Trickle-down economics, where the rubber hits the road. [Archive]

Skree

10-16-2008, 06:23 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. – More thanone in four working families – a total of 42 million adults and children – are low-income, earning too little to meet their basic needs, according to a new report.

“Still Working Hard, Still Falling Short,” a follow-up to the 2004 report “Working Hard, Falling Short,” found that an additional 350,000 working families were low-income in 2006 compared to 2002. The report also found increasing income inequality, with a widening gap between the share of income the highest-earning families receive and that earned by the least affluent. This increase in income disparity and in the number of low-income working families came during a period of economic expansion, suggesting that those numbers will continue to grow during this economic downturn.

“Understandably, all eyes today are focused on the financial and economic crisis affecting America’s working families,” said Brandon Roberts, report author. “But the stark reality is that America’s working families have been in economic crisis long before this year.”The main problem with "trickle-down economics" is that it "flows" up. It's a lie. Like most everything else that "trickles" out of our political/media/corporate system.

The quote is from the media release: http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/pdfs/still_working_release.htm

This is the report itself: http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/pdfs/NatReport08.pdf

Skree

DocGonzo

10-16-2008, 06:27 PM

you are about 28 years late on this story

Killuminati

10-16-2008, 06:28 PM

It trickles into their pockets.

Justinian

10-16-2008, 06:55 PM

you are about 28 years late on this story

this

Milo Hobgoblin

10-16-2008, 07:04 PM

Oh.. lets blame the effect of people having children they cant afford on economics policies that benefit those that contribute the most.

Why is it NONE of you ever bring up why these people who are supposedly the "working poor" having all these damn kids they cant pay for. Stop enabling them by making excuses or blaming concepts like "trickle down economics" for their financial woes.

It about time you fucktards step up and start blaming things like the working poors spending habits or their inability to take birth control pills or keep their fucking legs closed. Many of these people who you all call "working poor" have cel phones, cable TVs and cars.. gee I wonder how they are paying for that bullshit?

kordoyn

10-16-2008, 07:13 PM

Killuminati

10-16-2008, 07:16 PM

Caffy

10-16-2008, 07:19 PM

Will somebody think of the children!!!!!

The resident forumfall pedophile population think of the children all the time. :rolleyes:

Killuminati

10-16-2008, 07:20 PM

The resident forumfall pedophile population think of the children all the time. :rolleyes:

Why do you think I want them protected? So, I can have some nice smooth luscious butts to feast on.

Duncandun

10-16-2008, 07:22 PM

BladeSLicer

10-16-2008, 07:22 PM

That is so very, very disgusting.

Milo Hobgoblin

10-16-2008, 07:33 PM

I love sweeping generalizations

typical lib answer.... lets try and blame some inmtangible bullshit..

The whole reason we are in this fucking mess is because people like you completely IGNORE one of the root causes why the "working poor" cant get ahead..

having too many children.. Its a very plain and simple fact. If you cant afford to feed yourself or buy your own health insurance.. then you sure as hell cant afford mroe children...

and of course people like you want all the taxpayers to support all these kids THEY didnt have because you just think people should be allowed to breed as often as they choose with no repercussions.

The ONLY reason liberals like seeing so many po' folk running around with shitloads of kids is that it keeps them in power. They will always have a big voting block of supporters who want to suck off the government dick.

Milo Hobgoblin

10-16-2008, 07:33 PM

Will somebody think of the children!!!!!

its not my responsibiklity to feed and clothe other peoples children..

having children is a CHOICE.. and not one taxpayers should have to subsidize.

DocGonzo

10-16-2008, 08:14 PM

typical lib answer.... lets try and blame some inmtangible bullshit..

The whole reason we are in this fucking mess is because people like you completely IGNORE one of the root causes why the "working poor" cant get ahead..

having too many children.. Its a very plain and simple fact. If you cant afford to feed yourself or buy your own health insurance.. then you sure as hell cant afford mroe children...

and of course people like you want all the taxpayers to support all these kids THEY didnt have because you just think people should be allowed to breed as often as they choose with no repercussions.

The ONLY reason liberals like seeing so many po' folk running around with shitloads of kids is that it keeps them in power. They will always have a big voting block of supporters who want to suck off the government dick.

typical fascist scapegoating bullshit

do note who doesn't want sex ed about birth control..the same kind of folks who think all the problems are because of poor people

now, do some poor folks make bad decisions...of course, but their don't have anywhere near the societal impact of that stock trader hawking credit default swaps while earning 6 digits a year

here i had thought Individual responsibility was the mantra for "conservatives"..i know it was for folks like Buckley and Goldwater

instead we get dittohead fucktards that want to blame everything on the least likely to be able to affect anything

gg, indeed

SSguy

10-16-2008, 08:20 PM

jonyak

10-16-2008, 08:22 PM

we have conservatices who blame everything on the poor.

we have liberals who blame everything on the rich.

this leads me to beleive it is all the middle classes fault.

BladeSLicer

10-16-2008, 08:24 PM

we have conservatices who blame everything on the poor.

we have liberals who blame everything on the rich.

this leads me to beleive it is all the middle classes fault.

Logic at its finest.

Killuminati

10-16-2008, 08:26 PM

we have conservatices who blame everything on the poor.

we have liberals who blame everything on the rich.

this leads me to beleive it is all the middle classes fault.

/thread

stalwart

10-16-2008, 08:35 PM

heard a good quote today:

"What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"

kordoyn

10-16-2008, 08:44 PM

heard a good quote today:

"What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"

Nope, the gov't will give to me as a gift for failing.

Nafelos

10-16-2008, 08:46 PM

The simple fact of the matter is, we need to return to free market capitalism. Bailing out corporations and banks that made unwise decisions is no more acceptable than bailing out individuals who made bad decisions. Chances are, if prices are two high and your wages are to low... government intervention in one industry or another is at fault. Whethe the government is subsidising and industry, or bailing out a corporation... it has to stop... our dollar and the price of necessities is what hangs in the ballance.

+1 to Gonzo for bringing up Goldwater. In 1964 he was considered VERY conservative (especially when compared to Eisinhower or Nixon), when Bob Dole was running for President in '96 Goldwater remarked to his friend that they were the new Liberals of the Republican party and was amazed...

Essentially, MORE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS BITCHES!

losinglife

10-17-2008, 06:10 AM

we have conservatices who blame everything on the poor.

we have liberals who blame everything on the rich.

this leads me to beleive it is all the middle classes fault.

thats why they are working to get rid of it!

Ghostpaw

10-17-2008, 06:34 AM

I love sweeping generalizations

There is actually a statistic somewhere that those the government considers poor have a stable food supply, a television with cable, a car, and a cellphone. There was more to it than that but I can't it remember that clearly. Maybe I'll go look for it.

Duncandun

10-17-2008, 06:36 AM

Ghostpaw

10-17-2008, 06:45 AM

Here it is. Not sure how accurate it is now. Especially concerning the home ownership part.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

Here's an important statistic part of it.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

Jester814

10-17-2008, 06:51 AM

Silverhandorder

10-17-2008, 06:52 AM

heard a good quote today:

"What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"

Ooooh I would like to sig this.

Septus

10-17-2008, 07:29 AM

typical lib answer.... lets try and blame some inmtangible bullshit.

Jesus, I didn't think people still believed in trickle down economics.

You want to talk real statistics? Prices go up with inflation like clockwork but wages never seem to.

Now shut the fuck up. Thanks.

PS: You're a disgrace to capitalist thinkers everywhere.

losinglife

10-17-2008, 01:54 PM

Here it is. Not sure how accurate it is now. Especially concerning the home ownership part.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/welfare/bg2064.cfm

Here's an important statistic part of it.

right off the bat i was gonna say thats fucked up and the poor get what they deserve.

But that doesnt go into things like, they might have owned all that stuff outright before being poor. Or givin as gifts blah blah. Not counting housing of course seeing as how majority of houses are way more than is needed.

I could partially agree with the A/C and electronic stuff seeing as how that is considered luxury, not to mention burns an extra bill.

But in general looking at the list you see glaring things one could do to NOT be poor. Mostly sell your shit, reduce your housing, save your money.

epicor

10-17-2008, 03:17 PM

This kinda falls under the same WTF rule as FEMA doesnt it? I buy insurence in case of a hurricane. The guy next to me doesnt buy insurence but FEMA pays for his house to be repaired anyway...Why did i pay for insurence if my taxes are going to repair houses?

Desperado[1G]

10-17-2008, 04:22 PM

There is actually a statistic somewhere that those the government considers poor have a stable food supply, a television with cable, a car, and a cellphone. There was more to it than that but I can't it remember that clearly. Maybe I'll go look for it.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Tiberias

10-17-2008, 04:24 PM

American Poverty: Flat Screen Satellite TV, Double-wide Trailer, Ford SuperDuty, Wide array of weaponry, Playstation2, Access to clean water, emergency healthcare, roads, electricity, phone, cell phone, free education until age 18, Police, Fire, and Ambulance service, Free Cheese!
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/53979_1.gif

African Poverty: Mud Hut, Visits from NatGeo Photogs

Trickle-down... yes, fuck it.

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 04:28 PM

for those linking to the VERY partisan Heritage Foundation, does this mean thta links to MOveOn.org are valid sources?

fucking partisan hacks

LordTenacious

10-17-2008, 04:29 PM

Considering people link to the huffington post on here, pretty much anything is fair game on here as a "valid" source.

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 04:31 PM

Considering people link to the huffington post on here, pretty much anything is fair game on here as a "valid" source.

duly noted...but i'll still call both sides on it until and unless there's more than a single source

RayK

10-17-2008, 04:32 PM

Laissez-faire Capitalism please.

LordTenacious

10-17-2008, 04:35 PM

duly noted...but i'll still call both sides on it until and unless there's more than a single source

Here's a link to a book (http://books.google.com/books?id=1ixRxAsdLKwC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=United+States+poor+ownership+Census&source=web&ots=64kVs3QYDo&sig=EZFaPuy52NC2NNfNURW8X_7bgx0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result) stating pretty much the same thing.

Also note the information source is the Census Bureau.

Mazer

10-17-2008, 04:35 PM

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 04:38 PM

Here's a link to a book (http://books.google.com/books?id=1ixRxAsdLKwC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=United+States+poor+ownership+Census&source=web&ots=64kVs3QYDo&sig=EZFaPuy52NC2NNfNURW8X_7bgx0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result) stating pretty much the same thing.

Also note the information source is the Census Bureau.

i'll scope the link later, thanks much...

however, the Census doesn't ask how many tv/cell phones etc you have last time i took the survey...so where does that shit come from?

LordTenacious

10-17-2008, 04:42 PM

Mazer, do we really have to show that the United States has the most strict standards when it comes to child mortality in the world whilst Cuban healthcare is a myth for about the, oh I don't know, 10th time in the last 3 months. You and Lethn sure do love pushing the Cuba myths.

