Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: reppingfor20 on November 22, 2011, 08:58:35 PM
-
Newt sounds like he wants a police state, Paul let's him have it :) Ron Paul 2012 if not Obama my 1st choice as always !!
Not only does Newt want the Patriot Act long term, but also wants to make it broader! Wow watch out, we will have Minority Report coming to a house near you :-X
-
How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? ::)
They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.
-
Don't pay attention to him, he's a troll. He will be gone from here soon I guaranty it.
-
How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? ::)
They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.
I'm for change, change we can believe in, Obama if he wins, and the house goes Democrat and the Senate stays the same we get great social change and social justice, if Ron Paul win's we get a whole new America to look forward to.
-
Don't pay attention to him, he's a troll. He will be gone from here soon I guaranty it.
go to college please coach, I hope your drunk or something when you posted this LOL!
-
Yes...because it worked so well before right you little fucking troll? BTW, that's not what I heard about that debate. Fuck off. I give you a week at best.
-
Yes...because it worked so well before right you little fucking troll? BTW, that's not what I heard about that debate. Fuck off. I give you a week at best.
BWHWHHAWHHAHWAHWHAHWAWHW HAHWHAHA, so you didn't watch it, you heard about it, did you even listen to what Newt said? He wants to strengthen it, yes make the patriot act bigger!
-
I'm for change, change we can believe in, Obama if he wins, and the house goes Democrat and the Senate stays the same we get great social change and social justice, if Ron Paul win's we get a whole new America to look forward to.
Social change and social justice? What is that even supposed to mean? Bailing out Wall Street, raising taxes and redistributing it to his owners (green lobby groups, unions, banks, etc.), and creating a more permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed?
-
Social change and social justice? What is that even supposed to mean? Bailing out Wall Street, raising taxes and redistributing it to his owners (green lobby groups, unions, banks, etc.), and creating a more permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed?
He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class. Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.
-
He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class. Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.
Just that he can't accomplish ANY of that. If lobbying is eliminated, then you can damn well expect wasteful spending to go on as Congressmen try to get money into their districts. If taxes are raised on the rich, you can damn well expect investment to fall and the economy to slow growing, which will leave the poor poorer. If he increases handouts, you can damn well expect to create a permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed.
-
Just that he can't accomplish ANY of that. If lobbying is eliminated, then you can damn well expect wasteful spending to go on as Congressmen try to get money into their districts. If taxes are raised on the rich, you can damn well expect investment to fall and the economy to slow growing, which will leave the poor poorer. If he increases handouts, you can damn well expect to create a permanent underclass of the poor and unemployed.
Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher. The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true. Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL! The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations.
-
He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class. Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.
WTF! Do you really believe that nonsense?
-
go to college please coach, I hope your drunk or something when you posted this LOL!
Oh, the irony...
-
He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class. Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.
Obama just shot you down... He basically let the big Pharma companies make the decisions on his healthcare reform...
HAHAHAHAHA!
Looks like you were wrong, Obama is just as owned by big business as anyone.
Ill wait while you come up with some defense.
-
The fact is that Paul is the only candidate on that stage that's principled and for that he really should be applauded. He's right on the issues too -- or most of them, anyways; I don't quite agree with on everything. It's a real pity and a loss that he almost certainly won't be nominated because he doesn't have that suave polished look that Americans expect and demand from their politicians.
-
The fact is that Paul is the only candidate on that stage that's principled and for that he really should be applauded. He's right on the issues too -- or most of them, anyways; I don't quite agree with on everything. It's a real pity and a loss that he almost certainly won't be nominated because he doesn't have that suave polished look that Americans expect and demand from their politicians.
it has nothing to do with his looks. Bush wasn't exactly James Bondesque in the suave department. Much of it is because it's so different than what people have been spoon fed that they won't give it a chance. And the media dislikes him immensly, so the coverage is always slighted. I don't agree with him on a lot of his defense/military thoughts/policies, but the rest of his platform more than makes up for it. Can't have everything.
-
Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher. The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true. Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL! The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations.
You can't just say "increase wages." A particular job has a certain value for a company (big or small; evil or good). A restaurant can get away with paying waitresses next to nothing because the job doesn't really require any real qualifications, the supply of jobs saturates the demand, and the margins for every restaurant (except the super-high end places) are razor thin.
You say "increase their wages." How? If a restaurant needs to pay more money to the wait staff, consider that the price for food at that restaurant will probably go up which might make people less likely to eat at that restaurant, or in restaurants altogether. Or that the restaurant may simply not be able to afford the higher wages, and has to lay one member of the wait staff off to pay the others this new increased wage. There's other scenarios too. But the point is that when you say "increase their wages" you aren't really thinking things through; you're throwing around platitudes.
It's certainly true that many Americans at the low end of the income spectrum work incredibly hard but still can't quite make ends meet. It's unfortunate -- perhaps even unfair -- and we should be concerned that it happens. But the solution isn't to say "increase their wages."
-
He will bring social change as in who makes what decisions, do the corporations make decisions or the people(lobbying cut out and money out of politics), social justice by evening out the wealth in this country, bring the poor up to the middle class standard and the middle class to the upper middle class. Tax the rich very high, close corporate loopholes, put tons of regulations on the corporations and tariffs on outsourcing corporations goods.
Ok "college boy" let me explain something to you about something called the FREE MARKET, you might remember one of your liberal teachers bash it some, their all IDIOTS btw (liberal teachers). How do you think the RICH business owners got rich? I will explain to you why they SHOULD be the highest paid people in a way i hope you can figure out. 1) BECAUSE THEY RUN/OWN THE DAMN BUSINESS... 2) They TOOK THE FUCKING RISK INVESTING IN THE BUSINESS AND OPENING IT. It's called fucking america for a reason dude, these risk takers DESERVE to be the highest paid. You tax these so called 250k (and YES these are independent SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS) a year people more guess what happens DUMB ASS, they CLOSE their business down due to the tax hike because the can't expand and hire more of your "people" as you call it which is very stupid on your part...the "poor" as you referenced that work for these "rich" guys. I just don't understand why you dipshits with all these stupid socialism and womans studies degree's keep complaining about. ITs your OWN fault you listened to that stupid ass liberal nutjub that was giving educational advice on the "next big thing" was gonna be in the workforce. Now all you idiots don't know how to survive in the REAL world because you have no damn clue how it works and have been entitled your ENTIRE lives about "your special" .
THe problem in america with your generation is that you have been told your special and everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy even if they lose. Guess what NO YOU DONT WIN, there are winners and losers's in soccer and everything... These dumb asses up there complaining about all this "stuff" they should GET, PLEASE you dumb asses havent done anything but go to college and play on your ipads, iphones, wear all these exp damn clothes with your student loan leftover money...
Obama is'nt gonna change a damn thing, and neither will Ron Paul, socialism had its chance and FAILED
My advice to you is go back to college and take some basic economics course so you understand supply/demand. Oh and and get a degree in something that you can USE....
-
it has nothing to do with his looks. Bush wasn't exactly James Bondesque in the suave department. Much of it is because it's so different than what people have been spoon fed that they won't give it a chance. And the media dislikes him immensly, so the coverage is always slighted. I don't agree with him on a lot of his defense/military thoughts/policies, but the rest of his platform more than makes up for it. Can't have everything.
I don't necessarily use "suave" to mean "James Bond" although I can see how that could be confusing. I meant that Americans evaluate politicians on 30 second soundbites and criteria like "would I want to have a beer with this guy?"; that's why campaigns hire body-language experts, why media obsesses for hours over ties and haircuts and why events are staged down to the smallest detail to portray the candidate as a humble, honest, good, Joe Everyman.
You bring up Bush. While he may not have been "suave" and smooth in the same way as Romney or Clinton or JFK, you have to consider that (a) he was running against an even more uncharismatic man in the general election, (b) he had the name recognition and great organization in the primaries and (c) he was folksy enough to put people at ease (see the "beer factor" above).
At least that's my take.
-
Look at the Clinton years when tax rates where higher, investment did not fall, we had great boom years when Clinton was in office and taxes on the rich were slightly higher. The economy did great under Clinton, you are just trying to use scare tactics like another popular one is raising taxes will kill jobs, not true. Never said to increase handouts, increase their wages, you think the poor don't work and just take handouts LOL! The poor do WORK, the poor WORK, how many times do I have to repeat this, they are underpaid and exploited by evil corporations.
How exactly are they "exploited"? Can you explain this to me?? you do REALIZE that EVERYBODY starts a job at the bottom and have to prove themselves to advnace right??? Oh yeah i forgot your entitled to make 100k a year because your degree in basketweaving cost 200k.... ::)
-
I don't necessarily use "suave" to mean "James Bond" although I can see how that could be confusing. I meant that Americans evaluate politicians on 30 second soundbites and criteria like "would I want to have a beer with this guy?"; that's why campaigns hire body-language experts, why media obsesses for hours over ties and haircuts and why events are staged down to the smallest detail to portray the candidate as a humble, honest, good, Joe Everyman.
You bring up Bush. While he may not have been "suave" and smooth in the same way as Romney or Clinton or JFK, you have to consider that (a) he was running against an even more uncharismatic man in the general election, (b) he had the name recognition and great organization in the primaries and (c) he was folksy enough to put people at ease (see the "beer factor" above).
At least that's my take.
I agree with you on all points. Bush won because "the common man" thought they could relate to him a bit. That's why using the word "suave" threw me, as he was the polar opposite of suave in most every way.
-
I agree with you on all points. Bush won because "the common man" thought they could relate to him a bit. That's why using the word "suave" threw me, as he was the polar opposite of suave in most every way.
-
Ok "college boy" let me explain something to you about something called the FREE MARKET, you might remember one of your liberal teachers bash it some, their all IDIOTS btw (liberal teachers). How do you think the RICH business owners got rich? I will explain to you why they SHOULD be the highest paid people in a way i hope you can figure out. 1) BECAUSE THEY RUN/OWN THE DAMN BUSINESS... 2) They TOOK THE FUCKING RISK INVESTING IN THE BUSINESS AND OPENING IT. It's called fucking america for a reason dude, these risk takers DESERVE to be the highest paid. You tax these so called 250k (and YES these are independent SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS) a year people more guess what happens DUMB ASS, they CLOSE their business down due to the tax hike because the can't expand and hire more of your "people" as you call it which is very stupid on your part...the "poor" as you referenced that work for these "rich" guys. I just don't understand why you dipshits with all these stupid socialism and womans studies degree's keep complaining about. ITs your OWN fault you listened to that stupid ass liberal nutjub that was giving educational advice on the "next big thing" was gonna be in the workforce. Now all you idiots don't know how to survive in the REAL world because you have no damn clue how it works and have been entitled your ENTIRE lives about "your special" .
THe problem in america with your generation is that you have been told your special and everybody is a winner, everybody gets a trophy even if they lose. Guess what NO YOU DONT WIN, there are winners and losers's in soccer and everything... These dumb asses up there complaining about all this "stuff" they should GET, PLEASE you dumb asses havent done anything but go to college and play on your ipads, iphones, wear all these exp damn clothes with your student loan leftover money...
Obama is'nt gonna change a damn thing, and neither will Ron Paul, socialism had its chance and FAILED
My advice to you is go back to college and take some basic economics course so you understand supply/demand. Oh and and get a degree in something that you can USE....
what are you talking about? no where has this been shown to be true, in fact the exact opposite has been demonstrated over and over. Trickle down economics, or horse and sparrow economics does not work, companies horde money, thats a fact. I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you, USA is far from socialist, that seems to be the scare word along with communism. Instead you have socialism for the elite and shit for the middle and poor. These fuckers benefit from infrastructure paid by the american people yet they contribute nothing in taxes. Why do they deserve this? they don't, hiring people isn't an out, these people have to work and in turn generate more money for the people in charge. It's almost as if you think or many think that corporate owners create jobs when demand isn't there. Improve the middle class and the problems are solved, simple as that. Put money in the hands of those that have to spend it and you will stimulate the economy. Look at the 13 billion dollar companies that paid no taxes, do you know how much increase they say in job creation? zero, in fact it has gone down in spite of them making record profits, its a fact, how can you argue that this is not right?
