Again, I don't understand your answer. In the case of abortion what does your "to some extent" answer mean?



.

I am with blue on this wrt just being odd questions.

However the bolded part just makes me shake my head every time.

You leave that employer and go get paid what your services are worth.

[JerseyGator01]

Question #4 made me think about the fetus or the unborn child (the latter the more common public term at Roe v. Wade). A fetus can be an heir so why is his/her right to life denied by the federal government?

[jimgata]

The left is becoming incapable to honestly make a decision on taxes and spending. They have lost all sense of honesty and refuse to look at facts. Their arguments are based solely on emotion, consequences of their actions be damned. Until a little common sense is used by the left, we are going to suffer even more financially.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

I am with blue on this wrt just being odd questions.

However the bolded part just makes me shake my head every time.

You leave that employer and go get paid what your services are worth.

So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?


.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Question #4 made me think about the fetus or the unborn child (the latter the more common public term at Roe v. Wade). A fetus can be an heir so why is his/her right to life denied by the federal government?

A fetus can be an heir?

Is this true?


.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by gator996

So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?

.

If they are discriminating. Your error is concluding that broad statistical assertions are proof, per se, of discrimination on specific grounds. Your making an entirely emotional argument. On the whole list, really.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

If our country has shifted to the left of center, we are in big trouble. Left of center means financially irresponsible in the name of fairness and being culturally hijacked by the misfits, slackers and freaks in the name of political correctness. It has absolutely zero to do with questions posed by 996. Not sure what planet he is on.

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

1- it is not just a black and white answer-if all things were equal(time with company and qualifications the same) then no there should not be a different pay based upon sex.


Agreed.
But what should happen when an employer is shown to have discriminated against an employee?

Should there be a law...should there be a legal remedy?


2-I think EVERYONE needs to contribute to our income tax system- look at your thoughts on question 1-then it appears you want the exact opposite on question 2


2nd question has nothing to do with the 1st


3- I don't really see where any American citizen outside of convicted felons are denied the right to vote

Should income tax returns determine whether or not you have a say in this society?

What if you earn no income but pay all of the other taxes in our society (i.e. sales tax)?



4- I will never understand 2 men having sex- my bigger question is why are we spending so much time on an issue that affects such a small portion of our total population-give them civil unions and move on-a marriage can only be between a man and a woman

That definition of marriage is determined by who?
What if your religion is OK with gay marriage?

Should your religious belief be encroached upon by government?


5-our guvment is totally out of control and in my view liberals want to make it even larger until it just about controls everything we do-I do not think this si what the founders envisioned

But the answer to the question????

What is its "right" size?

In you opinion, what should it regulate?

What should be eliminated?



6-if there are illegalities involved then those responsible should be punished-if it is merely poor management decisions then the company has an obligation to its shareholders to fix it-I do not believe in guvment bailouts-let them fail-there will always be someone else to take their place


The question is more about the idea of shrinking government and privatizing some government functions. While we scream about government waste and poorly run government programs...What has private industry shown you that they would do a better job?

For every Solyndra there's a Enron...



7-bait question

What was Romney kidding when he said this?

Is this representative of right-wing thinking?

Looking at some of the responses on this thread I would say so...
Question is does the Romney portion of the GOP look at half of the country as scum?



8-Patriot Act- way too much guvment
Abortion is murder-the fact that abortion is uded as a means of birth control is criminal-people need to be responsible-if you are going to have sex-put a sock on it

what civil rights are you deprived of?

Question #8 asked where are you on government intrusion in your life.

For you bil, its easy....abortion = illegal but for those who would allow abortion in particular cases or with certain restrictions how involved should the government be?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

If they are discriminating. Your error is concluding that broad statistical assertions are proof, per se, of discrimination on specific grounds. Your making an entirely emotional argument. On the whole list, really.

Not at all.

Discrimination cases are always difficult to prove.

The question is if you have the historical data ("proof") should there be a law to protect you as an employee.

Its your assumption only broad statistical assertations are the only thing presented as proof.

Sure does make it easy to respond if you throw out the notion of statistical data being valid proof.

.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by gator996

So if your employer discriminates against an employee there should be no legal remedy?


.

Well if an employer is dumb enough to discriminate the market will handle the situation...

[RealGatorFan]

Originally Posted by gator996

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

As of today...yes!!! $650 Billion in new taxes yet an embarrassing $15 Billion in spending cuts? That's what was signed this morning. It's no wonder republicans had a hard time being bipartisan...the democrats were wanting to be 0% bipartisan. I'm waiting for a response to why the democrats only wanted $15 Billion in spending cuts??? Will any major media outlet even ask the hard question or are they going to spin it like they always do?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by RealGatorFan

As of today...yes!!! $650 Billion in new taxes yet an embarrassing $15 Billion in spending cuts? That's what was signed this morning. It's no wonder republicans had a hard time being bipartisan...the democrats were wanting to be 0% bipartisan. I'm waiting for a response to why the democrats only wanted $15 Billion in spending cuts??? Will any major media outlet even ask the hard question or are they going to spin it like they always do?

You do realize the democrats have already agreed to $900 billion from summer 2011 right?

This was the result of the debt ceiling debate.

The Budget Control Act of 2011...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011


So your outrage here and excuse for the GOP not being bipartisan don't really wash here...


What were the Democrats when they agreed to $900B in spending cuts without tax increases in the summer of 2011?

You can make your claims about who is and who isn't compromising for the best interests of the country...just get your "facts" straight...



.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by gator996

Financial irresponsibility means "left of center"...really?

The left owns the irresponisbility tag exclusively?

You talk like a true partisan...well done.




.

Yep. You got it. At the national level, the right will spend on the military to protect your ass and mine and the left wants to spend on everything else to buy votes. If that is partisan, call me guilty.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by gator996

You do realize the democrats have already agreed to $900 billion from summer 2011 right?

This was the result of the debt ceiling debate.

The Budget Control Act of 2011...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_Control_Act_of_2011


So your outrage here and excuse for the GOP not being bipartisan don't really wash here...


What were the Democrats when they agreed to $900B in spending cuts without tax increases in the summer of 2011?

You can make your claims about who is and who isn't compromising for the best interests of the country...just get your "facts" straight...



.

There are no spending cuts. They huff and puff and posture and then cut "the rate of spending growth" and call it a cut. It's nonsense and the leftys won't acknowledge it.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatordowneast

Yep. You got it. At the national level, the right will spend on the military to protect your ass and mine and the left wants to spend on everything else to buy votes. If that is partisan, call me guilty.

No, wasteful spending is a trait of both parties...


Trying to justify wasteful spending on one side while criticizing it on the other side is what smacks of partisanship...

BTW - When did medicare part D, 2 wars, and the bush tax cuts become defense spending to protect my ass?