LordTenacious

10-17-2008, 04:43 PM

i'll scope the link later, thanks much...

however, the Census doesn't ask how many tv/cell phones etc you have last time i took the survey...so where does that shit come from?

They do grassroots surveys and shit like that.

Tiberias

10-17-2008, 06:50 PM

But you still have a worse infant mortality rate than Cuba.

See what I did there?

Move to Cuba if you want to have kids then...

See what I did there?

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 07:11 PM

They do grassroots surveys and shit like that.

/sigh

when was the last census?

do you know how few flatscreens and cel phones there were at that time?

but i'm more than happy to check any census data you can link to (from the Census itself, NOT interpretations or extrapolations) to check it out

LordTenacious

10-17-2008, 07:27 PM

/sigh

when was the last census?

do you know how few flatscreens and cel phones there were at that time?

but i'm more than happy to check any census data you can link to (from the Census itself, NOT interpretations or extrapolations) to check it out

Enjoy (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p70-110.pdf).
The dates keep coming closer but I just went from 1990 to 2003 in census data about ownership so fuck you, if you want more recent shit you can get it yourself.

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 07:37 PM

Enjoy (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p70-110.pdf).
The dates keep coming closer but I just went from 1990 to 2003 in census data about ownership so fuck you, if you want more recent shit you can get it yourself.

thank you, i would have found it after work myself...

from your link

"3 The estimates in this report (which may
be shown in text, figures, and tables) are
based on responses from a sample of the
population and may differ from the actual
values because of sampling variability or
other factors. As a result, apparent differences
between the estimates for two or
more groups may not be statistically significant.
All comparative statements have
undergone statistical testing and are significant
at the 90-percent confidence level
unless otherwise noted."

a sampling is not a census, and statistically the 90% variance can be argued due to sampling procedures...

but it is decent data, yet without an actual full Census, hardly definitive, wouldn't you say?

oh yeah...and fuck you too...here i've been being nice, you snarky bitch

Skree

10-17-2008, 09:32 PM

Jesus, I didn't think people still believed in trickle down economics.

You want to talk real statistics? Prices go up with inflation like clockwork but wages never seem to.

Now shut the fuck up. Thanks.

PS: You're a disgrace to capitalist thinkers everywhere.Actually we have been living with trickle-down economics for a long while now. We operate totaly inside of it.

It's been with us so long that 2 generations have grown up with as "reality" as if that's just the way it's suposed to be.

It's so imbedded in our culture now that people make posts saying stupid shit like "28 years too late". Never having a clue that the standard of living in the US went up dramaticaly when things were going in a different direction.

Aparently, never realizing that Republicans, Libritarians, Independants and Democrates support it, no matter what type of propaganda they may claim.

It's imbeded into the peoples mindset so deeply that they cannot see how it limits and walls in their thinking.

Skree

DocGonzo

10-17-2008, 10:28 PM

Actually we have been living with trickle-down economics for a long while now. We operate totaly inside of it.

It's been with us so long that 2 generations have grown up with as "reality" as if that's just the way it's suposed to be.

It's so imbedded in our culture now that people make posts saying stupid shit like "28 years too late". Never having a clue that the standard of living in the US went up dramaticaly when things were going in a different direction.

Aparently, never realizing that Republicans, Libritarians, Independants and Democrates support it, no matter what type of propaganda they may claim.

It's imbeded into the peoples mindset so deeply that they cannot see how it limits and walls in their thinking.

Skree

as the "stupid shit" that said 28 years too late i think i should clarify, since my point was missed

"trickle down" or supply side economics was hatched by some wacky folks at the WSJ in the late 70's and adopted by the Reaganites (hence my dating it to 1980) and has indeed been a large part of economic thinking and fiscal policy ever since

my point was that it should have been debunked THEN (1980) and that after this financial meltdown was a bit late to look at it...it was pretty much a snark...it should indeed be looked at and killed with a large weapon, then chopped into pieces, it's mouth filled with garlic, burns and buried in a thousand different locations in favor of something more reality based...

hope that elucidation clarifies...

Skree

10-18-2008, 04:12 PM

as the "stupid shit" that said 28 years too late i think i should clarify, since my point was missed

"trickle down" or supply side economics was hatched by some wacky folks at the WSJ in the late 70's and adopted by the Reaganites (hence my dating it to 1980) and has indeed been a large part of economic thinking and fiscal policy ever since

my point was that it should have been debunked THEN (1980) and that after this financial meltdown was a bit late to look at it...it was pretty much a snark...it should indeed be looked at and killed with a large weapon, then chopped into pieces, it's mouth filled with garlic, burns and buried in a thousand different locations in favor of something more reality based...

hope that elucidation clarifies...Very nice "elucidation". And I never called you personally a "stupid shit", which I know, you know :sly:

I clearly did miss the point of that post and I do retract, if you will allow, my description on that statement as being "stupid shit".

How could I do otherwise with such a clear "elucidation" with which I could not agree more ?

Skree

Airius Droc

10-18-2008, 04:32 PM

Oh.. lets blame the effect of people having children they cant afford on economics policies that benefit those that contribute the most.

I have 3 kids and I'm about to have #4! You're right, I should go back in time and stop that. Oh wait, maybe I should just put them up for adoption, or better yet I'll put them to work on an assembly line. Your version of America no doubt supports these options?

Why is it NONE of you ever bring up why these people who are supposedly the "working poor" having all these damn kids they cant pay for. Stop enabling them by making excuses or blaming concepts like "trickle down economics" for their financial woes.

I'm working 50 hours a week just to not pay the bills. That includes an hour drive there and back. So 60 hours a week I work, the rest of the time I just make excuses.

It about time you fucktards step up and start blaming things like the working poors spending habits or their inability to take birth control pills or keep their fucking legs closed. Many of these people who you all call "working poor" have cel phones, cable TVs and cars.. gee I wonder how they are paying for that bullshit?

I have a 1990 Toyota Corolla with a dead bat stuck in the rim. I have a cell phone for emergencies (it costs me $10 a month - I never use it - it's about 10 years old), I have cable tv though, I'm livin large!

Your move, sir.

DocGonzo

10-18-2008, 05:59 PM

Very nice "elucidation". And I never called you personally a "stupid shit", which I know, you know :sly:

I clearly did miss the point of that post and I do retract, if you will allow, my description on that statement as being "stupid shit".

How could I do otherwise with such a clear "elucidation" with which I could not agree more ?

Skree

no worries...was just trying to explain the point, with a dash of first cause history gently tossed in...

ummm...Skree?

Skree

10-18-2008, 06:09 PM

no worries...was just trying to explain the point, with a dash of first cause history gently tossed in...

ummm...Skree?I was 17 in 1979 and even with a million other misconceptions I had back then, that crap made no sense.

I couldn't believe people were actually buying into it.

If we were going to go all the way back into "first cause history" you'd have to go back a bit further than 1980. But I won't belabor the point here. Too much typing for me.:D

Skree

DocGonzo

10-18-2008, 06:13 PM

I was 17 in 1979 and even with a million other misconceptions I had back then, that crap made no sense.

I couldn't believe people were actually buying into it.

If we were going to go all the way back into "first cause history" you'd have to go back a bit further than 1980. But I won't belabor the point here. Too much typing for me.:D

Skree

lol..we appear to be the same age (roughly), and yeah i know...i over simplified

mea culpa

Skree

10-18-2008, 10:33 PM

mea culpaHey we don't allow that commie talk in here.;)

Skree

Temet nosce

10-18-2008, 10:58 PM

The main problem with "trickle-down economics" is that it "flows" up. It's a lie. Like most everything else that "trickles" out of our political/media/corporate system.

Congratulations. You realized what everyone else knows. Welcome to a few decades ago.

Trickle down economics is an excuse for the fucking idiots in charge anymore to give away money. It's basically the single most fiscally liberal concept ever created. Well, in addition being pure idiocy.

I fucking hate the Republicans. Lets be honest here, regardless of what those pitiful fuckers claim, their actions show them to be fiscally liberal and socially conservative. The worst of both worlds. The last real Republican was Barry Goldwater, everyone since should just fucking hurry up and die.

DocGonzo

10-18-2008, 11:07 PM

The last real Republican was Barry Goldwater, everyone since should just fucking hurry up and die.

this....
(with a respectful nod to William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will, Bill is dead, but George can live, imo)

/thread

Lethn

10-18-2008, 11:47 PM

What I find pathetic is that if even half the world population actually got off their asses and did even a tiny, a tiny bit of research on this situation they'd find that both the media and the government have been lying out of their arses and trying to place the blame and stereotype a certain group or culture that apparently caused the problem just like the Nazi's did, the only problem is they've fucked up this tactic so badly that they haven't actually been able to get anything out of it for themselves.

Seriously, some of you need to get a fucking grip, if I immigrated to America and worked for lots of money does that automatically mean I'm "Stealing ur taxpa4er dollars$$$"? Does it? No it fucking doesn't, I'd be working for my money just like anyone else does, it is the fault of government regulation that fucks these kind of systems over not some random scam artist.

YOU should be at fault for not questioning why your government has allowed itself to become the laughing stock of the entire world not the other way round.

Oh and I find the way the media desperately tries to explain economy in a way that wouldn't demonize both them hillarious as it's reduced them to treating the country like a bunch of 6 year olds like most of them seem to act.

DougDread

10-18-2008, 11:53 PM

I have 3 kids and I'm about to have #4! You're right, I should go back in time and stop that. Oh wait, maybe I should just put them up for adoption, or better yet I'll put them to work on an assembly line. Your version of America no doubt supports these options?
I'm working 50 hours a week just to not pay the bills. That includes an hour drive there and back. So 60 hours a week I work, the rest of the time I just make excuses.

Yep, ya fucked up there by sticking your dick whenever you please without a thought and now you have too many kids to live properly.

Your problem. Not mine.

Your misery will be noted while I continue to make more than enough money to do everything I want to do freely and enjoy life with my wife.

DocGonzo

10-18-2008, 11:55 PM

now now...never said i was against folks who earn their ducats...quite the contrary

what i have always said is that there has to be Rules, and folks to enforce them...or sheer greed will do what it thinks best for it's own short term interests, many times at the long term cost of everything else...including itself

the example of deregulating investment banks and the SEC letting the corps it is supposed to watchdog work on the "honor system" and self police are prima facia evidence of just how much fail resides in that kind of simplistic ideological trust

Stax

10-19-2008, 04:13 AM

Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lma o::lmao::lmao::lmao:

That is all you need to know about taxes. If you want a fair tax system, America, would have to implement a "National Sales Tax" or "Fair Tax" system. Either makes a fair taxation for our country, however... I prefer the "National Sales Tax" the most.