-
I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you
That Canada is a more socialist country than the U.S. is a fact. As to whether Canadians live in better conditions than Americans, that's debatable and the answer would center largely around one's own definition of "better." Not an objective metric by any stretch of the imagination.
-
You can't just say "increase wages." A particular job has a certain value for a company (big or small; evil or good). A restaurant can get away with paying waitresses next to nothing because the job doesn't really require any real qualifications, the supply of jobs saturates the demand, and the margins for every restaurant (except the super-high end places) are razor thin.
You say "increase their wages." How? If a restaurant needs to pay more money to the wait staff, consider that the price for food at that restaurant will probably go up which might make people less likely to eat at that restaurant, or in restaurants altogether. Or that the restaurant may simply not be able to afford the higher wages, and has to lay one member of the wait staff off to pay the others this new increased wage. There's other scenarios too. But the point is that when you say "increase their wages" you aren't really thinking things through; you're throwing around platitudes.
It's certainly true that many Americans at the low end of the income spectrum work incredibly hard but still can't quite make ends meet. It's unfortunate -- perhaps even unfair -- and we should be concerned that it happens. But the solution isn't to say "increase their wages."
no companies corporations are making way too much profit and paying their ceo's way too much money, it needs to be more evenly divided, and revenue positive needs to go back to employees paychecks after it get's past a certain amount they earn in positive income.
-
what are you talking about? no where has this been shown to be true, in fact the exact opposite has been demonstrated over and over. Trickle down economics, or horse and sparrow economics does not work, companies horde money, thats a fact. I live in canada a more socialist country then yours and we are in better conditions then you, USA is far from socialist, that seems to be the scare word along with communism. Instead you have socialism for the elite and shit for the middle and poor. These fuckers benefit from infrastructure paid by the american people yet they contribute nothing in taxes. Why do they deserve this? they don't, hiring people isn't an out, these people have to work and in turn generate more money for the people in charge. It's almost as if you think or many think that corporate owners create jobs when demand isn't there. Improve the middle class and the problems are solved, simple as that. Put money in the hands of those that have to spend it and you will stimulate the economy. Look at the 13 billion dollar companies that paid no taxes, do you know how much increase they say in job creation? zero, in fact it has gone down in spite of them making record profits, its a fact, how can you argue that this is not right?
great post
-
no companies corporations are making way too much profit and paying their ceo's way too much money, it needs to be more evenly divided, and revenue positive needs to go back to employees paychecks after it get's past a certain amount they earn in positive income.
No... see, you're confused. Your personal and political beliefs aren't facts and you shouldn't peddle them as such.
You assert that companies are making way too much profit. What's too much and who decides it? What's "way too much" and how can I tell if a certain amount of profit is "way too much" or just "too much"? And why is having a profit bad?
You assert that companies are paying their CEOs way too much money. This is at least somewhat reasonable, in the sense that a large number of CEOs are ridiculously overpaid. But the same questions as before apply: What's too much and what's "way too much"? How do I distinguish between one and the other?
Lastly, you assert that profit must be more evenly divided among the workers. Frankly, that's bullshit. The workers are simply hired to do a job for a salary or an hourly wage. But you seem to be missing the fact that the profits can be (and routinely are) distributed in a completely fair way: they are paid out in the form of dividends to the company owners, a.k.a. the shareholders.
-
No... see, you're confused. Your personal and political beliefs aren't facts and you shouldn't peddle them as such.
You assert that companies are making way too much profit. What's too much and who decides it? What's "way too much" and how can I tell if a certain amount of profit is "way too much" or just "too much"? And why is having a profit bad?
You assert that companies are paying their CEOs way too much money. This is at least somewhat reasonable, in the sense that a large number of CEOs are ridiculously overpaid. But the same questions as before apply: What's too much and what's "way too much"? How do I distinguish between one and the other?
Lastly, you assert that profit must be more evenly divided among the workers. Frankly, that's bullshit. The workers are simply hired to do a job for a salary or an hourly wage. But you seem to be missing the fact that the profits can be (and routinely are) distributed in a completely fair way: they are paid out in the form of dividends to the company owners, a.k.a. the shareholders.
hope you enjoy living in poverty
-
hope you enjoy living in poverty
I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).
But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.
-
I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).
But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.
Corporations will keep hording money and not using it to pay their employees a living wage more and more, the way they are getting away with it now, you are endorsing them hoarding money, they have record profits now, and the employee wages do not reflect that whatsoever.
-
Corporations will keep hording money and not using it to pay their employees a living wage more and more, the way they are getting away with it now, you are endorsing them hoarding money, they have record profits now, and the employee wages do not reflect that whatsoever.
First of all, you're mixing apples and oranges. You've gone from advocating a profit-sharing scheme for employees to talking about a "living wage." Stop jumping around! Pick one thing so we can discuss it.
As for corporations hoarding money: corporations (and executive boards, and C?? types) are all answerable to their bosses -- the shareholders. If the owners of a company wish to keep the income of the company within the company (to reinvest in the business, expand, do R&D, acquire other companies, or even saving for a rainy corporate day) what's your problem with that? It's not your money -- it's the company's money.
-
How can you support Obama and Ron Paul? ::)
They're on the opposite ends of every single issue.
who cares. I've tried to point out a million times that there is a broad range of political types who find enough in Paul to support him. I voted for Obama but I'd much rather have Paul. If a group of hippies want to vote Ron Paul because of his stance on civil liberties, why the hell not, let them and all Paul supporters should support that. How many rightwingers show up to the polls with one issue in mind with who they pick? Happens all the time, 2nd Amendment, pro-life etc...
-
I'm a Getbigger friend. The only thing bigger than my biceps is my stock portfolio (or depending on the situation, my cock).
But in all seriousness, why do you think that large corporate profits translate to living in poverty? Someone making more money than me doesn't translate into my living in poverty. Nor will giving a cut of corporate profits to the janitor magically make anything better. The actual value (i.e. the purchasing power) of the dollars in your checking account is important. The amount isn't.
WRONG. Americans spend almost all the money they make! If the janitors wages go from $8hr to $15 then hes going to buy T.V's...hes going to buy more movie tickets...more food....mor everything. This means that the local business owners will get way more traffic then we're seeing now. But as it is the business wants to maximize profits...so it moves to a 3rd world country and decreases its payroll 400% instantly. And now everybody gets nothing. If you starve the middle class then the whole engine of america stops...as we see.....even the rich 1% will see that they helped destroy our country by hoarding money in offshore accounts instead of contributing to their own community and being a solution. Greed will kill them all too soon, interesting irony.
-
WRONG. Americans spend almost all the money they make! If the janitors wages go from $8hr to $15 then hes going to buy T.V's...hes going to buy more movie tickets...more food....mor everything. This means that the local business owners will get way more traffic then we're seeing now. But as it is the business wants to maximize profits...so it moves to a 3rd world country and decreases its payroll 400% instantly. And now everybody gets nothing. If you starve the middle class then the whole engine of america stops...as we see.....even the rich 1% will see that they helped destroy our country by hoarding money in offshore accounts instead of contributing to their own community and being a solution. Greed will kill them all too soon, interesting irony.
LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?
-
LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?
Which came first the chicken or the egg? Somebodys gotta shoot first bro....whos most able??
-
Which came first the chicken or the egg? Somebodys gotta shoot first bro....whos most able??
LMFAO!!!
-
Newt sounds like he wants a police state, Paul let's him have it :) Ron Paul 2012 if not Obama my 1st choice as always !!
I hate Obama, but I'll certainly vote for him over Newt.
Good post, spot on.
-
Newt was right, Paul was wrong. The McVeigh example didn't make a lot of a sense, as Newt pointed out. McVeigh succeeded. We need to stop people like him and other terrorists, not deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack.
All this talk about Americans losing their liberties over the Patriot Act doesn't make a whole lot of sense. No specific examples. Just broad comments that have no factual basis.
Foreign policy and national security are areas where Ron Paul is just flat out wrong, and part of the reasons he will never be president.
-
LMFAO - where does the extra 7 dollars an hour come from?
the record profits they are having and cutting CEO and top exec's pay. They are paying these employees the lowest amount possible just so they will work and do a somewhat decent job. You act like the companies are just getting by ;D
-
First of all, you're mixing apples and oranges. You've gone from advocating a profit-sharing scheme for employees to talking about a "living wage." Stop jumping around! Pick one thing so we can discuss it.
As for corporations hoarding money: corporations (and executive boards, and C?? types) are all answerable to their bosses -- the shareholders. If the owners of a company wish to keep the income of the company within the company (to reinvest in the business, expand, do R&D, acquire other companies, or even saving for a rainy corporate day) what's your problem with that? It's not your money -- it's the company's money.
A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks. These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long.
Also your second paragraph that is why a corporation should not be allowed to go public and have shareholders, the whole stock market, money changing business is corrupt and not good for employees, all corporations should have to remain private. Stock market is a total sham and should be abolished, it is all corrupt and does nothing to help the average joe out. Yes people can invest and earn money, but it is just gambling, the real people at the top are the ones who make the money because they know the insider stuff joe off the street doesn't know.
-
A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks. These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long.
Also your second paragraph that is why a corporation should not be allowed to go public and have shareholders, the whole stock market, money changing business is corrupt and not good for employees, all corporations should have to remain private. Stock market is a total sham and should be abolished, it is all corrupt and does nothing to help the average joe out. Yes people can invest and earn money, but it is just gambling, the real people at the top are the ones who make the money because they know the insider stuff joe off the street doesn't know.
And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well?
-
And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well?
Yeah they can take their paycheck down from 15 $ an hour to 14 $ an hour. Also the losses need to be spread to the CEO and exec's as well. As you know, companies are making record profits, only company I know of now that is known to be going to lose money is netflix next year has come out and say it will lose money all of 2012, that is because of their greed though previously this year.
Either way, now days if a company even thinks it will lose money, they will lay off workers, out source, and cut pay to existing workers all before even thinking of touching the CEO's and exec's multi multi million dollar salaries.
-
Yeah they can take their paycheck down from 15 $ an hour to 14 $ an hour. Also the losses need to be spread to the CEO and exec's as well. As you know, companies are making record profits, only company I know of now that is known to be going to lose money is netflix next year has come out and say it will lose money all of 2012, that is because of their greed though previously this year.
Either way, now days if a company even thinks it will lose money, they will lay off workers, out source, and cut pay to existing workers all before even thinking of touching the CEO's and exec's multi multi million dollar salaries.
LOL - some compzanies are making record profits - most are not. Talk to any main street business about their record profits and see what they tell you.
-
A living wage and profit sharing, I mean sharing the profit the corporations are making in record numbers by redistrubuting that back to employees paychecks. These corporations can only exploit the workers for so long.
It's not their damn money! They were hired to do a job! They get paid whether the company makes or loses money. The company owners (or shareholders for publicly traded companies) risk a lot more than a worker on salary and it's only reasonable their return is larger.
-
Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!
Speaking of greed. In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!! Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.
-
Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!
Obviously? No, not obviously. Like any system, it's not perfect, but the solution isn't to replace it with something even worse.
Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?
If a company wishes to do profit sharing today, it can implement it trivially. Why do you seek to enforce it at the point of the proverbial gun? Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how other people should live their lives and conduct their business?
Speaking of greed. In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!! Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.
I agree with you that many CEOs are ridiculously overpaid and horribly underperforming to boot (e.g. HP's former CEO Léo Apotheker). At its core, a supply and demand situation. People to perform menial labor are a dime a dozen. Executives capable of running large companies aren't.
Personally, I think that shareholders of corporations should lead open revolts against the board that authorize some of these ridiculous compensation packages, and boot the board members off. But, by and large, they don't. Plenty of reasons: large institutional investors don't mind the status quo as long as the bottom line is good; smaller investors don't care to vote when they get proxies, and so on.
As for the offshore situation, it's certainly a bad situation but many companies are, sadly, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The fact is that the cost of doing business in the United States is ridiculous compared to the cost of doing business overseas. Between compliance with various rules and regulations bought and paid for by lobbyists and rules and regulations negotiated in the back rooms of Capitol Hill as part of a quid-pro-quo, and frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees, advocacy groups, class action shysters, and with the Party in China controlling their currency to put pressure on everyone else... Can you really blame them for going far, far away?
