Ron Paul owns Newt

[avxo]

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?

[reppingfor20]

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.  

[Soul Crusher]

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

[avxo]

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).

[howardroark]

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!

[240 is Back]

'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?

[howardroark]

'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?



I bet you it'd be better if we had more capitalism. 

[Grape Ape]

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.

[howardroark]

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...

[reppingfor20]

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.

[reppingfor20]

'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

[howardroark]

good post

While ignoring the secular long run trend. 

[reppingfor20]

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!

[avxo]

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?

[howardroark]

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!

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.  

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.

[reppingfor20]

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.  

[howardroark]

See, you can hark all you want about living standards going down, but the data contradicts that:

[reppingfor20]

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.  

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.

[reppingfor20]

See, you can hark all you want about living standards going down, but the data contradicts that:

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.

[howardroark]

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.

[howardroark]

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?!? 

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.

[avxo]

[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.

[Grape Ape]

you really are a textbook case f a delusional islamo/communist

Told ya.

[George Whorewell]

Told ya.

[Option D]

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.