The current system we have, is created to appeal to fucktards that want to live off of government hand outs, cause their to fucking lazy to take care of themselves.

Temet nosce

10-19-2008, 04:16 AM

Stax, you realize that was posted something like three days ago? Come on, at least don't repost shit done this week.

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 04:21 AM

ok...see, the bar stool thing is a false Analogy cuz it misses a very crucial point deliberately...

then just for you...allow me to present my parable....

there is a big fucking pie, cut into ten slices...all held in a pie tin

the pie is the total wealth of the U.S. - everything from the paperboy's earnings and bicycle to Microsoft...all of it

the tin is the government and all infrastructure

there are 100 people...representing U.S.

1 guy gets 8 slices of pie

the next 4 get to share one slice

the other 95 all get to share that last slice...

this isn't about "redistribution", taking from one to give it to the others...it's about those top 5 guys chipping in a bit more to make a bigger pie tin so there's more fucking pie for everyone....them included

thus endeth the Lesson...

glad ta help (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugmxdT5qnE4)... :ninja:

Skree

10-19-2008, 12:04 PM

Congratulations. You realized what everyone else knows. Welcome to a few decades ago.

Trickle down economics is an excuse for the fucking idiots in charge anymore to give away money. It's basically the single most fiscally liberal concept ever created. Well, in addition being pure idiocy.

I fucking hate the Republicans. Lets be honest here, regardless of what those pitiful fuckers claim, their actions show them to be fiscally liberal and socially conservative. The worst of both worlds. The last real Republican was Barry Goldwater, everyone since should just fucking hurry up and die.Congratulations you have missed the point and aparently choose to remain ignorant.

While we obviously agree on the absurdity of trickle-down economics, you must have been asleep for the past few decades as we have lived with trickle-down all this time no matter if it was Democrats or Republicans in office.

Actually Goldwater was not the last republican. Bush is a "real" republican. There is a great case made that Goldwater was a real conservative and Bush is not.

It doesn't matter what party holds the office trickle-down is in our face. And it seems, here to stay.

Skree

Skree

10-19-2008, 12:08 PM

this....
(with a respectful nod to William F. Buckley Jr. and George Will, Bill is dead, but George can live, imo)

/threadCome on Doc your too smart to go mixing up Republican with Conservative.

Skree

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 05:11 PM

then just for you...allow me to present my parable....

there is a big fucking pie, cut into ten slices...all held in a pie tin

the pie is the total wealth of the U.S. - everything from the paperboy's earnings and bicycle to Microsoft...all of it

the tin is the government and all infrastructure

there are 100 people...representing U.S.

1 guy gets 8 slices of pie

the next 4 get to share one slice

the other 95 all get to share that last slice...

this isn't about "redistribution", taking from one to give it to the others...it's about those top 5 guys chipping in a bit more to make a bigger pie tin so there's more fucking pie for everyone....them included

thus endeth the Lesson...

To me it seems like a weak argument. For one a piece of pie does not represent one's ability to be free (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

There are many people who are bellow poverty line who are well off. So if the bottom 10% can pull it off I am sure the other 84 people could do just fine.

Then in your case you did not specify how the one person acquires the 8 pieces. If by force it does not truly represents the system we as a country were designed to have. If he obtained it because he legally owns those pieces then you have no moral right to take it from him.

In the system of our founding fathers the government will not aid the person in gaining the 8 pieces and would have prevented the person from acquiring them by force. Government's job in that system is to uphold contracts so the person acquiring these 8 pieces of wealth/pie would have done it with full consent of those giving it up.

Even though there is corruption right now in the system the idea to tax the rich more is not goignt o solve your problem they will always end up with more wealth because you are not adressing the problem.

Skree

10-19-2008, 05:15 PM

There are many people who are bellow poverty line who are well off.Could you clarify your definition of "well off" ?

Skree

Atua

10-19-2008, 05:16 PM

Could you clarify your definition of "well off" ?

Skree

Ramen and a cardboard box.

No one below the poverty line, who is not living with family etc, is well off. That's why it's called the poverty line. There are however plenty, (I'd say the majority) of people who are below the poverty line by choice. Whether because they made poor choices, or they are unwilling to put in any effort to get into a better position.

Skree

10-19-2008, 05:18 PM

Ramen and a cardboard box.:lmao:

I needed that.

Skree

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 05:44 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Relative_me asures_of_poverty

Go down to poverty rates. There is a table for who to consider below poverty. It is 10k for one person and 21k fo 4 people. In most states except NYC and any major cities in California this money is more then enough to survive. Gov't estimates 3.6k for every additional person. 3.6k is a lot of food. 10k is extremely easy to earn, one can earn that working for McDonalds. Lets not forget that this segment of the population is only 1 percent of US population.

The charity we provide every year can easily cover these people. Considering also that hospitals are free, and there is a ton of homeless shelters. Really this is grabing at straws. This is 1 person out of your hundred in that pie example.

Alinter

10-19-2008, 05:48 PM

sigh...... the economy.... what a mess

Skree

10-19-2008, 08:49 PM

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 09:00 PM

Well off is anyone that can work for his food and shelter.

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 09:57 PM

Well off is anyone that can work for his food and shelter.

just out of curiosity...do you work and support yourself?

student? do you take any federal student loans, grants or shcolarships?

ever live, by yourself, on 10k a year?

i'm shivering in anticipation of your vast life experience to shed enlightenment on us all with your wisdom...

Lindorn

10-19-2008, 10:13 PM

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 10:23 PM

In the current system questioning how a contributor to the system uses the resources of that system is a fallacious argument. If someone takes student loans or benefits from the government that their taxes support, but disagree with how those benefits are distributed or that they exist in the first place is not hypocritical. If you pay the taxes you should reap the benefits just as anyone else would, it's that simple. That's the whole idea of the fucking system.

Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual. So just because you have a certain view of republicanism and conservatism does not mean that everyone else shares that view. Come on Skree, "Your" too smart to go mixing that up.

fair point Lindorn...

i wasn't going for the hypocrisy thing with that Question...was merely asking

you see, i am tryign to show just how fallacious the child's pre-conceptions are...in that case the bit about being able to live "well" on 10k a year...on your own

my hypothesis is that this boy has never had to live on his own at all, has no clue as to circumstances in the real world, and was weaned on propaganda yet never taught crucial critical thinking skills and so cannot spot the errors in axiomatic postulates when he spouts them verbatim from his master's microphone

good to *see* you, btw

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 10:26 PM

Come on Doc your too smart to go mixing up Republican with Conservative.

Skree

ooops....missed this one

well, i was going with the conflation that the person i responded to appeared to be working with...that "real" republicans were actual "conservatives"...this was concluded by his invoking Goldwater

thus, by his definition as i perceived it...my statement was accurate, imo

hope that helps ...

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 10:30 PM

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 10:41 PM

I work part time as a life guard. I get paid 600$ every two weeks. Right now I am staying with my parents and going to college. I have 10k saved from working as a city guard this summer.

I have several friends who dropped out of school. They are getting by fine at their level of expertise. Several do construction now which pays 15$ an hour and has overtime. The others do small jobs here and there.

thanks...

so you live at home, have you EVER paid rent, paid for utilities, food, health care, car payments, credit card, mortgage...anything like that?

good that you have worked, i started supporting myself at 13, most folks are more fortunate than that

what i am driving at with this line of inquiry is that you don't appear to have any real first hand knowledge about living in the real world, yet you make certain assertions with pure conviction when the reality is completely different than indicated by what you are saying

simply put...a false postulate renders an entire theory false, check the facts of your axioms before hypothesizing

science classes will help you with that

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 10:51 PM

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 11:00 PM

Wow you know so much about me from a few words. You need to stop progecting your self on other people. Not everyone is a sorry shmuck that can't take responcibility in his own hands. My family has never hid anything from me and I know exactly how much it costs to keep our household running. I am also staying with my parents ebcause its economicly wise for me to do so not ebcause I can't make it out on my own.

All in all Doc you need to stop thinking isntead of crying like a bitch about your poor.

lo...who is projecting, junior? i bolded your little freudian slip...it looks so cute on you when you wear it without your dress on...

first...as i had thought was obvious..i take full responsibility for myself, my wife, my household...anything i do, say or type

next...you still fail at answering any direct questions, it's not a problem that you live at home, just admit that you have never yet supported yourself in your life...never paid your bills, never paid for a trip to the hospital, never had to decide between paying the electric bill or going grocery shopping

none of it...

so i wonder how it is that you can assert that someone can "live well" on 10k? where does that opinion come from?

it's impossible to converse rationally with someone who practices nothing but emotional ideology rooted in faith based "reasoning"

try reading, thinking and then attempting to communicate... your reflexive bullshit is not accurate...or funny

(btw...i'm not a socialist either)

Fro

10-19-2008, 11:02 PM

lo...who is projecting,l junior? i bolded your little freudian slip...it looks so cute on you when you wear it without your dress on...

first...as i had thought was obvious..i take full responsibility for myself, my wife, my household...anything i do, say or type

next...you still fail at answering any direct questions, it's not a problem that you live at home, just admit that you have never yet supported yourself in your life...never paid your bills, never paid for a trip to the hospital, never had to decide between paying the electric bill or going grocery shopping

none of it...

so i wonder how it is that you can assert that someone can "live well" on 10k? where does that opinion come from?

it's impossible to converse rationally with someone who practices nothing but emotional ideology rooted in faith based "reasoning"

try reading, thinking and then attempting to communicate... your reflexive bullshit is not accurate...or funny

(btw...i'm not a socialist either)

So we meet at last, ish.

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 11:04 PM

So we meet at last, ish.

ish?

que?

you are wishing for Protonix, mebbe?

two different trolls...but perhaps i am confused...care to elaborate or explain what i'm missing here?

forgive me, i'm olde and senile...

Lindorn

10-19-2008, 11:19 PM

thanks...

so you live at home, have you EVER paid rent, paid for utilities, food, health care, car payments, credit card, mortgage...anything like that?

While I agree there is an apparent lack of experience we are dealing with here, I don't think it's necessarily fair to hold these things over someone's head as if the threshold between pre college and post college is some glorious path of enlightenment about the world.

While the experience of keeping a household and working to support it teaches you things about life, it is a logical fallacy to invalidate someone's opinion based upon what experienced they have or haven't had. If we were all judged solely based upon our personal experiences then no one would ever be able to make a claim outside of their own personal niche, which is silly to say the least.

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 11:25 PM

While I agree there is an apparent lack of experience we are dealing with here, I don't think it's necessarily fair to hold these things over someone's head as if the threshold between pre college and post college is some glorious path of enlightenment about the world.