I'm not excusing them, do don't misunderstand. I readily avree that some companies are going to pursue the bottom line no matter what. Thats fine - companies are in business to make money. But that is half the story - the other half is what I described above.
I think that Congress should provide incentives for companies to do business in the U.S. and to repatriate their off-shore operations as much as is reasonable.
-
BINGO!!!!
-
And when the company loses money - can those losses be spread to the employees as well?
ya its called cut-backs im sure you have heard of this concept.
-
Obviously the system we have is screwed. So instead of openeing up to shareholders then profitsharing plans is the way to go. Imagine an employee thats proud and has incentive to build the company and speak well of it to others....totall opposite of now!!
Speaking of greed. In 1960 the average CEO wage was 19 times his best paid employee. Now its 400 times!! Only thing that changed is the level of greed and the business owners are killing themselves by hoarding money into offshore accounts and foriegn currency. Its close to TREASON in my opinion.
Great idea!, employees would know that the company might actually care about them, instead of being just another number that can be axed to help shareholders.
-
Obviously? No, not obviously. Like any system, it's not perfect, but the solution isn't to replace it with something even worse.
Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?
If a company wishes to do profit sharing today, it can implement it trivially. Why do you seek to enforce it at the point of the proverbial gun? Why do you think that you are qualified to determine how other people should live their lives and conduct their business?
I agree with you that many CEOs are ridiculously overpaid and horribly underperforming to boot (e.g. HP's former CEO Léo Apotheker). At its core, a supply and demand situation. People to perform menial labor are a dime a dozen. Executives capable of running large companies aren't.
Personally, I think that shareholders of corporations should lead open revolts against the board that authorize some of these ridiculous compensation packages, and boot the board members off. But, by and large, they don't. Plenty of reasons: large institutional investors don't mind the status quo as long as the bottom line is good; smaller investors don't care to vote when they get proxies, and so on.
As for the offshore situation, it's certainly a bad situation but many companies are, sadly, stuck between a rock and a hard place. The fact is that the cost of doing business in the United States is ridiculous compared to the cost of doing business overseas. Between compliance with various rules and regulations bought and paid for by lobbyists and rules and regulations negotiated in the back rooms of Capitol Hill as part of a quid-pro-quo, and frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees, advocacy groups, class action shysters, and with the Party in China controlling their currency to put pressure on everyone else... Can you really blame them for going far, far away?
I'm not excusing them, do don't misunderstand. I readily avree that some companies are going to pursue the bottom line no matter what. Thats fine - companies are in business to make money. But that is half the story - the other half is what I described above.
I think that Congress should provide incentives for companies to do business in the U.S. and to repatriate their off-shore operations as much as is reasonable.
Companies are making record profits, they are not just getting by... your post is completely out of touch with what corporations are making now and not giving back to it's employees.
"Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?"
Because it is the right thing to do and a law should be passed to make them do this. Obviously the current situation is not working. Corporations have gotten greedy and once they get greedy there is no going back unless they are forced to.
-
Companies are making record profits, they are not just getting by... your post is completely out of touch with what corporations are making now and not giving back to it's employees.
Some companies are making record profits yes. Many - perhaps most - are not. Not every company is ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil isn't a representative of all companies. If you want to be taken seriously stop spewing obviously false and ridiculously overbroad statements and state facts.
"Why mandate how profits are to be divided to companies and people who start companies up? Who are you to tell me how my company should be structured and to interject yourself in the compensation negotiations between myself and my prospective employees?"
Because it is the right thing to do and a law should be passed to make them do this. Obviously the current situation is not working. Corporations have gotten greedy and once they get greedy there is no going back unless they are forced to.
If a bunch of workers want to have such a setup, they can create such a legal entity today and be worker-owners, assuming all the risks that come with being an owner or shareholder of a company.
To not own a company but to work for one is a very rational decision that many people make, and one you want to take away. Because you know what's best for everyone.
The right way, according to you, is to pass a law to dictate how people can be compensated for works and how corporations must operate... That's awesome. Because, again, you know what's best for everyone else.
If you're willing to go that far why not simply be honest and admit what you really want: companies become nothing more but a nameplate and all profits go to the government which then redistributes it as it, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit? There's a name for that you know...
Your "idea" has been tried before and it's failed miserably... do you not study history? Do you not study economics?
-
Some companies are making record profits yes. Many - perhaps most - are not. Not every company is ExxonMobil and ExxonMobil isn't a representative of all companies. If you want to be taken seriously stop spewing obviously false and ridiculously overbroad statements and state facts.
If a bunch of workers want to have such a setup, they can create such a legal entity today and be worker-owners, assuming all the risks that come with being an owner or shareholder of a company.
To not own a company but to work for one is a very rational decision that many people make, and one you want to take away. Because you know what's best for everyone.
The right way, according to you, is to pass a law to dictate how people can be compensated for works and how corporations must operate... That's awesome. Because, again, you know what's best for everyone else.
If you're willing to go that far why not simply be honest and admit what you really want: companies become nothing more but a nameplate and all profits go to the government which then redistributes it as it, in its infinite wisdom, sees fit? There's a name for that you know...
Your "idea" has been tried before and it's failed miserably... do you not study history? Do you not study economics?
No most companies are making record profits, they simply cut workers here and outsourced to cheap labor.
Yes that is a good idea. Fascism is great, look what it did for Germany, built one of the best war machines, people got paid well, everything went well until the whole world had to gang up on them, that is how strong and good fascism is.
Capitalism has failed every time as well, look at history, you can show every economic situation and point to that it failed, every country / state has a time table, the USA time table is coming to an end in the next 100 years, it is just how it works.
-
No most companies are making record profits, they simply cut workers here and outsourced to cheap labor.
Yes that is a good idea. Fascism is great, look what it did for Germany, built one of the best war machines, people got paid well, everything went well until the whole world had to gang up on them, that is how strong and good fascism is.
Capitalism has failed every time as well, look at history, you can show every economic situation and point to that it failed, every country / state has a time table, the USA time table is coming to an end in the next 100 years, it is just how it works.
you really are a textbook case f a delusional islamo/communist
-
No most companies are making record profits, they simply cut workers here and outsourced to cheap labor.
LOL, most companies are small outfits that struggle to make ends meet. You're insane if you think that most companies are making record profits and I challenge you to back this ridiculous assertion up with evidence.
Yes that is a good idea. Fascism is great, look what it did for Germany, built one of the best war machines, people got paid well, everything went well until the whole world had to gang up on them, that is how strong and good fascism is.
Yet that's what you're advocating, ultimately. That workers get a cut of profits -- that they, in essence, own the means of production. That you can't be a shoe-factory owner. Only a shoe-factory worker, who owns a bit of the company along with his fellow workers.
Capitalism has failed every time as well, look at history, you can show every economic situation and point to that it failed, every country / state has a time table, the USA time table is coming to an end in the next 100 years, it is just how it works.
Capitalism has been the greatest engine of wealth creation, and has improved the standard of living of the masses more dramatically than anything that was tried before... Look at the society in which you live in (I presume you don't live in some backwater part of Africa, surviving on insects).
-
Fascism is great, look what it did for Germany, built one of the best war machines, people got paid well, everything went well until the whole world had to gang up on them, that is how strong and good fascism is.
LOL. Read a history book! I can turn this around on you as easily as saying "look who won the war!"
Fascism was not a great economic system at all... what it DID manage to do was break up labor unions, which brought wages down to a level that made full employment possible.
The only reason why Germany was able to dominate the beginning of WWII the way it did was because it had armed itself while other countries had not. Germany was also rich in natural resources and has nearly twice the population of some of its neighbors (e.g. Poland and France). And it's worth mentioning that Germany's enemies on the European continent had similar pseudo-socialist/fascist economies... they were not capitalist by any stretch of the imagination!
Capitalism has failed every time as well, look at history, you can show every economic situation and point to that it failed, every country / state has a time table, the USA time table is coming to an end in the next 100 years, it is just how it works.
Capitalism has failed every time as well? Every single country that has a high standard of living is capitalist to one degree or another!
-
'Capitalism has failed every time as well? Every single country that has a high standard of living is capitalist to one degree or another!'
Is our (USA) standard of living going UP or DOWN?
-
'Capitalism has failed every time as well? Every single country that has a high standard of living is capitalist to one degree or another!'
Is our (USA) standard of living going UP or DOWN?
What's the long run trend?
(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/9/10/saupload_gdp.jpg)
I bet you it'd be better if we had more capitalism. :)
-
LOL, most companies are small outfits that struggle to make ends meet. You're insane if you think that most companies are making record profits and I challenge you to back this ridiculous assertion up with evidence.
reppingforsemen is an idealist, with surface level knowledge (at best) of this things he talks about. He regurgitates talking points he reads elsewhere, but can never defend them with anything tangible. When he can't refute a fact (almost always) he then changes the context of the argument. On top of that, he's not too bright.
In other words, you're wasting your time. Just ignore him.
-
reppingforsemen is an idealist, with surface level knowledge (at best) of this things he talks about. He regurgitates talking points he reads elsewhere, but can never defend them with anything tangible. When he can't refute a fact (almost always) he then changes the context of the argument. On top of that, he's not too bright.
In other words, you're wasting your time. Just ignore him.
Maybe he'll learn...
-
reppingforsemen is an idealist, with surface level knowledge (at best) of this things he talks about. He regurgitates talking points he reads elsewhere, but can never defend them with anything tangible. When he can't refute a fact (almost always) he then changes the context of the argument. On top of that, he's not too bright.
In other words, you're wasting your time. Just ignore him.
Yes, because you conservatives do not like to hear any ideas other than your own, when you do you flip out because you were never educated to have an actually discussion, you just have one sided arguments. Where do I get my talking points? Please inform me, because that is a new one to me. I defend my posts all the time against the conservatives on this board. I never change the subject, you the conservatives do not use facts, I do.
-
'Capitalism has failed every time as well? Every single country that has a high standard of living is capitalist to one degree or another!'
Is our (USA) standard of living going UP or DOWN?
good post
-
good post
While ignoring the secular long run trend. ::)
-
LOL. Read a history book! I can turn this around on you as easily as saying "look who won the war!"
Fascism was not a great economic system at all... what it DID manage to do was break up labor unions, which brought wages down to a level that made full employment possible.
The only reason why Germany was able to dominate the beginning of WWII the way it did was because it had armed itself while other countries had not. Germany was also rich in natural resources and has nearly twice the population of some of its neighbors (e.g. Poland and France). And it's worth mentioning that Germany's enemies on the European continent had similar pseudo-socialist/fascist economies... they were not capitalist by any stretch of the imagination!
Capitalism has failed every time as well? Every single country that has a high standard of living is capitalist to one degree or another!
Yes it was a great economic system, people had houses, cars, went on vacations, they had what they needed. They all had work, there weren't homeless walking around and homes getting foreclosed on like you see in the US. Everyone had a say, the politicians had to do what was best for the country and people. It worked out great.
As opposed the the US system, which isn't capitalism by the way. Corporations paying off politicians to vote a certain way, the people having no say in what goes in the country because even if they vote in someone new, the new person is paid off by big corporations so all politicians are the same here. It is driven by corporate interests, not the interests of the people and this has been shown time and time again.
Yes capitalism has high standard of living for a few minority, but that is where it stops, then the rest live in decreasing squalor. All the way down to the begger on the street who lost his house because he was laid off by a big corporation and couldn't keep up with the payments. Yeah great system!