While the experience of keeping a household and working to support it teaches you things about life, it is a logical fallacy to invalidate someone's opinion based upon what experienced they have or haven't had. If we were all judged solely based upon our personal experiences then no one would ever be able to make a claim outside of their own personal niche, which is silly to say the least.

a decent enough point...so where is this boy supposed to have gotten the information that such experience would provide?

remember..i am putting this all into the context of his claim that one person can "live well" on their own, for $10k a year... he has yet to explain where this assertion comes from...yet i think i have demonstrated that he does nto have the experience himself, to make such a claim

follow me?

btw...not as much for Obama as against McCain/current leaders of GOP, and yes..i consider de-regulation and improper (non existent) oversight and enforcement of the laws on the books as the largest (but not only) factor in our current economic mess... credit swaps fail as proper "insurance", coupled with over leveraging of uninsured assets of dubious value...and you have why it got way out of control...thus prompting the WH/Treasury/Fed to suddenly embrace socializing insurance, banking...and if McCain has his way...mortgages

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 11:28 PM

lo...who is projecting, junior? i bolded your little freudian slip...it looks so cute on you when you wear it without your dress on...

first...as i had thought was obvious..i take full responsibility for myself, my wife, my household...anything i do, say or type

next...you still fail at answering any direct questions, it's not a problem that you live at home, just admit that you have never yet supported yourself in your life...never paid your bills, never paid for a trip to the hospital, never had to decide between paying the electric bill or going grocery shopping

none of it...

so i wonder how it is that you can assert that someone can "live well" on 10k? where does that opinion come from?

it's impossible to converse rationally with someone who practices nothing but emotional ideology rooted in faith based "reasoning"

try reading, thinking and then attempting to communicate... your reflexive bullshit is not accurate...or funny

(btw...i'm not a socialist either)

Start.... <_<

Anyways no I have not paid electric, gas or water bills. I have not paid property taxes either. I did not have to shortage of money where I couldn’t decide to pay for one or another.

That however does not indicate I am not capable of doing so. If I wanted to give up my career as a doctor I can easily support my self with shelter food and luxuries. Problem is that I do not have an emotional argument, you have to be intellectually dishonest if you think I argue based on emotion.

My "postulate" let just refer to that from now on to premise is that even a lowly McDonalds employee can survive in NYC a highest cost of living area. Right this very moment I can come outside walk down two block and get hire in McDonalds. Then walk down two more blocks and get hired in Burger king and then walk down further and get hired in several stores offering help wanted signs that I saw today. At the same time I can offer to pay half the rent with any number of my college friends or thousands of adds that offer living space for only 500$. Doing all this requires no mental abilities above an ape.

Anyways Droc you seem more intrested in shutting people up then arguing your point.

Fro

10-19-2008, 11:29 PM

ish?

que?

you are wishing for Protonix, mebbe?

two different trolls...but perhaps i am confused...care to elaborate or explain what i'm missing here?

forgive me, i'm olde and senile...

This song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpHLEm9-0bg) will explain everything.

Atua

10-19-2008, 11:32 PM

This song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpHLEm9-0bg) will explain everything.

Finally, enlightenment. This is a sign.

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 11:35 PM

This song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpHLEm9-0bg) will explain everything.

oOOOooooooo......K...

allow me to retort (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsETamxkT9E)

:ninja:

Silverhandorder

10-19-2008, 11:42 PM

oOOOooooooo......K...

allow me to retort (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsETamxkT9E)

:ninja:

So you still convinced it is societies responcibility to be forced to pay for parasites?

edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY -- here is an intresting 20/20 for you. If you care to actually open your mind.

Skree

10-19-2008, 11:54 PM

Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual.Welcome to the SHORT BUS.

So just make up any definition you want as you go ? Fucking priceless.:lmao: Someone actually making a case for sounding like a fucking moron.

Here's a clue idiot, words have definitions for a reason.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/republican

NOUN:
One who favors a republic as the best form of government.
Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.
Both Goldwater and Bush are "republican" by either of the ONLY 2 definitions of the word when used as a noun.

Do you need me to look up the definition of a noun for you too ? Or is that "completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual" too ?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/conservative

NOUN:
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic A preservative agent or principle
As I said, A good case can be made that Bush is not a conservative, especially if Goldwater is the standard used (along with historical president).

The same case cannot be made of Goldwater being the last republican unless you can document where Bush said something to the effect that he did not believe in the republic form of government.
So just because you have a certain view of republicanism and conservatism does not mean that everyone else shares that view. Come on Skree, "Your" too smart to go mixing that up.It's not "my view" dipshit. It's in the definitions of the words.

Man I just love teaching special education classes online. I should be getting paid for this ! :idea:

Skree

DocGonzo

10-19-2008, 11:57 PM

So you still convinced it is societies responcibility to be forced to pay for parasites?

edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY -- here is an intresting 20/20 for you. If you care to actually open your mind.

i have always said that it is indeed the responsibility for a community to care for the less fortunate among itself,when possible

this is one of the things that distinguishes civilized people from barbarians

when a civilization cannot care for itself, it begins to let the sick, old and children die to try and preserve it's core..and thus ensures it's collapse into either subjugation or barbarism...history is chock full of examples

do note that the system i am speaking of, specifically is Social Security...which is an insurance policy that all workers pay into for just that purpose... you might be surprised to find that there is no more "welfare" for individuals...hence no more "welfare queens" as you put it

and we both previously agreed that corporate welfare not only still exists, but it is wrong and has cost infinitely more than all individual welfare ever has

so what's your point in all this, and when will you return the courtesy of answer any of the direct question that i've posed to you?

or had you thought that no one would notice and you could keep getting away with not answering question and not admitting your mistakes?

Skree

10-19-2008, 11:59 PM

ooops....missed this one

well, i was going with the conflation that the person i responded to appeared to be working with...that "real" republicans were actual "conservatives"...this was concluded by his invoking Goldwater

thus, by his definition as i perceived it...my statement was accurate, imo

hope that helps ...Yeah, I saw what you were doing.

I thought I'd trow you a life-line before you drowned in the bullshit these guys spout when they make up definitions for words as they go.:D

Skree

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:03 AM

Clever, take 'welfare' change name to 'social security benefits' and there is magically no more welfare. Kind of like Obama's tax 'credits'.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:07 AM

Clever, take 'welfare' change name to 'social security benefits' and there is magically no more welfare. Kind of like Obama's tax 'credits'.

are you seriously that ignorant, or just trying to be a funny troll?

welfare = just getting the benefits, no string...like the dole

social security = an insurance policy, run by the government, that you pay into and that pays out under certain circumstances laid out by the "policy"

the two are not the same, by definition...and Welfare, as you mean it, was shut down by a Republican Congress and Slick Willie Clinton

failed snark is failed

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:10 AM

Clever, take 'welfare' change name to 'social security benefits' and there is magically no more welfare. Kind of like Obama's tax 'credits'.

Yeah, fuck the old.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:11 AM

are you seriously that ignorant, or just trying to be a funny troll?

welfare = just getting the benefits, no string...like the dole

social security = an insurance policy, run by the government, that you pay into and that pays out under certain circumstances laid out by the "policy"

the two are not the same, by definition...and Welfare, as you mean it, was shut down by a Republican Congress and Slick Willie Clinton

failed snark is failed

Oh, so welfare is kind of like what Obama is proposing. Thanks for clearing that up, I was hoping you would mention the difference between SS and Welfare to me.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:11 AM

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:12 AM

Yeah, fuck the old.

don't forget the blind, or disabled...or the kids with dead parents

i'm just sayin'...

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:13 AM

don't forget the blind, or disabled...or the kids with dead parents

i'm just sayin'...

Emotional plea is emotional.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:16 AM

don't forget the blind, or disabled...or the kids with dead parents

i'm just sayin'...

I'm going to live in Paulville so I can wait 10 years to get indoor plumbing - fucking socialist's can't do anything right.

Seriously though, I wish someone would give these conservative idiots an "Old Deal" where they get to live in a box and sell apples on the street corner.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:16 AM

Emotional plea is emotional.

Socialists also play the emotion card. It's quite predictable. If there are so many of you caring individuals who don't mind paying for the dumb/disabled/lazy then remove everyone's taxes, then get all your socialist friends together and pay for these people all you want. It's called charity. As opposed to taking my money by force and giving it to someone else. Guess what, if I wasn't forced to give it up, I might even donate some to the welfare pool.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:17 AM

I'm going to live in Paulville so I can wait 10 years to get indoor plumbing - fucking socialist's can't do anything right.

Seriously though, I wish someone would give these conservative idiots an "Old Deal" where they get to live in a box and sell apples on the street corner.

I'm surprised you are not living in Cuba, or Denmark, or built a time machine and rode off to Soviet Russia yet.

We needz moar moniez for the lazy plox.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:18 AM

It's called charity. As opposed to taking my money by force and giving it to someone else.

We the people...

We're a collective society...always have been. We're in this together, and you sir have taxation WITH representation. Talk to your local congressman or find another country to live in.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:19 AM

Doc I answered all your questions directly, the only one here doing very little answering is you. You have yet to explain why you so right. Saying I have no experience is not enough. I see things everyday that are contrary to what you say. Data presented previously also disputes your idea that private charity can not help people.

All you demonstrated is that as soon as I proposed for charity taking care of people you brought up things that are not part of the government's mandate to provide.

Furthermore you have yet to provide real evidence to why rich people must be taxed at higher rate. All you said was fuck the fact that it is their private property we will take it by force and give it to the poor.

woah...one second...none of the data you presented showed in ANY way that private charitable organizations are capable of replacing Social Security, they are not even related to that...much less "prove" such a ludicrous claim

and i am right in my opinions, because they are mine...your mileage may vary

i ALWAYS encourage ANY person reading my typing to look shit up for themselves from multiple sources, think about it..and make up their own Minds for themselves... i am quite content that there are other viewpoints than my own...discussion and debate between opposing views is that "iron sharpens iron" that i referred to earlier

you see, based on what you keep putting out there..i don't think you really read it, much less think about it and understand it...you appear to just react in pavlovian fashion to any of the buzzwords or concepts that your masters have told you to...and you promptly and proudly regurgitate what you were instructed to ...without ever really understanding any of it at all

but it is sweet that somehow i've personally got you so wound up that you got your girlfriend to post here to try and forumzerg, wrote on your blog about me, woke up and put up a poll just about me...and then continue to come here and whine like an emo bitch on the rag

do continue...your blatant and unrestrained fanboi-ism is entertaining, and in Shadowbane terms, is reaching almost Zerakul like proportions

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:19 AM

We the people...

We're a collective society...always have been. We're in this together, and you sir have taxation WITH representation. Talk to your local congressman or find another country to live in.

Pshhhh did you get fired again? Time to propogandize more welfare?

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:19 AM

We the people...

We're a collective society...always have been. We're in this together, and you sir have taxation WITH representation. Talk to your local congressman or find another country to live in.