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxt=y,x,y&chxr=0,0,50,20&chf=bg,s,e0e0e0&chdlp=t&chxl=1:|1986||||1990||||||||||2000|||||||||2009|2:||%|&chds=0,50&chs=300x200&cht=lc&chco=3072F3,FF0000&chd=t:9.43,9.29,9.14,9.00,8.94,8.88,8.66,8.45,8.32,8.32,8.24,8.35,8.50,8.37,8.38,8.38,8.17,7.90,7.77,7.62,7.59,7.66,7.44,7.40|6.46,6.07,5.72,5.83,5.81,5.48,5.06,4.81,4.77,4.61,4.32,4.28,4.21,4.00,3.91,3.97,3.50,3.46,3.30,3.07,2.99,2.89,2.70,2.25&chdl=Income|Tax&chls=2|2&chma=5,5,5,5&chtt=Lower+Half+Income+Taxes)
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxt=y,x,y&chxr=0,0,50,20&chf=bg,s,e0e0e0&chdlp=t&chxl=1:|1986||||1990||||||||||2000|||||||||2009|2:||%|&chds=0,50&chs=300x200&cht=lc&chco=3072F3,FF0000&chd=t:6.4,7.3,9.3,8.5,8.3,7.6,8.3,7.8,7.7,8.4,9.4,10.5,11.5,12.3,13.4,10.6,9.3,9.5,11.0,12.6,13.4,14.3,11.7,9.9|25.7,24.8,27.6,25.2,25.1,24.8,27.5,29.0,28.9,30.3,32.3,33.2,34.8,36.2,37.4,33.9,33.7,34.3,36.9,39.4,39.9,40.4,38.0,36.7&chdl=Income|Tax&chls=2|2&chma=5,5,5,5&chtt=Top+One+Percent+Income+Taxes)
-
Yes it was a great economic system, people had houses, cars, went on vacations, they had what they needed. They all had work, there weren't homeless walking around and homes getting foreclosed on like you see in the US. Everyone had a say, the politicians had to do what was best for the country and people. It worked out great.
Wow... you are either truly clueless or truly insane...
As opposed the the US system, which isn't capitalism by the way. Corporations paying off politicians to vote a certain way, the people having no say in what goes in the country because even if they vote in someone new, the new person is paid off by big corporations so all politicians are the same here. It is driven by corporate interests, not the interests of the people and this has been shown time and time again.
Don't blame the politicians or the corporations. Blame yourself, for voting in those politicians with no principles, who then sell themselves to the highest bidder.
Yes capitalism has high standard of living for a few minority, but that is where it stops, then the rest live in decreasing squalor. All the way down to the begger on the street who lost his house because he was laid off by a big corporation and couldn't keep up with the payments. Yeah great system!
Right, because people lived way better before the Industrial Revolution and had it so much easier. They truly lived like gods. We just, get by. Because having 2 cars, a big-screen TV and pondering important questions like which hue of chartreuse to get a $150 brand-name polo shirt in is living in increasing squalor (by the way, increasing squalor is a bad thing; not decreasing, as you said). It's not like the standard of living of Americans hasn't been consistently trending upwards (modulo some short-term bumps).
But sure, blame the corporations for firing some guy. Who cares if they had a good reason? Fuck reasons! Everyone is entitled to an awesome job, at awesome pay, regardless of the value of the job!
As for the figures, it's impossible to interpret them in any meaningful way, except you know... there's blue and red lines! What's the scale of the blue income line? Certainly not '%'. Are the figures inflation adjusted? What, exactly, do they represent? What's "lower half" and "upper half" and what is the classifying metric?
-
Yes it was a great economic system, people had houses, cars, went on vacations, they had what they needed. They all had work, there weren't homeless walking around and homes getting foreclosed on like you see in the US. Everyone had a say, the politicians had to do what was best for the country and people. It worked out great.
Haha, do you really believe in these fairy tales? All was fantastic in Nazi Germany? How was fascist Italy? How about Imperial Japan? And the Soviet Union?
You don't mind the fact that in Nazi Germany, the government worked with Big Business to cartelize industries? You don't mind the fact that consumers saw prices rise in real terms (with a subsequent fall in real incomes) as government choked off entrepreneurship and closed its borders to trade with the majority of the world? You don't mind that, in fact, most people didn't own houses or cars except for the privileged few, and hardly anyone had vacations or "what they needed?"
As opposed the the US system, which isn't capitalism by the way. Corporations paying off politicians to vote a certain way, the people having no say in what goes in the country because even if they vote in someone new, the new person is paid off by big corporations so all politicians are the same here. It is driven by corporate interests, not the interests of the people and this has been shown time and time again.
So you say that the US isn't capitalist and then you use the US as an example of how capitalism fails ??? ::)
Yes capitalism has high standard of living for a few minority, but that is where it stops, then the rest live in decreasing squalor. All the way down to the begger on the street who lost his house because he was laid off by a big corporation and couldn't keep up with the payments. Yeah great system!
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxt=y,x,y&chxr=0,0,50,20&chf=bg,s,e0e0e0&chdlp=t&chxl=1:|1986||||1990||||||||||2000|||||||||2009|2:||%|&chds=0,50&chs=300x200&cht=lc&chco=3072F3,FF0000&chd=t:9.43,9.29,9.14,9.00,8.94,8.88,8.66,8.45,8.32,8.32,8.24,8.35,8.50,8.37,8.38,8.38,8.17,7.90,7.77,7.62,7.59,7.66,7.44,7.40|6.46,6.07,5.72,5.83,5.81,5.48,5.06,4.81,4.77,4.61,4.32,4.28,4.21,4.00,3.91,3.97,3.50,3.46,3.30,3.07,2.99,2.89,2.70,2.25&chdl=Income|Tax&chls=2|2&chma=5,5,5,5&chtt=Lower+Half+Income+Taxes)
(http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chxt=y,x,y&chxr=0,0,50,20&chf=bg,s,e0e0e0&chdlp=t&chxl=1:|1986||||1990||||||||||2000|||||||||2009|2:||%|&chds=0,50&chs=300x200&cht=lc&chco=3072F3,FF0000&chd=t:6.4,7.3,9.3,8.5,8.3,7.6,8.3,7.8,7.7,8.4,9.4,10.5,11.5,12.3,13.4,10.6,9.3,9.5,11.0,12.6,13.4,14.3,11.7,9.9|25.7,24.8,27.6,25.2,25.1,24.8,27.5,29.0,28.9,30.3,32.3,33.2,34.8,36.2,37.4,33.9,33.7,34.3,36.9,39.4,39.9,40.4,38.0,36.7&chdl=Income|Tax&chls=2|2&chma=5,5,5,5&chtt=Top+One+Percent+Income+Taxes)
Yeah, capitalism doesn't work for most people. That's why most Americans don't have cars, radios, computers, iPods, TVs, and all of these other things created by capitalists, right? Oh wait... they do. ;D
BTW, don't use household income to show that there have been stagnating incomes since the 70s... incomes for individuals, even in the lower brackets, have increased in real terms, but that increase in income as been offset by a decrease in household size. so the data you posted is very misleading.
-
Wow... you are either truly clueless or truly insane...
Don't blame the politicians or the corporations. Blame yourself, for voting in those politicians with no principles, who then sell themselves to the highest bidder.
Right, because people lived way better before the Industrial Revolution and had it so much easier. They truly lived like gods. We just, get by. Because having 2 cars, a big-screen TV and pondering important questions like which hue of chartreuse to get a $150 brand-name polo shirt in is living in increasing squalor (by the way, increasing squalor is a bad thing; not decreasing, as you said). It's not like the standard of living of Americans hasn't been consistently trending upwards (modulo some short-term bumps).
But sure, blame the corporations for firing some guy. Who cares if they had a good reason? Fuck reasons! Everyone is entitled to an awesome job, at awesome pay, regardless of the value of the job!
As for the figures, it's impossible to interpret them in any meaningful way, except you know... there's blue and red lines! What's the scale of the blue income line? Certainly not '%'. Are the figures inflation adjusted? What, exactly, do they represent? What's "lower half" and "upper half" and what is the classifying metric?
The standard of living like 240 said has gone down in the US, not up. LOL about the politicians, all of them are paid off, republican and democrat, as soon as they get to DC or before they know the drill, because if they didn't obey the pay off regime, they wouldn't be voted into office because they wouldn't have the funding donations to run for office.
HAHA what people are you talking about that have 2 cars, huge TV, buying 150$ polo shirts? Surely not most Americans. That is the upper middle class you are talking about.
Yes poor can have ipod, and other gadgets, that doesn't make their living conditions any better.
Yes the corporations had good reasons to lay off the man, they could pay a guy in india 2$ an hour to do his job and save a ton of money, it wasn't his fault, it was the corporation being greedy and un american. They don't care about their employees, they are just numbers.
The graph is self explanatory, if you can't figure it out, oh well. Yes it factors in inflation. Lower half incomes would be the people making around 40,000 or less a year.
-
See, you can hark all you want about living standards going down, but the data contradicts that:
(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/9/10/saupload_gdp.jpg)
-
Haha, do you really believe in these fairy tales? All was fantastic in Nazi Germany? How was fascist Italy? How about Imperial Japan? And the Soviet Union?
You don't mind the fact that in Nazi Germany, the government worked with Big Business to cartelize industries? You don't mind the fact that consumers saw prices rise in real terms (with a subsequent fall in real incomes) as government choked off entrepreneurship and closed its borders to trade with the majority of the world? You don't mind that, in fact, most people didn't own houses or cars except for the privileged few, and hardly anyone had vacations or "what they needed?"
So you say that the US isn't capitalist and then you use the US as an example of how capitalism fails ??? ::)
Yeah, capitalism doesn't work for most people. That's why most Americans don't have cars, radios, computers, iPods, TVs, and all of these other things created by capitalists, right? Oh wait... they do. ;D
BTW, don't use household income to show that there have been stagnating incomes since the 70s... incomes for individuals, even in the lower brackets, have increased in real terms, but that increase in income as been offset by a decrease in household size. so the data you posted is very misleading.
You are making up history about Germany, closing off your boarders and becoming self reliant is part of Fascism. Making corporations part of the gov't is part of it, the system does not work for the corporations, it works for the people. The people thrived, they did have houses, and lived very well. You don't need to be rich to live well. Americans seem to think the only way to live is be a millionaire, that is false. You must be a jew sympathizer if you are making up these false accusations about Germany.
About capitalism, I was saying at this point the US is not, I know it was confusing how I said it. You are advocating for it and I was just showing how it does not work for the majority of the population. Having a computer or cell phone doesn't make your living conditions good. Kids in Africa who live in shit holes have computers now, does that make their living conditions good? People in jail have TV's, does that make their living conditions good? Your examples do not reflect actual living conditions. Owning certain material goods doesn't make your living conditions good.
No the data is not misleading, you just don't want to accept the facts.
-
See, you can hark all you want about living standards going down, but the data contradicts that:
(http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/9/10/saupload_gdp.jpg)
So by going by GDP, that would make China and India great places to live as well. I hear they wipe their ass with their hand in India and China well, the people live in terrible conditions. GDP isn't very representative of how the people are living.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Gdp_nominal_and_ppp_2005_world_map_single_colour.png/720px-Gdp_nominal_and_ppp_2005_world_map_single_colour.png)
-
I posted a chart of Real GDP Per Capita... you respond with a chart of nominal GDP. Do you even understand the difference between "real" and "nominal," and do you know what the term "per capita" means?
Answer these questions and you'll realize why your last post just comes off as horrendously stupid.
-
You are making up history about Germany, closing off your boarders and becoming self reliant is part of Fascism.
I know it is a part of fascism. It also made the people of Germany much, much worse off.
Making corporations part of the gov't is part of it, the system does not work for the corporations, it works for the people.
Nazi Germany didn't make corporations "part of the government." It set up legal cartels which allowed Big Business to set prices, thereby screwing consumers over.
The people thrived, they did have houses, and lived very well.
Please come up with evidence showing that the majority of Germans lived in houses. Somehow you strike me as someone who has never been to Europe. As a European myself, I can guarantee you that there are not nearly enough houses in France, Germany, and Poland to house just the populace of Germany.
You don't need to be rich to live well. Americans seem to think the only way to live is be a millionaire, that is false.
I didn't say that you need to be rich to live well. But it's undeniable that material wealth is essential to wellbeing. You claimed that fascism improves material wealth, I destroyed your argument, so now you're claiming that it doesn't matter. LOL. ::)
You must be a jew sympathizer if you are making up these false accusations about Germany.
HAHAHAHAHA, what?!? ;D
About capitalism, I was saying at this point the US is not, I know it was confusing how I said it. You are advocating for it and I was just showing how it does not work for the majority of the population.
Do you realize the stupidity of this statement?
You're saying that:
1) The US isn't capitalist.
and
2) The US is failing so that's proof that capitalism is failing.
Which is it? ???