Unfortunately as long as there are more dumbfucks wanting handouts living here than sensible people, I have to pretend I like giving people my money.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:21 AM

Pshhhh did you get fired again?

Nope, enjoying a three day weekend. I'm eligible for promotion in two weeks.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:22 AM

woah...one second...none of the data you presented showed in ANY way that private charitable organizations are capable of replacing Social Security, they are not even related to that...much less "prove" such a ludicrous claim

and i am right in my opinions, because they are mine...your mileage may vary

i ALWAYS encourage ANY person reading my typing to look shit up for themselves from multiple sources, think about it..and make up their own Minds for themselves... i am quite content that there are other viewpoints than my own...discussion and debate between opposing views is that "iron sharpens iron" that i referred to earlier

you see, based on what you keep putting out there..i don't think you really read it, much less think about it and understand it...you appear to just react in pavlovian fashion to any of the buzzwords or concepts that your masters have told you to...and you promptly and proudly regurgitate what you were instructed to ...without ever really understanding any of it at all

but it is sweet that somehow i've personally got you so wound up that you got your girlfriend to post here to try and forumzerg, wrote on your blog about me, woke up and put up a poll just about me...and then continue to come here and whine like an emo bitch on the rag

do continue...your blatant and unrestrained fanboi-ism is entertaining, and in Shadowbane terms, is reaching almost Zerakul like proportions

So basicly you get to spout your bullshit without proof and demand other to provide proof. OH wow that is great... Btw new Orelans charity > fed govt help.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:23 AM

Nope, enjoying a three day weekend. I'm eligible for promotion in two weeks.

You might want to wait with that promotion, if you're voting for Obama, which my guess is that you are, you might get a nice surprise. Aka, a sexy new marginal tax rate.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:23 AM

Unfortunately as long as there are more dumbfucks wanting handouts living here than sensible people, I have to pretend I like giving people my money.

62% of working American families make less than 50k a year. What a bunch of "dumbfucks."

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:24 AM

Nope, enjoying a three day weekend. I'm eligible for promotion in two weeks.

Good I am happy for you, maybe once your kids grow up to be sucessful people they will protect their money/private property by voting for fiscaly conservative people.

62% of working American families make less than 50k a year. What a bunch of "dumbfucks."

Please do provide proof.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:25 AM

62% of working American families make less than 50k a year. What a bunch of "dumbfucks."

I fail to see how this relates to wanting handouts. Unless you are saying that anyone making under 50k should get handouts, and anyone over should pay moar taxes.

Skree

10-20-2008, 12:26 AM

Well off is anyone that can work for his food and shelter.Well the term "well off" is subjective and this is your opinion. Opinions cannot be wrong, so you cannot be faulted for that.

I have a challenge for you. Go talk to 10 people who have been the head of their own housholds for more than a year. I'm talking people with their names on the leases or loan papers where they live and have all the bills in their names. To make it really relevant ask people with at least 1 child.

Ask them to put a dollar figure on "well off". See where the average falls in relation to the "poverty line".

Seems to me like your opinion of what constitutes "well off" is colored by your political views and is not based in life experience.

By your definition a subsistence farmer living in a mud hut in Africa could be considered "well off".

Dunno if you have done the math or not, but your friends making $15 dollars an hr. are pulling in roughly 30k per year, or more with overtime, before taxes.

Skree

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 12:26 AM

a decent enough point...so where is this boy supposed to have gotten the information that such experience would provide?

remember..i am putting this all into the context of his claim that one person can "live well" on their own, for $10k a year... he has yet to explain where this assertion comes from...yet i think i have demonstrated that he does nto have the experience himself, to make such a claim

follow me?

btw...not as much for Obama as against McCain/current leaders of GOP, and yes..i consider de-regulation and improper (non existent) oversight and enforcement of the laws on the books as the largest (but not only) factor in our current economic mess... credit swaps fail as proper "insurance", coupled with over leveraging of uninsured assets of dubious value...and you have why it got way out of control...thus prompting the WH/Treasury/Fed to suddenly embrace socializing insurance, banking...and if McCain has his way...mortgages

I wasn't speaking in defense of Silverhand, although he is one of the posters I like around here. I was just making the point that experience doesn't necessarily equate directly with knoweldge, wisdom and maturity. Each person has a different ability to maximize the usefulness of each experience in their own personal growth, so it is a really subjective measurement.

As far as the deregulation argument, I have to disagree completely with the crowd that's screaming deregulation (is the issue). I think we are treading a dangerous path where we point the finger at capitalism and the free market for the problems we are experiencing in the economy today. For starters, it ignores one simple fact; this country hasn't had anything resembling a free market in several hundred years now. One could argue it's never been the case. The United States has lived in some economic limbo between heavy handed government and free market capitalism for a century now. The problem is we have to choose one or the other. All that limbo does for us is cause even more problems and opens up even more scape goats to place "blame" for why things are going poorly.

The governments only role in economics in my view should be to protect citizens from the unlawlful or malintended deeds of corporations/businesses. Regulation really accomplishes nothing as the fuindamental aspects of our economy that we see today have been consistent now since the rise of corporatism during the industrial period. Throughout that time we have seen periods of heavy and lax regulation and ultimately the net consequences remain the same. Special interests still hold the power, and the government is still in the pocket of big business. The results of which create a system where the regulations leave easy-to-go-through loopholes or the regulations themselves outright benefit certain corporations or entire sections of the economy.

A perfect example of government regulation in the economy is corn and ethanol subsidies. These subsidies are literally ruining large aspects of the economy, it's development, and the health of the american people because of their shortsighted nature.

The true culprit here though has nothing to do with regulation. It is the detachment of our economy from commodities. History has shown us time and time again that when you detach a currency from the commodities that once backed it, you enter a period of slow inflation to severe hyperinflation that ultimately leads to an economic collapse. Fiat systems collapsing isn't a new idea, it goes back to the Roman Republic and our own last great depression.

Where we have made a mistake in this country is by abandoning the free market to such an extent that we have convinced ourselves that there are services to which we are entitled to and that are invaluable to the american people. When you tell a business that it is invaluable, and treat it as such you are making two terrible mistakes.

The first mistake is that when you tell a business it is "not allowed" to go out of business because it is to valuable, you are writing a blank check for all of it's actions; good or bad.

The second mistake is that we write another, more literal blank check in the form of unlimited fiat currency. By allowing these banking interests to achieve so much power over how our currency is created and which channels it goes through to reach the economy, they have virtually limitless power over it. To control the means of production is to control a country. We have allowed private interests to control the means of production in our current system (dollars). Since dollars have not been attached to a commodity officially since 1933, they are the sole measurement of value in our current system.

Now where does "regulation" come into play in all of this? Well if you understand and accept my previous two paragraphs (it's all documented and proven beyond a doubt at this point), then you will probably begin to see that the question of "to regulate or deregulate" is a question of pure superficiality. Our country has already been bought and sold. How can you expect one half of the problem to regulate the other? It is nonsensical and silly. In order to fix this problem we will have to tear out the roots of how we do business in this country and redefine the fundamentals of our economy. Anything less is just putting a band aid on a problem that is waiting to explode.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:27 AM

You might want to wait with that promotion, if you're voting for Obama, which my guess is that you are, you might get a nice surprise. Aka, a sexy new marginal tax rate.

I don't need to wait, I can count...

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 12:28 AM

Well the term "well off" is subjective and this is your opinion. Opinions cannot be wrong, so you cannot be faulted for that.

I have a challenge for you. Go talk to 10 people who have been the head of their own housholds for more than a year. I'm talking people with their names on the leases or loan papers where they live and have all the bills in their names. To make it really relevant ask people with at least 1 child.

Ask them to put a dollar figure on "well off". See where the average falls in relation to the "poverty line".

Seems to me like your opinion of what constitutes "well off" is colored by your political views and is not based in life experience.

By your definition a subsistence farmer living in a mud hut in Africa could be considered "well off".

Dunno if you have done the math or not, but your friends making $15 dollars an hr. are pulling in roughly 30k per year, or more with overtime, before taxes.

Skree

I guess then if they unhappy they should do contruction work for 30k a year. There is no shortage of jobs for the unskilled.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:28 AM

fema versus charity - what some seem to forget is that it's not fema itself...but THE FUCK UP OF MANAGING THE AGENCY that has cause many of those problems....check previous hurricaines/natural disasters and the exemplary work that fema had done...

bad management and inefficient use of a resource is to be stomped out, but that does nto tarnish the resource itself...sloppy thinking..

do notice i mentioned my OPINION as being my own....facts are sourced..i don't ask you to prove your opinion...merely that you provide a source for facts when they clash with objective reality

and there's no emotional appeal in a societies desire to care for the unfortunate when possible... simple survival of a civilization, again..i cite human history...try it sometime

on and on

i can agree we will probably not agree on many things... all i can say, is don't be willfully ignorant...it never helps in the long run

enjoy your day

pyrow

10-20-2008, 12:29 AM

are you guys top economic executives, or can you make better decisions than the ones that ruined our country?

lolz

guys, vote for obama or you'll be doin this :bang:

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:34 AM

I wasn't speaking in defense of Silverhand, although he is one of the posters I like around here. I was just making the point that experience doesn't necessarily equate directly with knoweldge, wisdom and maturity. Each person has a different ability to maximize the usefulness of each experience in their own personal growth, so it is a really subjective measurement.

As far as the deregulation argument, I have to disagree completely with the crowd that's screaming deregulation (is the issue). I think we are treading a dangerous path where we point the finger at capitalism and the free market for the problems we are experiencing in the economy today. For starters, it ignores one simple fact; this country hasn't had anything resembling a free market in several hundred years now. One could argue it's never been the case. The United States has lived in some economic limbo between heavy handed government and free market capitalism for a century now. The problem is we have to choose one or the other. All that limbo does for us is cause even more problems and opens up even more scape goats to place "blame" for why things are going poorly.

The governments only role in economics in my view should be to protect citizens from the unlawlful or malintended deeds of corporations/businesses. Regulation really accomplishes nothing as the fuindamental aspects of our economy that we see today have been consistent now since the rise of corporatism during the industrial period. Throughout that time we have seen periods of heavy and lax regulation and ultimately the net consequences remain the same. Special interests still hold the power, and the government is still in the pocket of big business. The results of which create a system where the regulations leave easy-to-go-through loopholes or the regulations themselves outright benefit certain corporations or entire sections of the economy.

A perfect example of government regulation in the economy is corn and ethanol subsidies. These subsidies are literally ruining large aspects of the economy, it's development, and the health of the american people because of their shortsighted nature.

The true culprit here though has nothing to do with regulation. It is the detachment of our economy from commodities. History has shown us time and time again that when you detach a currency from the commodities that once backed it, you enter a period of slow inflation to severe hyperinflation that ultimately leads to an economic collapse. Fiat systems collapsing isn't a new idea, it goes back to the Roman Republic and our own last great depression.