Having a computer or cell phone doesn't make your living conditions good. Kids in Africa who live in shit holes have computers now, does that make their living conditions good? People in jail have TV's, does that make their living conditions good? Your examples do not reflect actual living conditions. Owning certain material goods doesn't make your living conditions good.
No, material wealth isn't all there is, but it is essential to living standards, and that's what we're arguing about.
Capitalism creates more material wealth than any other system of economic organization. More houses, more food, more clothing, more medical supplies, more heating, more cooling, more computers, more TVs, more cell phones, more everything. Without capitalism, everyone would still be living in mud huts on subsistence farms.
No the data is not misleading, you just don't want to accept the facts.
The data you posted is misleading. When individual income increases but household size decreases, what happens to household income? It doesn't reflect changes in individual income. The only data that supports your conclusion that the poor have been getting poorer is household income data, not personal income data.
-
[blah blah blah blah blah]
You know what. I give up. You are about as intelligent as a (very small) pile of dead mollusks, and trying to have a rational intelligent debate with you is pointless.
-
you really are a textbook case f a delusional islamo/communist
Told ya.
-
Told ya.
-
ok so none of you fucking "get out of out business" republicans are gonna comment on Newts pledge to EXPAND Patriot Act..
"Big Government get out of our life"
Police State Patriot Act
Gay Marriage
Abortion
DADT
But stay out of our lives right?
Give me a fucking break you confused fucks. Fucking Idiots.
-
ok so none of you fucking "get out of out business" republicans are gonna comment on Newts pledge to EXPAND Patriot Act..
"Big Government get out of our life"
Police State Patriot Act
Gay Marriage
Abortion
DADT
But stay out of our lives right?
Give me a fucking break you confused fucks. Fucking Idiots.
that's one of the big moral flaws of the repub party.
We follow the bible, but we're cool with pre-emptively killing people who threaten our oil prices.
Govt needs to stay out of our lives - unless it's about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
We're pro-life, but okay with electrocuting people..
at least the dems KNOW they are spend-happy immoral twits who like the govt to take care of them. Repubs are also - but they're in denial about it.
-
that's one of the big moral flaws of the repub party.
We follow the bible, but we're cool with pre-emptively killing people who threaten our oil prices.
Govt needs to stay out of our lives - unless it's about abortion, gay marriage, etc.
We're pro-life, but okay with electrocuting people..
at least the dems KNOW they are spend-happy immoral twits who like the govt to take care of them. Repubs are also - but they're in denial about it.
idiots on Getbig Disgust me. Seriously. Defending crap repubs put out day in and day out..
Fucking walking contradictions.
-
idiots on Getbig Disgust me. Seriously. Defending crap repubs put out day in and day out..
Fucking walking contradictions.
before the age of the web and free information, it was easy.
Repubs didn't know gulf of tonken was a lie to start war - they would know that today.
Repubs didn't know lots of details of lots of war - but they did know that Saddam let UN search everything, adn there were no WMD. WE invaded anyway.
Repubs didn't see youtube clips of their candidates taking every position under the sun - today we know who the flipfloppers are.
Repubs wouldn't have found out about freddie mac lobbyist newt bullshit before - medi may have held that.
Repubs woudln't have known about all these politicians' affairs - Sen Vitter wore diapers with hookers - and they still have to defend him.
it's a tough spot. They used to be able to hold up taht bible and justify everything. Now, every time they say "yeah, let's invade this country who hasnt attacked us", they can't lean on simple lies that their moral systems allow. So it's just changed to "anything to not be called a liberal!" or this nonstop "terrorists want to kill us" threat which used to work to justify a military budget so big. but even today, many repubs are starting to realize it's just about making the rich richer. It's not about making us safe.
Would Jesus have supported vietnam based on lies? Would Jesus have invaded Iraq after seeing with his own Jesus trucks & inspectors that saddam didnt' have WMD? We all know the answer to that.
-
WOW..all you silly ass RW posters are silent now...fuckin jokes...now its a conversation between me and 240....let me put some obama crap up and yall will be posting from now till next week,
sucka
-
WOW..all you silly ass RW posters are silent now...fuckin jokes...now its a conversation between me and 240....let me put some obama crap up and yall will be posting from now till next week,
sucka
LOL!!! You libs are a fucking joke - other than gay marriage and abortion - you idiots are for pissing over every single economic right we have, pissing on the 2nd and 1st amendment, hate crimes laws, etc.
Fucking please Option F (FAIL), both parties are hypocritical. The GOP social cons need to STFU about abortion and gay marriage, but fucking please - the communist left , of which your heros are a part of, take the damn wedding cake when it comes to abusing peoples' rights.
-
LOL!!! You libs are a fucking joke - other than gay marriage and abortion - you idiots are for pissing over every single economic right we have, pissing on the 2nd and 1st amendment, hate crimes laws, etc.
Fucking please Option F (FAIL), both parties are hypocritical. The GOP social cons need to STFU about abortion and gay marriage, but fucking please - the communist left , of which your heros are a part of, take the damn wedding cake when it comes to abusing peoples' rights.
of which your heros are a part of????? You fucking idiot.. over and over IM VOTING FOR PAUL..YOU FUCKING DUNCE...
So WSY about your new God... Newts Stance on Patriot act... i didnt ask jack crap about liberals...i asked about your god attempting to expand my country to a police state...
Now answer it fag
-
of which your heros are a part of????? You fucking idiot.. over and over IM VOTING FOR PAUL..YOU FUCKING DUNCE...
So WSY about your new God... Newts Stance on Patriot act... i didnt ask jack crap about liberals...i asked about your god attempting to expand my country to a police state...
Now answer it fag
LMFAO!!!!! are you fucking kidding!!!! WTF is wrong with you? Obama has been doing that for 3 years now all to the silence of those idiots who voted for him!
-
LMFAO!!!!! are you fucking kidding!!!! WTF is wrong with you? Obama has been doing that for 3 years now all to the silence of those idiots who voted for him!
Stay on topic idiot
-
LMFAO!!!!! are you fucking kidding!!!! WTF is wrong with you? Obama has been doing that for 3 years now all to the silence of those idiots who voted for him!
That is not true at all... I voted for Obama and his continuation of The Patriot Act sickened me.
-
That is not true at all... I voted for Obama and his continuation of The Patriot Act sickened me.
Not true of you - you are one of rare honest one like BF and Hugo. The others ? GMAFB.
-
ok so none of you fucking "get out of out business" republicans are gonna comment on Newts pledge to EXPAND Patriot Act..
"Big Government get out of our life"
Police State Patriot Act
Gay Marriage
Abortion
DADT
But stay out of our lives right?
Give me a fucking break you confused fucks. Fucking Idiots.
What's your problem with the Patriot Act?
-
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.
Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.
Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.
-
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
-
What's your problem with the Patriot Act?
R U for real?
-
R U for real?
How have you personally been affected by the patriot act? Are you on the phone with terrorists in Yemen? Are you laundering money for Al Quaeda?
Just asking -
-
R U for real?
That's about the answer I expected.
Do you have a problem with the entire act or just certain parts of it? And which part was Newt talking about in his passing reference about strengthening it?
-
You are making up history about Germany, closing off your boarders and becoming self reliant is part of Fascism. Making corporations part of the gov't is part of it, the system does not work for the corporations, it works for the people. The people thrived, they did have houses, and lived very well. You don't need to be rich to live well. Americans seem to think the only way to live is be a millionaire, that is false. You must be a jew sympathizer if you are making up these false accusations about Germany.
About capitalism, I was saying at this point the US is not, I know it was confusing how I said it. You are advocating for it and I was just showing how it does not work for the majority of the population. Having a computer or cell phone doesn't make your living conditions good. Kids in Africa who live in shit holes have computers now, does that make their living conditions good? People in jail have TV's, does that make their living conditions good? Your examples do not reflect actual living conditions. Owning certain material goods doesn't make your living conditions good.
No the data is not misleading, you just don't want to accept the facts.
lol, the analogy you provided completely shits on these morons and there correlation with material goods. It's as if owning a fucking phone is some form of status attainment, that all is good in the world if people are still able to communicate with others.
-
How have you personally been affected by the patriot act? Are you on the phone with terrorists in Yemen? Are you laundering money for Al Quaeda?
Just asking -
I've not been affected by the gun bans in DC, Chicago, or NY either. Maybe they're not so bad.
-
How have you personally been affected by the patriot act? Are you on the phone with terrorists in Yemen? Are you laundering money for Al Quaeda?
Just asking -
I wonder if the 2nd or 3rd set of Jewish people hauled off to concentration camps said that to the group in front of them.
-
I've not been affected by the gun bans in DC, Chicago, or NY either. Maybe they're not so bad.
Was busting balls.
BTW - Obama is for gun bans in Chicago and DC.
-
That's about the answer I expected.
Do you have a problem with the entire act or just certain parts of it? And which part was Newt talking about in his passing reference about strengthening it?
Sorry needed to go work out chief
Now about EXPANDING your already intrusive Patriot act. Yes I do not like your entire patriot act at all. I dont like its basis for one. It was birthed out of 9/11 attacks. 9/11 was preventable if GWB would've listened to Clark. Am i correct.. Yes i know i am. So to say Patriot act was needed is pure bull crap. And Newt never stated specific intentions. Just intentions on expanding it as a whole.
Yea... Gov Stay out of our business...
Amazing...you guys are really amazing
You got 3333 over there, dont wether to like it because Newt said or, damn it because its a clear intrusion on American's Civil liberties.
But for now 333 will defend it in order to play politics.. Clown
Ron Paul - civil liberty's last hope
Get short URL email story to a friend print version
Published: 23 November, 2011, 21:25
Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul
TRENDS:
US Election 2012
TAGS: Election, Politics, Terrorism, War
Profile Muslims. Bring on the drones. Did we learn anything else from last night’s GOP debate on CNN? Well, once again, it appears as if Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to protect the liberties of Americans.
Speaking from DAR Constitution Hall in Washington DC Tuesday night, Paul and his peers discussed the topics of national security and foreign policy. While it’s been no secret that some of the more hawkish candidates are crazy for increasing defense spending and upping the American military presence overseas, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again managed to separate himself from the rest of the pack by coming off as perhaps the only candidate truly committed to keeping liberty and freedom in place for Americans.
Right from the get-go, Paul used the allotted time to introduce himself to the audience by saying that the issues on hand last night were of great importance to the country. According to the congressman, America’s wars — which he deemed “needless” and “unnecessary” — not just add to the deficit of the country but also undermine the prosperity and liberty of America.
Perhaps most detrimental to those ways of American life, however, is the Patriot Act. While Newt Gingrich rallied to extend the legislation longer and Rick Perry and Herman Cain also offered their support for the controversial bill, Paul put himself apart from his fellow candidates by condemning the act.
“I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty,” Paul said. “I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack . . . Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it.” Paul added, however, that the framers of the Constitution warned the country not to “sacrifice liberty for security,” yet “Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security.”
“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,” added Paul, to which the candidate was met with a round of applause.
According to former House speaker Newt Gingrich, however, there can be a happy medium where Americans only lose some of those liberties.
“We'll try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security,” said Gingrich.
While Paul went on to say that that establishing such a tyrannical regime over the American people could be an efficient way of curbing crime, it would also be a great way to end freedom.
“You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state,” Paul said. “So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.”
According to other candidates, however, those sacrifices are necessary for the protection against terrorism, something they made out to be a constant threat. “The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us,” said Herman Cain. To handle that threat, Cain proposed that “we should use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first.”
Cain neglected to specify what he did actually want to do first — kill suspected terrorists or identify them — but others made it clear that in-depth analyses of alleged terrorists wasn’t really necessary for the safety and security of American citizens. Instead, rather, the government should just go after Muslims.
When quizzed by moderator Wolf Blitzer on how to deal with ethnic profiling, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said that such a practice was crucial in the War on Terror, and that the government should not just continue to profile people, but specifically go after Muslims.
“The folks that are most likely to be committing these crimes,” Santorum suggested should be the target of profiling. “Obviously Muslims would be someone you’d look at, absolutely.”
Similarly, Cain proposed what he called “targeted identification.” While he would not come out and say that Muslims specifically need to be profiled (although he has attacked them in the press repeatedly), he did declare that “If you take a look at the people who have tried to kill us, it would be easier to figure out exactly what that identification profile looked like.”