Where we have made a mistake in this country is by abandoning the free market to such an extent that we have convinced ourselves that there are services to which we are entitled to and that are invaluable to the american people. When you tell a business that it is invaluable, and treat it as such you are making two terrible mistakes.

The first mistake is that when you tell a business it is "not allowed" to go out of business because it is to valuable, you are writing a blank check for all of it's actions; good or bad.

The second mistake is that we write another, more literal blank check in the form of unlimited fiat currency. By allowing these banking interests to achieve so much power over how our currency is created and which channels it goes through to reach the economy, they have virtually limitless power over it. To control the means of production is to control a country. We have allowed private interests to control the means of production in our current system (dollars). Since dollars have not been attached to a commodity officially since 1933, they are the sole measurement of value in our current system.

Now where does "regulation" come into play in all of this? Well if you understand and accept my previous two paragraphs (it's all documented and proven beyond a doubt at this point), then you will probably begin to see that the question of "to regulate or deregulate" is a question of pure superficiality. Our country has already been bought and sold. How can you expect one half of the problem to regulate the other? It is nonsensical and silly. In order to fix this problem we will have to tear out the roots of how we do business in this country and redefine the fundamentals of our economy. Anything less is just putting a band aid on a problem that is waiting to explode.

well said..and you know i agree with you almost entirely

my point of regulation is defined almost exactly as you put it, "The governments only role in economics in my view should be to protect citizens from the unlawlful or malintended deeds of corporations/businesses."

THAT is all i mean by needful regulation....i just don't want bleach in my ice cream and shit like that

i had thought i had made it clear to you on another occasion that to me, one of the big fuck ups was the removal of our currency from ANY standard by Nixon in 1971?

fiat currency is a root for many ills, imo

we are not as far apart on most of this shit you think we are...

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:35 AM

I don't need to wait, I can count...

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Yes, base your counting on Obama's website. I hear that's the number one place to look for non biased information. But I guess something like this wouldn't interest you at all,

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/wsj-obamas-tax.html

nor would you care that you'll be getting your extra money from a rich guy. In fact, you will probably enjoy the satisfaction that getting said extra money will bring you, especially because it is coming from a rich person's pocket.

Well guess what. When push comes to shove, the rich guy has enough money to retire on, but when his business goes bankrupt because it is no longer profitable to operate it, people like you and I will be hardest hit by the loss of jobs. Thanks for your help. I never liked my job in the first place.

Skree

10-20-2008, 12:37 AM

are you guys top economic executives, or can you make better decisions than the ones that ruined our country?

lolz

guys, vote for obama or you'll be doin this :bang:MESSAGE to anyone thinking there is any real difference between Obama and McCain:

WAKE THE FUCK UP !

Skree

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:39 AM

MESSAGE to anyone thinking there is any real difference between Obama and McCain:

WAKE THE FUCK UP !

Skree

I concur, yet it seems that the Obama proponents are still calling him the messiah, while real conservatives have long moved on from the republicans.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:41 AM

I concur, yet it seems that the Obama proponents are still calling him the messiah, while real conservatives have long moved on from the republicans.

funny i don't see anyone using the word "messiah" except GOP types

and except for Lindorn, i don't see any real conservatives either....:eek:

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 12:42 AM

my point of regulation is defined almost exactly as you put it, "The governments only role in economics in my view should be to protect citizens from the unlawlful or malintended deeds of corporations/businesses."

Well this is where I start venturing into ground that I've only begun to study in the last year or so. I honestly think there is a pretty big gaping hole in the libertarian philosophy as to how to handle the corporate monster. The corporation is inherently sociopathic. It can't be anything else other than what it is. Much of the Austrian economic viewpoint doesn't take into account this new type of business structure.

Corporations have no morality, in fact they are encouraged to have none based on their very nature. The laws that bind them make them fully accountable only to the stockholders and nobody else. This means that bringing in profits every quarter is more important than anything else, and that's the law. In the short term I think a good way to deal with this is to increase the harshness of punishments on corporations that blatantly break the law.

This "500 million dollar fine" bullshit for dumping chemicals into a river that mutates half of the goddamn population into lizardmen is bullshit. If the corporation saves 750 million nationwide in disposal fees by dumping in the rivers....they are making a logical business decision by doing so. So eliminate lobbyism completely. It should be considered illegal, at the very least unethical, for members of congress and the government as a whole to participate or accept lobbyists requests or communication at all. Make corporations that abuse the good will of the people pay a severe price for their deeds. I'm talking about dissolution, or anything up to it. See how many of them fuck up then. Make executives directly accountable for decisions made within the corporations. None of this pass the buck scapegoat, resort prison for white collar business men bullshit.

These are just some of the things going through my head, although this is the stuff I'm "not sure" on in comparison to some of my other beliefs.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:42 AM

nor would you care that you'll be getting your extra money from a rich guy. In fact, you will probably enjoy the satisfaction that getting said extra money will bring you, especially because it is coming from a rich person's pocket.

If I could have proof it came from an angry rich guy, I'd be very happy about that - yes.

Well guess what. When push comes to shove, the rich guy has enough money to retire on, but when his business goes bankrupt because it is no longer profitable to operate it, people like you and I will be hardest hit by the loss of jobs. Thanks for your help. I never liked my job in the first place.

Well guess what...that's wrong. The world shouldn't work that way. When the business owner goes bankrupt they should be just as protected as the guys they hire.

This country needs more unions to insure that labor has the same rights as management.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 12:43 AM

while real conservatives have long moved on from the republicans.

Yeah, they've moved to the life boats.

Atua

10-20-2008, 12:43 AM

If I could have proof it came from an angry rich guy, I'd be very happy about that - yes.

Well guess what...that's wrong. The world shouldn't work that way. When the business owner goes bankrupt they should be just as protected as the guys they hire.

This country needs more unions to insure that labor has the same rights as management.

Yeah, Unions are an awesome idea, because the UAW isn't bankrupting the big 3. And then people scream to the gov't about losing jobs. lolz.

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 12:43 AM

This country needs more unions to insure that labor has the same rights as management.

Yes because unions are much better than corporations. Because they're well....unions....right?

We'll just completely ignore the fact that they are run under almost the exact same fundamentals as corporations are.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:45 AM

Well this is where I start venturing into ground that I've only begun to study in the last year or so. I honestly think there is a pretty big gaping hole in the libertarian philosophy as to how to handle the corporate monster. The corporation is inherently sociopathic. It can't be anything else other than what it is. Much of the Austrian economic viewpoint doesn't take into account this new type of business structure.

Corporations have no morality, in fact they are encouraged to have none based on their very nature. The laws that bind them make them fully accountable only to the stockholders and nobody else. This means that bringing in profits every quarter is more important than anything else, and that's the law. In the short term I think a good way to deal with this is to increase the harshness of punishments on corporations that blatantly break the law.

This "500 million dollar fine" bullshit for dumping chemicals into a river that mutates half of the goddamn population into lizardmen is bullshit. If the corporation saves 750 million nationwide in disposal fees by dumping in the rivers....they are making a logical business decision by doing so. So eliminate lobbyism completely. It should be considered illegal, at the very least unethical, for members of congress and the government as a whole to participate or accept lobbyists requests or communication at all. Make corporations that abuse the good will of the people pay a severe price for their deeds. I'm talking about dissolution, or anything up to it. See how many of them fuck up then. Make executives directly accountable for decisions made within the corporations. None of this pass the buck scapegoat, resort prison for white collar business men bullshit.

These are just some of the things going through my head, although this is the stuff I'm "not sure" on in comparison to some of my other beliefs.

now you are where i was 30 years ago...

the big problem with where you have been coming from arises from not having dealt with where you are going right now

i'm genuinely interested to see where you wind up on this, but as always, i applaud your Intellectual honesty in openly dealing with the inherent conflicts without self deception or merely ignoring the inconvenient

/salute

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 12:48 AM

Yes because unions are much better than corporations. Because they're well....unions....right?

We'll just completely ignore the fact that they are run under almost the exact same fundamentals as corporations are.

so what's your solution for giving workers the ability to effectively deal with negotiating with management in finding a market solution to the price of Labor?

for the most part it is one sided, and due to illegal labor...we have an artificial downward pressure holding wages lower than they should be, all in advantage to management and detrimental to legitimate workers

just curious...

Skree

10-20-2008, 12:50 AM

Yes because unions are much better than corporations. Because they're well....unions....right?

We'll just completely ignore the fact that they are run under almost the exact same fundamentals as corporations are.Come on Lindy I want to see you go back and respond to my post where I attacked this.Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual.Or did you get educated and just can't bring yourself to man-up about it ?

Come on I know you saw the post :lmao:

Btw...your knowledge of unions is laughable. But I won't embarass you about that...for now.

Skree

Septus

10-20-2008, 12:58 AM

Well guess what...that's wrong. The world shouldn't work that way. When the business owner goes bankrupt they should be just as protected as the guys they hire.

This country needs more unions to insure that labor has the same rights as management.

What does that mean? The owner isn't hurt as much b/c he's been saving his money, so when the business goes under, he still has money.

Are you saying it should be illegal to save your money? Or that a janitor/clerk should make as much money as an engineer?

I'm sorry you're poor, but it's no one's fault but your own.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 01:06 AM

What does that mean? The owner isn't hurt as much b/c he's been saving his money, so when the business goes under, he still has money.

Are you saying it should be illegal to save your money? Or that a janitor/clerk should make as much money as an engineer?

I'm sorry you're poor, but it's no one's fault but your own.

What I mean (in general without going into gobs of detail) is that workers in this country have little ability to organize collectively - and that because of that fact, wages are lower than they should be over most industries.

So when the owner goes bankrupt, it's not only at the expense of the labor that he/she has tried to exploit, it's also at the protection of the government - LLC, for example.

Yeah, I know you're going to fuck around and reply with bullshit questions you already know the answer to, so let me save myself the trouble of a response to your response. I'm not playing around with you. BTW, the GAO shows that 68% of all US Corps pay ZERO taxes - a fact you still owe me an apology for - you being on the wrong side of the argument several months ago.

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 01:08 AM

Or did you get educated and just can't bring yourself to man-up about it ?

Come on I know you saw the post

I didn't see the post. Coupled with the fact that I generally ignore most of what you say, I often can't keep up with the speed most of these threads develop, believe it or not.

The terms conservative and republican are subjective when you look at them in a general, nationwide sense. If you ask everyone what their definition of either of those terms would be you would get a different answer. Now if you think they are rock solid terms from a text-book standpoint I would agree with you to an extent, as we could find commonalities for both.