To Paul, however, none of these tactics for a war on terror seem like an appropriate response.
“That's digging a hole for ourselves,” said Paul. “What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal.”
“I think we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're at war. I don't remember voting on — on a declared — declaration of war. Oh, we're against terrorism. And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects.”
Paul added that the executive powers established through the Patriot Act and other War on Terror legislation has made American citizens “vulnerable to assassination,” hinting at the reason execution of two US men with alleged al-Qaeda ties that were killed by drone strikes overseas.
The War on Terror isn’t the only unnecessary according to Paul, either. Responding to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s support of the War on Drugs, Paul said, “That’s another war we ought to cancel . . . And that’s where the violence is coming from.”
“I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure.”
“So the drug war is out of control,” added Paul. “I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend — like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.”
-
Paragraphs please!
-
Paragraphs please!
http://rt.com/usa/news/paul-war-security-liberties-061/
-
wait til obama uses the patriot act to lock up bald armed & angry americans after they riot when he steals the 2012 election.
A whole lotta laws you love now will suddenly suck....
-
Hey. How about we stop arguing and all agree on Ron Paul 2012! ;D
-
I know it is a part of fascism. It also made the people of Germany much, much worse off.
Nazi Germany didn't make corporations "part of the government." It set up legal cartels which allowed Big Business to set prices, thereby screwing consumers over.
Please come up with evidence showing that the majority of Germans lived in houses. Somehow you strike me as someone who has never been to Europe. As a European myself, I can guarantee you that there are not nearly enough houses in France, Germany, and Poland to house just the populace of Germany.
I didn't say that you need to be rich to live well. But it's undeniable that material wealth is essential to wellbeing. You claimed that fascism improves material wealth, I destroyed your argument, so now you're claiming that it doesn't matter. LOL. ::)
HAHAHAHAHA, what?!? ;D
Do you realize the stupidity of this statement?
You're saying that:
1) The US isn't capitalist.
and
2) The US is failing so that's proof that capitalism is failing.
Which is it? ???
No, material wealth isn't all there is, but it is essential to living standards, and that's what we're arguing about.
Capitalism creates more material wealth than any other system of economic organization. More houses, more food, more clothing, more medical supplies, more heating, more cooling, more computers, more TVs, more cell phones, more everything. Without capitalism, everyone would still be living in mud huts on subsistence farms.
The data you posted is misleading. When individual income increases but household size decreases, what happens to household income? It doesn't reflect changes in individual income. The only data that supports your conclusion that the poor have been getting poorer is household income data, not personal income data.
Germany did not screw consumers over, you are a jew sympathizer I can tell. Come up with information that most Germans didn't own their houses, most history says they did quite well, the western media and jews like to re write history.
Material wealth is not part of well being, lol you are obsessed with money I can tell, but you are the perfect person for USA to exploit. Work your whole life, then die, all part of the machine.
Material things that capitalism creates does not create happiness. Look how many people are on anti depressants in the USA compared to other countries.
You are very vested in this argument for some reason, are you rich and don't want your tax rates raised? Because when taxes were high, the US did the best economy wise and living standards wise.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg/400px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg.png)
-
I'm a college student who was raised by a single mother who was an illegal immigrant for the first three years of my life. But I guess anything I say you'll just plug your ears to and write it off as me being a wealthy Jew sympathizer ::)
-
Material things that capitalism creates does not create happiness. Look how many people are on anti depressants in the USA compared to other countries.
But higher taxes create happiness and cure depression?
You are very vested in this argument for some reason, are you rich and don't want your tax rates raised? Because when taxes were high, the US did the best economy wise and living standards wise.
I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I do own my home and my car outright. My bottom line on taxes is that I pay too much already. The money I worked hard to make isn't the government's (or yours) to take and dispense as it (or you) sees fit. Is that so difficult to understand? I do not recognize your right to my money.
The government (and you) seem intent to take my money at the point of the proverbial gun. You rely on the fact that I do not wish to violate the laws by not paying taxes -- and you are right, I don't want to violate the laws -- and think that you've backed me into a corner, from which I cannot escape. But you are wrong. If it comes down to an increase in taxes, I will simply quit my current job, take a new part-time unskilled labor job outside of my field of expertise; my month-to-month expenses aren't high, and as long as I can make ~$500/month I'll have food, power and water taken care of. And it won't matter if you back me into a corner... you'll have nothing to steal from me.
You should be happy - you've convinced me the capitalism is evil. Fine, I'll stop being evil. You've convinced me that making money is bad. Fine, I'll stop making money -- I'll just earn enough to live. You've convinced me that the pursuit of material wealth is not a worthy endeavor. Fine, I'll stop pursuing material wealth.
Now ask yourself one question -- where will that leave you and your ilk?
-
But higher taxes create happiness and cure depression?
I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I do own my home and my car outright. My bottom line on taxes is that I pay too much already. The money I worked hard to make isn't the government's (or yours) to take and dispense as it (or you) sees fit. Is that so difficult to understand? I do not recognize your right to my money.
The government (and you) seem intent to take my money at the point of the proverbial gun. You rely on the fact that I do not wish to violate the laws by not paying taxes -- and you are right, I don't want to violate the laws -- and think that you've backed me into a corner, from which I cannot escape. But you are wrong. If it comes down to an increase in taxes, I will simply quit my current job, take a new part-time unskilled labor job outside of my field of expertise; my month-to-month expenses aren't high, and as long as I can make ~$500/month I'll have food, power and water taken care of. And it won't matter if you back me into a corner... you'll have nothing to steal from me.
You should be happy - you've convinced me the capitalism is evil. Fine, I'll stop being evil. You've convinced me that making money is bad. Fine, I'll stop making money -- I'll just earn enough to live. You've convinced me that the pursuit of material wealth is not a worthy endeavor. Fine, I'll stop pursuing material wealth.
Now ask yourself one question -- where will that leave you and your ilk?
Higher taxes are better for the rich as a whole, yes. This nation has some of the lowest tax rates among developed nations in the world and the rich still bitch about it.
I never said higher taxes cure depression, I said capitalism with the chase of material things and wealth creates depression, because people realize it's a uphill battle they will never win, only the few elite will have the money now and that is how the system is built for now. Oh course people will get depressed chasing a dream they know never will come true. The USA has sold the dream of material wealth and have the sheep going for it, living their lives going after money, while the lucky elite sit back and count their money off the hard work of the people that will never be in that position a day in their lives.
That is up to you if you would like to quit your job, just like O Reily said if they raise the tax rate he is going to quit, it is all bullshit, you won't quit, you are addicted to money, you do not want to just get by and have a few material things, you want it all, you are pulled in by greed and will do anything to acquire more money it sounds like.
-
Higher taxes are better for the rich as a whole, yes. This nation has some of the lowest tax rates among developed nations in the world and the rich still bitch about it.
I never said higher taxes cure depression, I said capitalism with the chase of material things and wealth creates depression, because people realize it's a uphill battle they will never win, only the few elite will have the money now and that is how the system is built for now. Oh course people will get depressed chasing a dream they know never will come true. The USA has sold the dream of material wealth and have the sheep going for it, living their lives going after money, while the lucky elite sit back and count their money off the hard work of the people that will never be in that position a day in their lives.
That is up to you if you would like to quit your job, just like O Reily said if they raise the tax rate he is going to quit, it is all bullshit, you won't quit, you are addicted to money, you do not want to just get by and have a few material things, you want it all, you are pulled in by greed and will do anything to acquire more money it sounds like.
-
Whatever...Newt said he wanted to expand the police state and you are all for it... fucking commie scum
-
Whatever...Newt said he wanted to expand the police state and you are all for it... fucking commie scum
and Obama does as well and has already done so many times over.
bbboooommmmmm!!!!
-
and Obama does as well and has already done so many times over.
bbboooommmmmm!!!!
Yeah.. and thats why i said im voting for Ron Paul.. Pay Attention son...
Now you are still championing for a guy that said he wants to make my country a god damn police.. and you're fine with that. Even making threads about how cool the guy is. You're no Patriot at all.. you're a chump playing politics at the expense of the country.
-
Yeah.. and thats why i said im voting for Ron Paul.. Pay Attention son...
Now you are still championing for a guy that said he wants to make my country a god damn police.. and you're fine with that. Even making threads about how cool the guy is. You're no Patriot at all.. you're a chump playing politics at the expense of the country.
Good post
Hope Ron Paul goes Option D on these fuckers...
-
Yeah.. and thats why i said im voting for Ron Paul.. Pay Attention son...
Now you are still championing for a guy that said he wants to make my country a god damn police.. and you're fine with that. Even making threads about how cool the guy is. You're no Patriot at all.. you're a chump playing politics at the expense of the country.
LMFAO - I am voting for A N Y B O D Y over Obama for the sole reason that even if they are a bag of shit, even if they are 70% suck, that possibility of 30% is worth the chance over this present disaster.
-
LMFAO - I am voting for A N Y B O D Y over Obama for the sole reason that even if they are a bag of shit, even if they are 70% suck, that possibility of 30% is worth the chance over this present disaster.
Amazing.
-
Higher taxes are better for the rich as a whole, yes. This nation has some of the lowest tax rates among developed nations in the world and the rich still bitch about it.
Higher taxes -- for the rich or the not rich -- are a bad thing. It's not "better" by any stretch of the imagination for anyone to have more of their money confiscated.
I never said higher taxes cure depression, I said capitalism with the chase of material things and wealth creates depression, because people realize it's a uphill battle they will never win, only the few elite will have the money now and that is how the system is built for now. Oh course people will get depressed chasing a dream they know never will come true. The USA has sold the dream of material wealth and have the sheep going for it, living their lives going after money, while the lucky elite sit back and count their money off the hard work of the people that will never be in that position a day in their lives.
You seem to assume that the rich people are rich because of the work everybody else does, and not because of their own work. To be sure, there are those who inherit money and are in such a position. But don't envy such people -- their money isn't yours and even if it were, you'd have done no better with it.
That is up to you if you would like to quit your job, just like O Reily said if they raise the tax rate he is going to quit, it is all bullshit, you won't quit, you are addicted to money, you do not want to just get by and have a few material things, you want it all, you are pulled in by greed and will do anything to acquire more money it sounds like.
I don't know or case what "O Reily" said. And, frankly, you don't know me nearly as well as you think do. I don't care for money qua money. I care for what that money represents -- or what it's supposed to represent. And I simply have had enough of a government that punishes me for my success by forcing me to part with more of my income the harder I work. I simply have had enough of a governent that treats me as human wallet, whose only purpose is to provide money for others.
It's not about the acquisition of money. It's about living in the society you and your ilk have established and want to perpetuate. You advocate the system where success is evil and effort is punished and where workers are exalted. Well then, I stop succeeding, stop putting in the effort, and just become a worker bee. And you know what? I know that scares you, because you need me -- you need me to continue succeeding so that you can keep taking from me; you need me to continue putting in the effort so you can reap the benefits.
-
Sorry needed to go work out chief
Now about EXPANDING your already intrusive Patriot act. Yes I do not like your entire patriot act at all. I dont like its basis for one. It was birthed out of 9/11 attacks. 9/11 was preventable if GWB would've listened to Clark. Am i correct.. Yes i know i am. So to say Patriot act was needed is pure bull crap. And Newt never stated specific intentions. Just intentions on expanding it as a whole.
Yea... Gov Stay out of our business...
Amazing...you guys are really amazing
You got 3333 over there, dont wether to like it because Newt said or, damn it because its a clear intrusion on American's Civil liberties.
But for now 333 will defend it in order to play politics.. Clown
You have a problem with the whole thing? What about this part?