However just like there are a million denominations of Christianity that all view themselves and others differently, there are many branches of the conservative, and republican movement. While the republican party platform says what it is "today" there are many people who feel like republicanism has been stolen from them (Ron Paul) and that they are the original "true" republicans.

So like I said, it's subjective.

Btw...your knowledge of unions is laughable. But I won't embarass you about that...for now.

You have no idea what I know about unions. Instead of making ad hominem attacks like a fucking fool, address what I said and how you think it is incorrect. Just because you take the Bill O'Reilley approach to arguing doesn't mean that everyone here respects you for being the most obnoxious person in each thread.

Atua

10-20-2008, 01:11 AM

...Goa...68%...

You're still sticking with that retarded GAO number aren't you.

L2corporate tax.

If a company is in the red they don't pay tax.
If a company is in the black, but were red last year, they can use last year's loss against this year's gain.

So, if a company loses 100 dollars one year, and profits 100 dollars the next year, they don't pay taxes either year because they don't pay tax on the year of the loss, and they can go back 3 years to cover any gain they make. They simply put the loss of $100 against the gain of $100 and are taxed on 0 profit.

There is nothing illegal or sinister about this.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 01:15 AM

There is nothing illegal or sinister about this.

Funny.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 01:17 AM

Funny.

is that Anderson Accounting?

(that was a Joke, before anybody gets their panties in a twist)

Atua

10-20-2008, 01:18 AM

Funny.

Hey, I'm all for simplifying the tax code for everyone to understand, and holding auditing companies to a higher standard, but don't go on a crusade against corporations for playing by the rules set on the field.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 01:20 AM

Hey, I'm all for simplifying the tax code for everyone to understand, and holding auditing companies to a higher standard, but don't go on a crusade against corporations for playing by the rules set on the field.

so by that reasoning, you don't have any problem with anyone collecting SS because they are playing by the rules set on the field?

to be fair: i have no issues with corps who play by the rules, unless they violate the spirit of said rules by knowingly exploiting loopholes when doing so completely disregards ethical standards (see Enron, or the current fiscal crises)

Atua

10-20-2008, 01:24 AM

so by that reasoning, you don't have any problem with anyone collecting SS because they are playing by the rules set on the field?

to be fair: i have no issues with corps who play by the rules, unless they violate the spirit of said rules by knowingly exploiting loopholes when doing so completely disregards ethical standards (see Enron, or the current fiscal crises)

No Doc, I have no problem with anyone collecting SS. I would be much happier without it, or the hundreds of other 'programs' tax money goes to that I'm forced to pay, but while it's there use it all you want.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 01:28 AM

No Doc, I have no problem with anyone collecting SS. I would be much happier without it, or the hundreds of other 'programs' tax money goes to that I'm forced to pay, but while it's there use it all you want.

fair enough...and i can agree that there are many wasteful programs that need to be either fixed, or removed...that being said, i think we might disagree about which of those should go first...but that exact kind of thing is what our government is supposed to be sorting out....by arguing, debating and voting

unfortunately...too many on both sides are just about the pork and the lobbyists

if it were me, lobbying would be made completely il;legal, and ONLY registered voters within the district of an election could contribute to campaigns...NO corporation or foreign agency can contribute AT ALL, to either parties or candidates

that woudl be a decent start to cleaning up the system, but we all know it's highly doubtful the pigs will vote to clean up their own trough

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 01:30 AM

if it were me, lobbying would be made completely il;legal, and ONLY registered voters within the district of an election could contribute to campaigns...NO corporation or foreign agency can contribute AT ALL, to either parties or candidates

that woudl be a decent start to cleaning up the system, but we all know it's highly doubtful the pigs will vote to clean up their own trough

Now there's fucking change I can believe in.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 01:31 AM

so by that reasoning, you don't have any problem with anyone collecting SS because they are playing by the rules set on the field?

This was one of many holes in his original arguments you could've attacked him on - but as you'll no doubt see by his reply, what was the point?

to be fair: i have no issues with corps who play by the rules, unless they violate the spirit of said rules by knowingly exploiting loopholes when doing so completely disregards ethical standards (see Enron, or the current fiscal crises)

Yeah, I don't have a problem with companies playing by the rules either - I have a problem with them lobbying (and lawmakers allowing them) to make bullshit rules based on bullshit ideology.

Enron, in many ways, simply played by the rules that the Bush Administration allowed them to play by, via deregulation and just plain blind corruption. When told by several lawmakers EXACTLY what Enron was doing (with proof in hand) Chaney laughed at them and said "You don't understand economics" then walked out the door.

Here's hoping that Obama puts Cheney and Bush in jail.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 01:37 AM

Now there's fucking change I can believe in.

Forumfall vote for the Gonzo/Lindorn ticket!!!

we promise to argue reasonably about everything until we find points of common sense agreement...no sacred cows, no lobbyists...no bull

"hi..i'm yer Doctor...and i approve this message"

Temet nosce

10-20-2008, 02:16 AM

Actually Goldwater was not the last republican. Bush is a "real" republican. There is a great case made that Goldwater was a real conservative and Bush is not.

It doesn't matter what party holds the office trickle-down is in our face. And it seems, here to stay.

Skree

So basically your position is that no matter how the people labeled Republicans act, they're still Republicans? They'll never be anything else, simply because they use that title? True, there is some basis for this since some people join either party then act like they don't share anything with the rest of the party, and are still referred to that way, but nonetheless it seems rather absurd to me.

Admittedly both parties have changed massively in the last few decades, but still even accounting for general drift, the only way you could ever call Bush a Republican is if you completely ignore past examples of what Republicans supposedly stand for. There isn't even a vague resemblance between the two.

Then again, I suppose just assuming if they call themselves a Republican, they're a Republican makes a certain sort of sense, since in many ways the parties have basically switched positions. Particularly since that whole reversal in the Bible Belt due to the race issue, and the jumping ship of the Wall Street Republicans.

Right, I just realized how much rambling that was and how unclear I was. I'll state it simply, Bush is a member of the Republican party, but that doesn't mean he represents traditional Republican goals or values. This is the separation I was noting when I said that, not some absurd claim that he wasn't in the Republican party.

Also, as far as trickle-down goes, while the Democratic party has a lot of problems I will say I don't recall them ever arguing as a group in favor of that (admittedly however I could be wrong, particularly since I chose to spend all day experimenting with a friends new vaporizer)

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 02:24 AM

Now there's fucking change I can believe in.

I am not sure that will do anything. First just the logistics of implementing these things will make it impossible. Imagine the type of control that is needed to be able to track all of this money? Legitimate candidates would have to go through tons of red tape before their treasuries can do anything with the money. We already have examples of this system's failures from McCain-Feingold. I can't see how bureaucrats will conceive anything that actually works as it is intended.

Then lobbying is one of the most important features of our government. Citizens should be able to petition their government with their grievances. The problem today is not the lobbying it is that people do not hold politicians accountable. There is no mechanism you can design that can keep bribes out of the system your best bet is to have an active public that supports the ideals of small government.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 02:29 AM

I am not sure that will do anything. First just the logistics of implementing these things will make it impossible. Imagine the type of control that is needed to be able to track all of this money? Legitimate candidates would have to go through tons of red tape before their treasuries can do anything with the money. We already have examples of this system's failures from McCain-Feingold. I can't see how bureaucrats will conceive anything that actually works as it is intended.

Then lobbying is one of the most important features of our government. Citizens should be able to petition their government with their grievances. The problem today is not the lobbying it is that people do not hold politicians accountable. There is no mechanism you can design that can keep bribes out of the system your best bet is to have an active public that supports the ideals of small government.

think it through.... no red tape...ALL donations go right up on, the campaigns website, the FEC can review and vet the info...LESS red tape than what we have now

on the lobbying...a citizen can talk to their representatives as they like...no corporate entity or foreign interest of aNY sort can do so...they must approach Congress as a whole, or the WH via the State department as the case warrants

again LESS red tape....a HUGE reduction in possible ethics violations and corruption

how is the status quo a good thing in ANY way?

clue incoming: if Lindorn and i agree on something, you should think carefully before typing

Septus

10-20-2008, 02:35 AM

What I mean (in general without going into gobs of detail) is that workers in this country have little ability to organize collectively - and that because of that fact, wages are lower than they should be over most industries.

No wages are lower because of our current globalist policy. You (as a worker) now have to compete with workers around the world who are willing to do your job for pennies on the dollar; not only because they're accustomed to poverty, but b/c the cost of living in their region is nil. (I think that's a huge problem with tax/wage policy. Standardized taxes/wages/etc don't work b/c cost of living varies regionally).

So when the owner goes bankrupt, it's not only at the expense of the labor that he/she has tried to exploit, it's also at the protection of the government - LLC, for example.

My dad's friend owned a business. He was a PhD in physics and engineered IP that is pushing fiber optics forward a great deal. Now he hires people to help market that product, brings in additional people for R&D, etc. That is not "exploiting" people. He has simply come up with an idea, looked for investors/resources and convinced them of its value add, and hired help to realize the potential of his idea.

As for government "protection," I don't see what you mean. Are you saying my friend's own assets should be liable if the company's sales start waning? If I hire you and later the company is in trouble, can I come after your house?

Yeah, I know you're going to fuck around and reply with bullshit questions you already know the answer to, so let me save myself the trouble of a response to your response. I'm not playing around with you. BTW, the GAO shows that 68% of all US Corps pay ZERO taxes - a fact you still owe me an apology for - you being on the wrong side of the argument several months ago.

lol, you're not playing around with me? Quaint. For which argument was I on the wrong side?

Baralis

10-20-2008, 02:40 AM

My problem with taxing the wealthy to help support the lower income families is it is pretty much telling people that it is ok to be irresponsible or make poor choices in life, we will just take from those that made the right choices and make them pay for your mistakes.

Tax breaks for dependents is just an example. Is it not the parents responsibility to take care of any child they have on every front this includes financialy. So why should I a person that decides I do not wish to have children be taxed more then someone who has children? They made the choice and/or mistake of having a child so why give them a break for it. I say take responsibility for what you have done and if you cannot afford it you should have considered this before you unzipped.

Skree

10-20-2008, 02:43 AM

I didn't see the post. Coupled with the fact that I generally ignore most of what you say, I often can't keep up with the speed most of these threads develop, believe it or not.

The terms conservative and republican are subjective when you look at them in a general, nationwide sense. By all means start backtracking and change the context. :lmao:

If you ask everyone what their definition of either of those terms would be you would get a different answer. Now if you think they are rock solid terms from a text-book standpoint I would agree with you to an extent, as we could find commonalities for both.Why not just use a dictionary ?:lmao:

However just like there are a million denominations of Christianity that all view themselves and others differently, there are many branches of the conservative, and republican movement. While the republican party platform says what it is "today" there are many people who feel like republicanism has been stolen from them (Ron Paul) and that they are the original "true" republicans.By all means drag in any other unrelated issue to cloud the water.:lmao:

So like I said, it's subjective.So glad you said that yet once again. Here sinse you "missed" it.