Title IV: Border security: USA PATRIOT Act, Title IV
Title IV amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give more law enforcement and investigative power to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Attorney General was authorized to waive any cap on the number of full time employees (FTEs) assigned to the INS on the Northern border of the United States.[96] Enough funds were set aside to triple the maximum number of Border Patrol personnel, Customs Service personnel and INS inspectors along with an additional US$50,000,000 funding for the INS and the U.S. Customs Service to improve technology for monitoring the Northern Border and acquiring additional equipment at the Canadian northern border.[97] The INS was also given the authority to authorize overtime payments of up to an extra US$30,000 a year to INS employees.[98] Access was given to the Department of State and the INS to criminal background information contained in the National Crime Information Center's Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File and any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center to determine whether visa applicants and applicants could be admitted to the U.S.[99] The Department of State was required to form final regulations governing the procedures for taking fingerprints and the conditions with which the department was allowed to use this information.[100] Additionally, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was ordered to develop a technology standard to verify the identity of persons applying for a United States visa.[100] The reason was to make the standard the technology basis for a cross-agency, cross-platform electronic system used for conducting background checks, confirming identities and ensuring that people have not received visas under different names.[101] This report was released on November 13, 2002,[102] however, according to NIST, this was later "determined that the fingerprint system used was not as accurate as current state-of-the-art fingerprint systems and is approximately equivalent to commercial fingerprint systems available in 1998."[103] This report was later superseded by section 303(a) of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.
. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
-
Kind of like this part
2007 US Justice Department audit finds FBI abuse of PATRIOT act powers
Wikinews has related news: U.S. Justice Dept. says FBI misused USA PATRIOT Act
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens.[1]
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#2007_US_Justice_Department_audit_finds_FBI_abuse_of_PATRIOT_act_powers
-
Kind of like this part
2007 US Justice Department audit finds FBI abuse of PATRIOT act powers
Wikinews has related news: U.S. Justice Dept. says FBI misused USA PATRIOT Act
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens.[1]
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#2007_US_Justice_Department_audit_finds_FBI_abuse_of_PATRIOT_act_powers
What problem do you have the enhanced border security section?
-
Kind of like this part
2007 US Justice Department audit finds FBI abuse of PATRIOT act powers
Wikinews has related news: U.S. Justice Dept. says FBI misused USA PATRIOT Act
On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens.[1]
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act#2007_US_Justice_Department_audit_finds_FBI_abuse_of_PATRIOT_act_powers
Can you bump your posts bashing the FBI, DEA, ATF for abuses in Fast N Furious?
-
What problem do you have the enhanced border security section?
I dont.
but if i dont like 90% of something.. then i dont like it..
This aint the "Border Security Act"
Its the Patroit act, and theyve used it to spy on American Citizens and Abused it over 1000 times as per an INTERNAL audit. What do you think the numbers would increase to if they were audited by an outside agency?
-
Can you bump your posts bashing the FBI, DEA, ATF for abuses in Fast N Furious?
I didnt. So. I dont have to bump shit just to meet your approval. Who the fuck are you.
I didnt follow that story. I dont have all day to seek out shit like you do.
Hey tell me did Obama do a courtesy flush today with his morning shit?
thats earth shattering shit right there..
Hey what did The First Lady have for breakfast? Im sure you have people on it
-
I didnt. So. I dont have to bump shit just to meet your approval. Who the fuck are you.
I didnt follow that story. I dont have all day to seek out shit like you do.
Hey tell me did Obama do a courtesy flush today with his morning shit?
thats earth shattering shit right there..
Hey what did The First Lady have for breakfast? Im sure you have people on it
LOL. Fast n Furious is one of the biggest scandals of all time and you don't about it, but obssess over this? lol.
-
I dont.
but if i dont like 90% of something.. then i dont like it..
This aint the "Border Security Act"
Its the Patroit act, and theyve used it to spy on American Citizens and Abused it over 1000 times as per an INTERNAL audit. What do you think the numbers would increase to if they were audited by an outside agency?
I don't think the federal government needed a new law to abuse its power. That happens all the time. The good thing about abuse of power by the feds is the checks and balances provided by the courts.
Are you sure you don't like 90 percent of the Patroit Act? This act isn't just about surveillance. It's about, among other things, border security, money laundering, and fighting the people who are trying to kill Americans.
-
LOL. Fast n Furious is one of the biggest scandals of all time and you don't about it, but obssess over this? lol.
Everything against obama is the biggest scandal all time with you.
You are the undisputed champion of overreacting like a 12 year old school girl
Dont try to change the subject. Your guy is trying to turn our country into a police state and you are supporting it.
Thanks a lot fuck tard
-
Everything against obama is the biggest scandal all time with you.
You are the undisputed champion of overreacting like a 12 year old school girl
Dont try to change the subject. Your guy is trying to turn our country into a police state and you are supporting it.
Thanks a lot fuck tard
Hey idiot - the guy you VOTED for and kneepadded until recently is ACTUALLY doing it right fucking nowq.
-
Hey idiot - the guy you VOTED for and kneepadded until recently is ACTUALLY doing it right fucking nowq.
And the guy you voted for started the fucking snowball down the hill
He was the one THAT INITIATED THE DAMN LAW...
Are you seriously arguing with me on this...
with your "stance" on police states.. the only post from your grubby little fingers should have been
"yeah newt is fucked up for that and i cant support someone that is proposing to initiate everything i stand against"
but instead, you play politics and then find a way to bring Obama in this.. When this is someone saying they want to further the police state policy...
you play politics.. way to go fuckface.. way to go.
you sicken me
-
And the guy you voted for started the fucking snowball down the hill
He was the one THAT INITIATED THE DAMN LAW...
Are you seriously arguing with me on this...
with your "stance" on police states.. the only post from your grubby little fingers should have been
"yeah newt is fucked up for that and i cant support someone that is proposing to initiate everything i stand against"
but instead, you play politics and then find a way to bring Obama in this.. When this is someone saying they want to further the police state policy...
you play politics.. way to go fuckface.. way to go.
you sicken me
Police State pre-dates Bush.
-
Police State pre-dates Bush.
Bush enacted the Patriot Act...
and instead of being outraged, you make excuses and continue Newt.. The shit you say Obama supporters do.. Dude get some consistency.
-
Bush enacted the Patriot Act...
and instead of being outraged, you make excuses and continue Newt.. The shit you say Obama supporters do.. Dude get some consistency.
LOL. Other police state shit is far far worse than the Patriot Act that pre-dates Bush.
Question - are you talking to terrorist overseas and laundering money?
-
LOL. Other police state shit is far far worse than the Patriot Act that pre-dates Bush.
Question - are you talking to terrorist overseas and laundering money?
The policy that is called The Patriot act took Police State to another level. And made it Quasi Legal.... Dont give me that bullshit. You know how you try to muddy up an argument in order to keep from saying whats right. We see right through your dumb ass. Plain bottom line, Newt wants to expand the Police state and you support that.
Thats point blank period
-
The policy that is called The Patriot act took Police State to another level. And made it Quasi Legal.... Dont give me that bullshit. You know how you try to muddy up an argument in order to keep from saying whats right. We see right through your dumb ass. Plain bottom line, Newt wants to expand the Police state and you support that.
Thats point blank period
Oh please - GMAFB. Thats pure nonsense.
-
Higher taxes -- for the rich or the not rich -- are a bad thing. It's not "better" by any stretch of the imagination for anyone to have more of their money confiscated.
You seem to assume that the rich people are rich because of the work everybody else does, and not because of their own work. To be sure, there are those who inherit money and are in such a position. But don't envy such people -- their money isn't yours and even if it were, you'd have done no better with it.
I don't know or case what "O Reily" said. And, frankly, you don't know me nearly as well as you think do. I don't care for money qua money. I care for what that money represents -- or what it's supposed to represent. And I simply have had enough of a government that punishes me for my success by forcing me to part with more of my income the harder I work. I simply have had enough of a governent that treats me as human wallet, whose only purpose is to provide money for others.
It's not about the acquisition of money. It's about living in the society you and your ilk have established and want to perpetuate. You advocate the system where success is evil and effort is punished and where workers are exalted. Well then, I stop succeeding, stop putting in the effort, and just become a worker bee. And you know what? I know that scares you, because you need me -- you need me to continue succeeding so that you can keep taking from me; you need me to continue putting in the effort so you can reap the benefits.
People are not punished, the system only punishes greedy people that is why they have the highest tax rate, which isn't high enough by far, should be 50 - 60 % to really let them know what they are doing is wrong and greedy and they have to give that money back to the poor and redistribute it.
I doubt you fall into the highest income bracket, so why are you in such a hissy fit? In other countries your tax rate would be much higher, so appreciate it is so low here in the US.
-
Remember everybody, Obama 2012, only man to vote for, he is for the working man, no discrimination between people he is one we are all one.
-
Remember everybody, Obama 2012, only man to vote for, he is for the working man, no discrimination between people he is one we are all one.
LMFAO. how does it feel knowing I will cancel out your vote asshole! chant for that communist half a fag all you like, I still cancel your vote.
-
LMFAO. how does it feel knowing I will cancel out your vote asshole! chant for that communist half a fag all you like, I still cancel your vote.
i'm voting twice.
-
i'm voting twice.
You are a communist lib, of course you are.
-
People are not punished, the system only punishes greedy people that is why they have the highest tax rate, which isn't high enough by far, should be 50 - 60 % to really let them know what they are doing is wrong and greedy and they have to give that money back to the poor and redistribute it.
Why is it wrong? Why should they be punished? Because you disapprove?
Why shouldn't Larry Page or Sergey Brin not be betond filthy rich? They gave the world something of inestimable value and provide a service people want. They've earned every single penny, and if they wanted to spend it all on gold-plates toilet fixtures that flush with champagne and light sweet crude, they should be able to, without the government trying to impose some naive morality and enforce a sense of fiscal fairness.
I doubt you fall into the highest income bracket, so why are you in such a hissy fit? In other countries your tax rate would be much higher, so appreciate it is so low here in the US.
I'm not, and I still feel my tax rates are way too high. I don't recognize the government's right to take my money to give to others. The functiona of the Federal Government are clearly spelled out in the document that created that entity, and i see no mention of robin hood.
But I have no choice when there's a gun pointed at me, so I pay. But I have about reached my limit, and I am very likely to stop doing the kind of work I do and take a part-time low paying job that generates enough income to cover food and basic living costs but leaves nothing for you an you looter friends to plunder. And what will you do then?
You say you don't think I'll do it; that's because you don't understand me. When the last state I lived I'm raised taxes, I simply moved to a state with no state income taxes. I am serious about this.
And unlike what you think, this is not about the money. It's about the fact that it's my money and that you don't get a say in what I do with my money. Since you force me to empty my wallet by law, I will simply fight back by making sure my wallet is already empty. After all, you can't take what's not there.
What will you do then? How will your laws and your tax code help you? Will you force me to take the job I gave up to make money for you?
As for what other countries do, I couldn't really give a crap because it doesn't affect me. If the Swedes wish to pay however much they pay in exchange for whatever they get from their government, more power to them. I consider their system idiotic, but sovereign states (just like people) have a right to be stupid. I don't tell people how to live their lives - one is responsible for oneself. I focus on mine.
-
Why is it wrong? Why should they be punished? Because you disapprove?
Why shouldn't Larry Page or Sergey Brin not be betond filthy rich? They gave the world something of inestimable value and provide a service people want. They've earned every single penny, and if they wanted to spend it all on gold-plates toilet fixtures that flush with champagne and light sweet crude, they should be able to, without the government trying to impose some naive morality and enforce a sense of fiscal fairness.
I'm not, and I still feel my tax rates are way too high. I don't recognize the government's right to take my money to give to others. The functiona of the Federal Government are clearly spelled out in the document that created that entity, and i see no mention of robin hood.
But I have no choice when there's a gun pointed at me, so I pay. But I have about reached my limit, and I am very likely to stop doing the kind of work I do and take a part-time low paying job that generates enough income to cover food and basic living costs but leaves nothing for you an you looter friends to plunder. And what will you do then?
You say you don't think I'll do it; that's because you don't understand me. When the last state I lived I'm raised taxes, I simply moved to a state with no state income taxes. I am serious about this.
And unlike what you think, this is not about the money. It's about the fact that it's my money and that you don't get a say in what I do with my money. Since you force me to empty my wallet by law, I will simply fight back by making sure my wallet is already empty. After all, you can't take what's not there.
What will you do then? How will your laws and your tax code help you? Will you force me to take the job I gave up to make money for you?
As for what other countries do, I couldn't really give a crap because it doesn't affect me. If the Swedes wish to pay however much they pay in exchange for whatever they get from their government, more power to them. I consider their system idiotic, but sovereign states (just like people) have a right to be stupid. I don't tell people how to live their lives - one is responsible for oneself. I focus on mine.
I'm glad you are considering taking a part time job, hopefully it will lead to less stress about the government so called stealing your money, do you have any places in mind for the part time job?
LOL, I don't need your money, even welfare receipts, get what 1/2 of a cent of what you pay in taxes, you really don't contribute all that much to an individuals benefits when you break it down.
-
I'm glad you are considering taking a part time job, hopefully it will lead to less stress about the government so called stealing your money, do you have any places in mind for the part time job?
LOL, I don't need your money, even welfare receipts, get what 1/2 of a cent of what you pay in taxes, you really don't contribute all that much to an individuals benefits when you break it down.
Why do you call it "so called stealing" when you openly advocate for redistribution of income from rich to poor by the government via taxation and benefits? If someone takes money from someone else by force (in this case, the government takes from me by force, since I wouldn't volunteer the money and I only pay it under the threat of legal sanctions) that is stealing.
I'm not opposed to the taxes in principle. Government must be financed and there are legitimate government functions. But government isn't Robin Hood and it's Constitutionally authorized functions are limited. I'd pay taxes to finance those because I get a benefit. But I get nothing from a government that sees me as an ATM that can be used to finance social policy.
If you feel so strongly about helping the poor why don't you pay more money to the government to let them redistribute it? The Treasury accepts donations you know.
Or why not help the poor directly? The money you spent to buy a computer could have probably many meals for many poor families. The money you spend on an Internet connection could have been used to pay for books for a poor college kid.
If you feel so strongly about helping the poor that you will take other people's money to help them, and tell them "oh you make too much anyways" and "you don't really need all this money" why do you live in relative luxury as opposed to living as cheaply as you can to help as many poor people as possible?
Because you are a fucking hypocrite - that's why. You say all this stuff knowing full well that someone else will have to foot the bill.
You say that I, personally, don't contribute that much in taxes to social programs. Perhaps you're right, but that's besides the point. The point is that I am forced to contribute at all. I am not an ATM - whether I make $10,000, $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 per year.
And, yes, of course you need my money. Oh, not you personally. But you need them to achieve your lofty goals of a wonderful society, where government checks ensure financial parity and equality among people... I have news for you: communism failed for a reason!
As for the job, not really, although any job involving walking would be nice - I could use the cardio. And as I said before - the look of horror in your eyes when you realize that there's nothing to plunder? Priceless!
-
Hey you islamo goat molester - tell me what you disagree with in this.
-
Oh please - GMAFB. Thats pure nonsense.
Its 100% true. What part about it is nonsense? Please Detail
-
Why do you call it "so called stealing" when you openly advocate for redistribution of income from rich to poor by the government via taxation and benefits? If someone takes money from someone else by force (in this case, the government takes from me by force, since I wouldn't volunteer the money and I only pay it under the threat of legal sanctions) that is stealing.
I'm not opposed to the taxes in principle. Government must be financed and there are legitimate government functions. But government isn't Robin Hood and it's Constitutionally authorized functions are limited. I'd pay taxes to finance those because I get a benefit. But I get nothing from a government that sees me as an ATM that can be used to finance social policy.
If you feel so strongly about helping the poor why don't you pay more money to the government to let them redistribute it? The Treasury accepts donations you know.
Or why not help the poor directly? The money you spent to buy a computer could have probably many meals for many poor families. The money you spend on an Internet connection could have been used to pay for books for a poor college kid.
If you feel so strongly about helping the poor that you will take other people's money to help them, and tell them "oh you make too much anyways" and "you don't really need all this money" why do you live in relative luxury as opposed to living as cheaply as you can to help as many poor people as possible?
Because you are a fucking hypocrite - that's why. You say all this stuff knowing full well that someone else will have to foot the bill.
You say that I, personally, don't contribute that much in taxes to social programs. Perhaps you're right, but that's besides the point. The point is that I am forced to contribute at all. I am not an ATM - whether I make $10,000, $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 per year.
And, yes, of course you need my money. Oh, not you personally. But you need them to achieve your lofty goals of a wonderful society, where government checks ensure financial parity and equality among people... I have news for you: communism failed for a reason!
As for the job, not really, although any job involving walking would be nice - I could use the cardio. And as I said before - the look of horror in your eyes when you realize that there's nothing to plunder? Priceless!
I called it so called stealing because that is what most conservatives call it, so you can relate to what I am saying, I do not believe it is stealing myself. In order to have a functioning government, we need people to pay taxes.
I do help the poor any chance I can get, pay all the taxes I am asked of and do not use tax credits, or anything else to lower what I am paying, I love paying my taxes because I know it will help our country be better one day.
I remember seeing the patriotic millionaires on television while I was eating the other day, a real class act these people where, I just checked out their site, here is the link if your interested. These are the real hero's of this country besides our troops.
http://patrioticmillionaires.org/
-
Its 100% true. What part about it is nonsense? Please Detail
You have a lot more to worry about from local speeding, dwi, traffic, and zoning bs in terms of the police state than you do the patriot act.
-
i dont see how paul is owning newt here, his argument for immigration is rational. If you guys want to remove people now who have already been here, contributing and have a family and a life then you aren't human. Ever think that some people are born into disadvantage and these people dont have the benefits of the "american dream"? the kids in africa who will die on a diet of rice in a mud pile should be benefiting from our handouts, because sucessful people are the ones who had the most, plain and simple.
-
i dont see how paul is owning newt here, his argument for immigration is rational. If you guys want to remove people now who have already been here, contributing and have a family and a life then you aren't human. Ever think that some people are born into disadvantage and these people dont have the benefits of the "american dream"? the kids in africa who will die on a diet of rice in a mud pile should be benefiting from our handouts, because sucessful people are the ones who had the most, plain and simple.
I think everyone who is in this country illegally needs to get the heck out and go to the back of the line behind all of those trying to do it the right way. And I consider myself human.
We shouldn't be rewarding people who break the law.
-
if you guys actually believe newt means what he is saying about immigration you are nuts.
-
I think everyone who is in this country illegally needs to get the heck out and go to the back of the line behind all of those trying to do it the right way. And I consider myself human.
We shouldn't be rewarding people who break the law.
i wrote a huge response but it was deleted, basically doing that may have grave economic and social consequences and i dont think its feasible, those already here should be afforded a head start, its unfair yes, but they may be small business owners, doctors etc.. which if just yanked out could impact countless people in a much more negative fashion then simply affording them a legal process. There is a difference between illegals wanting to come here and those who have jobs and been here for a long
-
I called it so called stealing because that is what most conservatives call it, so you can relate to what I am saying, I do not believe it is stealing myself. In order to have a functioning government, we need people to pay taxes.
That's right, in order to have a functioning government we need to pay taxes. I want a functioning government - but one that sticks only to the proper functions of government and to its responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution...
I do help the poor any chance I can get, pay all the taxes I am asked of and do not use tax credits, or anything else to lower what I am paying, I love paying my taxes because I know it will help our country be better one day.
You're either a troll or a Troll.
I remember seeing the patriotic millionaires on television while I was eating the other day, a real class act these people where, I just checked out their site, here is the link if your interested. These are the real hero's of this country besides our troops.
I know all about them. If they wish to advocate for higher taxes, that's their prerogative and their right. If they wish to actually pay higher taxes, that's also their right. My question is, if they're so patriotic and so willing to part with their money for the good of the country why haven't they already written checks to the Bureau of Public Debt (a part of the Department of the Treasury) which accepts donations? All monies received are put into a special fund and go towards paying down outstanding government debt instruments (Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds).
They could help this country today, without waiting for silly lawmakers to pass bills raising taxes. They could prove they're patriots who are serious and give their cause a great push simply by signing a check. Yet I don't see them rushing -- I wonder why? Since the mid 90's less than $30 million has been donated.
It's all nice and great to talk about paying more to help your country out but it's better to actually do it. And a raise in taxes isn't necessary to do.
I think everyone who is in this country illegally needs to get the heck out and go to the back of the line behind all of those trying to do it the right way. And I consider myself human.
We shouldn't be rewarding people who break the law.
While that's certainly a defensible position, I don't think that's realistic or necessarily wise. There are many people who have been here literally for decades, who have been assimilated and are productive members of our society and own businesses. Many may have children who, if born here are (whether you like it or not) American citizens -- a fact that by itself changes the calculus significantly. I don't disagree with removing people who are here illegally, and would welcome a move to that effect, however but I think a blanket "deportation ticket" to everyone isn't a good idea. If such a removal is to happen, cases will have be examined and considered on the merits. In that sense, I partially agree with Gingrich. Whether he means what he says (who knows what any politician really means?) and whether he'll do what he claims (probably not) if elected are irrelevant.
-
That's right, in order to have a functioning government we need to pay taxes. I want a functioning government - but one that sticks only to the proper functions of government and to its responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution...
You're either a troll or a Troll.
I know all about them. If they wish to advocate for higher taxes, that's their prerogative and their right. If they wish to actually pay higher taxes, that's also their right. My question is, if they're so patriotic and so willing to part with their money for the good of the country why haven't they already written checks to the Bureau of Public Debt (a part of the Department of the Treasury) which accepts donations? All monies received are put into a special fund and go towards paying down outstanding government debt instruments (Treasury Bills, Notes and Bonds).
They could help this country today, without waiting for silly lawmakers to pass bills raising taxes. They could prove they're patriots who are serious and give their cause a great push simply by signing a check. Yet I don't see them rushing -- I wonder why? Since the mid 90's less than $30 million has been donated.
It's all nice and great to talk about paying more to help your country out but it's better to actually do it. And a raise in taxes isn't necessary to do.
While that's certainly a defensible position, I don't think that's realistic or necessarily wise. There are many people who have been here literally for decades, who have been assimilated and are productive members of our society and own businesses. Many may have children who, if born here are (whether you like it or not) American citizens -- a fact that by itself changes the calculus significantly. I don't disagree with removing people who are here illegally, and would welcome a move to that effect, however but I think a blanket "deportation ticket" to everyone isn't a good idea. If such a removal is to happen, cases will have be examined and considered on the merits. In that sense, I partially agree with Gingrich. Whether he means what he says (who knows what any politician really means?) and whether he'll do what he claims (probably not) if elected are irrelevant.
The patriotic millionaires know that just them contributing means nothing, they are trying to get the big picture, all millionaires taxes raised, do you want a piece of sand or a whole bucket, they are doing the right thing in pushing for legislation to be passed to control these greedy beasts.
-
The patriotic millionaires know that just them contributing means nothing, they are trying to get the big picture, all millionaires taxes raised, do you want a piece of sand or a whole bucket, they are doing the right thing in pushing for legislation to be passed to control these greedy beasts.
They could have helped the country immensely and given their campaign a boost by donating to the Bureau of Public Debt. They haven't. And the counter is "oh, well... They're saving it for later!"? Really? That's kind of pathetic.
They are trying to convince lawmakers to do something using the political process - good for them; that's what our country is all about. Whether their position is right or has merits is an entirely different question.
Keep thinking of millionaires as greedy beasts if that, somehow, makes you feel better. Your beliefs don't necessarily correspond to reality though, and your faith in taxation and redistribution is misplaced... Look at the Soviet Union.
-
They could have helped the country immensely and given their campaign a boost by donating to the Bureau of Public Debt. They haven't. And the counter is "oh, well... They're saving it for later!"? Really? That's kind of pathetic.
They are trying to convince lawmakers to do something using the political process - good for them; that's what our country is all about. Whether their position is right or has merits is an entirely different question.
Keep thinking of millionaires as greedy beasts if that, somehow, makes you feel better. Your beliefs don't necessarily correspond to reality though, and your faith in taxation and redistribution is misplaced... Look at the Soviet Union.
my beliefs are with what most of the country thinks of how millionaires and billionaires should be taxed, your in for a wide awakening come 2012 elections.
-
my beliefs are with what most of the country thinks of how millionaires and billionaires should be taxed, your in for a wide awakening come 2012 elections.
The number of people who support an idea and/or proposition is irrelevant when discussing the validity of said and/or proposition.
And luckily for us we live in a Republic and not a democracy :D