Originally Posted by Lindorn http://forums.darkfallonline.com/images-dfstyle/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=1833512#post1833512)
Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual.Welcome to the SHORT BUS.

So just make up any definition you want as you go ? Fucking priceless.:lmao: Someone actually making a case for sounding like a fucking moron.

Here's a clue idiot, words have definitions for a reason.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...try/republican (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/republican)

NOUN:
One who favors a republic as the best form of government.
Republican A member of the Republican Party of the United States.
Both Goldwater and Bush are "republican" by either of the ONLY 2 definitions of the word when used as a noun.

Do you need me to look up the definition of a noun for you too ? Or is that "completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual" too ?

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/conservative (http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/conservative)

NOUN:
One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Archaic A preservative agent or principle
As I said, A good case can be made that Bush is not a conservative, especially if Goldwater is the standard used (along with historical president).

The same case cannot be made of Goldwater being the last republican unless you can document where Bush said something to the effect that he did not believe in the republic form of government.

So just because you have a certain view of republicanism and conservatism does not mean that everyone else shares that view. Come on Skree, "Your" too smart to go mixing that up.It's not "my view" dipshit. It's in the definitions of the words.

Man I just love teaching special education classes online. I should be getting paid for this ! :idea:

Let's see if you can manage to "miss" it twice.;)

Skree

Methuselah

10-20-2008, 02:46 AM

think it through.... no red tape...ALL donations go right up on, the campaigns website, the FEC can review and vet the info...LESS red tape than what we have now

on the lobbying...a citizen can talk to their representatives as they like...no corporate entity or foreign interest of aNY sort can do so...they must approach Congress as a whole, or the WH via the State department as the case warrants

again LESS red tape....a HUGE reduction in possible ethics violations and corruption

how is the status quo a good thing in ANY way?

clue incoming: if Lindorn and i agree on something, you should think carefully before typing

Only problem with this is that SCOTUS has already said that corporate donations are protected under the First Amendment. I think the only way around the issue is to have 100% public financed elections where people and corporations can donate to a pool which then gets split to candidates who meet a set criteria. Blind contributions in other words.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 03:03 AM

Only problem with this is that SCOTUS has already said that corporate donations are protected under the First Amendment. I think the only way around the issue is to have 100% public financed elections where people and corporations can donate to a pool which then gets split to candidates who meet a set criteria. Blind contributions in other words.

a decent point...the SCOTUS ruling is based on their 1890 something ruling that a corporation embodied the collective Rights of the shareholders and thus granted them "rights" as a legal entity (EDIT: there's a case to be made that this ruling contributed to many of the effects that lead to the Depression, as well as what we are going through today...by giving business the loophole from Responsibility, it encouraged and allowed a lot of shenanigans that otherwise would not have been attempted as too risky to the owners)

i call bullshit on that one, and would have to implement via Congress a Law revoking such idiocy, since one cannot hold a corporation accountable by tossing them in jail...they have NO right to status as an "entity" in our legal system, imo

then what i suggested fits well, and conforms to legal precedent as well as having the benefit of removing a major source of corruption and ethical conflicts

my only problem with public financing is making damn certain that anyone can qualify properly... keeping out the total whack jobs while allowing fringe candidates and not just enabling the current two parties to monopolize the government

show me a good way to ensure that, and i'm on board

Temet nosce

10-20-2008, 03:12 AM

I didn't see the post. Coupled with the fact that I generally ignore most of what you say

I think I may start doing this as well, apparently my polite and relatively simple post was lost on him since he wanted to go on bashing you. While it's rather cliched he brings to mind the saying "None so blind as those who will not see."

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 03:14 AM

think it through.... no red tape...ALL donations go right up on, the campaigns website, the FEC can review and vet the info...LESS red tape than what we have now

Oh my no red tape you say? How are you going to enforce a myriad of different rules you just suggested? To ensure what you said is followed the government will need a heavy hand in this. What is stopping a company from donating through individuals living in the district?

on the lobbying...a citizen can talk to their representatives as they like...no corporate entity or foreign interest of aNY sort can do so...they must approach Congress as a whole, or the WH via the State department as the case warrants

again LESS red tape....a HUGE reduction in possible ethics violations and corruption

Effectively reducing citizen's power to influence his government. Tell me how you plan to differentiate a group of citizens interested in something and a corporation doing the same?

Before you done with devising your system you will be suffocating in red tape.

how is the status quo a good thing in ANY way?

Status quo resulted in citizenry that is too lazy to hold it's representatives accountable not from the way the system works. Even best designed systems fail if people simply choose not to go by the rules.

clue incoming: if Lindorn and i agree on something, you should think carefully before typing

Lindorn and you, especially you, are no authorities on what is right or constitutional. You may form w/e opinion you like but I can always disagree with it.

Oh my no red tape you say? How are you going to enforce a miriad of different rules you just sugested? To ensure what you said is followed the government will need a heavy hand in this. What is stopping a company from donating through individuals living in the district?

Skree

10-20-2008, 03:14 AM

You have no idea what I know about unions. Instead of making ad hominem attacks like a fucking fool, address what I said and how you think it is incorrect. Just because you take the Bill O'Reilley approach to arguing doesn't mean that everyone here respects you for being the most obnoxious person in each thread.Your wish is my command.:D

Your own words betray you.We'll just completely ignore the fact that they are run under almost the exact same fundamentals as corporations are.1st off I could simply ask you to justify that statement and then could rip those answers to bits piecemeal, but that's too much typing and you might "miss" it.

Lets see, same fundamentals. I'll take my examples from wikipedia to keep it simple for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_union)

A trade union or labour union is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in key areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions, forming a cartel of labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation)

A corporation is a separate legal entity, usually used to conduct business.

You do know that unions have elected officers at the plant, local, regional and national level, yes ?

You do understand that there are terms for these elected officials and they have to be re-elected, yes ?

You do understand the difference between employer and the employed, yes ? Or is this another case of "Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual."

Shall I go on ? As a very active member of the OCAW, in the 80's and an avid reader of union history I will be more than happy to continue.:)

Or do you want to take a stab at justifying that idiotic statement you made ?

That is if you don't "miss" this.

Skree

Skree

10-20-2008, 03:17 AM

So basically your position is that no matter how the people labeled Republicans act, they're still Republicans?No I never said anything of the kind.

Look up the word. Read the definition.

Read the thread.

Skree

Skree

10-20-2008, 03:20 AM

I guess then if they unhappy they should do contruction work for 30k a year. There is no shortage of jobs for the unskilled.I'll repeat it again. By your definition a subsistence farmer living in a mud hut is "well off".

Skree

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 03:23 AM

I'll repeat it again. By your definition a subsistence farmer living in a mud hut is "well off".

Skree

If he is unhappy he has the chance to do better.

Temet nosce

10-20-2008, 03:26 AM

No I never said anything of the kind.

Look up the word. Read the definition.

Read the thread.

Skree

Yes, you did. Repeatedly, when you kept bringing up dictionaries.

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 03:40 AM

A trade union or labour union is an organization of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in key areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions, forming a cartel of labor.

I have enough time to respond to this right now.

A corporation is a collection of business partners that wish to use an organizational mechanism (the corporation) to achieve common financial goals. A union is a collection of workers who share similar goals who have come together. Just as stockholders will "select" their leaders (CEO's, board of directors, etc), unions will "select" their leaders.

Unions collect money from all of the individuals involved to create revenue to carry out union tasks (union dues). Corporations release public stock by selling off the company itself to investors to create revenue to grow and expand.

Just like a corporation, much of a unions power comes from the fact that it is a large collection of people with special interests. Both entities though, depend on the support of their constituents in order to carry out organizational business. Both entities are special interest groups that lobby the government. Both entities use their political and economic leverage to influence policy.

So if you can manage to expand your thought process outside of a simple wikipedia definition, then you will see many similarities between the corporation and the labor union. Ultimately they both use raw numbers, in money, people, and power, in order to achieve their goals on a large scale. Many unions even have a monopoly over their particular trade, literally forcing people who work in the related field to accept union dues/membership or seek other employment.

I have protested with the grocers union, spent time on the streets at 3AM with truckers union members, and read quite a bit myself. You keep taking shots about me "missing" your last post, as if it isn't completely logical that I did so. The funny thing is that you assume I take your trite challenges and ultimatums seriously, when literally I'll post just enough to satisfy my own perception of the facts. I have no interest in satisfying your ego as you have proven time and time again that you can't even form a logical argument half the time.

The hilarious thing to me is that you are one of these people who bombards others with so much BS, that eventually they will just concede the argument to you because they are tired of trying to filter through your crap for something of intellectual value. I'm not saying I disagree with you on everything, but your obnoxious posting style is extremely belligerent and turns a lot of people off, myself included. I feel like I have solidified my position on most of the issues here to not have to respond to everything you say.

As far as subjective terms, you are quite dense if you don't understand the difference between a term like "conservative" and a term like "union". Most people will agree that one is an objective term and one is a subjective term that can be defined by the individual. (to a degree).

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 03:41 AM

my replies are in bold within the quote...

Oh my no red tape you say? How are you going to enforce a myriad of different rules you just suggested? To ensure what you said is followed the government will need a heavy hand in this. What is stopping a company from donating through individuals living in the district? --- i said LESS red tape...and do note just how many rules i do away with under my proposal, thousands...and instead have just a few, simple ones involving Citizens in their political process...not "entities"

Effectively reducing citizen's power to influence his government. Tell me how you plan to differentiate a group of citizens interested in something and a corporation doing the same? --- NO GROUPS, from ANY side...all Rights derive form the Individual...i hadn't realized you were such the Leftist/collectivist in your ideology...

Before you done with devising your system you will be suffocating in red tape.
wrong again...you keep making that assertion, while neglecting the actual facts...read it again, and sound out the words as required...look up the difficult ones if needs be, you are failing at comprehension and reason

Status quo resulted in citizenry that is too lazy to hold it's representatives accountable not from the way the system works. Even best designed systems fail if people simply choose not to go by the rules. --- exactly...this makes for less rules, as well as removing all the bullshit that lobbyists have put in the way to aid them to the detriment of the Citizen...again, think it through

Lindorn and you, especially you, are no authorities on what is right or constitutional. You may form w/e opinion you like but I can always disagree with it. --- you are ALWAYS welcome to disagree, but if you are going to jump into the deep end of the pool in a discussion, you should be prepared with facts and be reasonably expected to actually read and understand what you are talking about... you are failing at both... as for the Constitution, ask Lindorn or Carl just how well i understand the documents...from what i have seen so far, it appears that my comprehension is much better than yours...i've also read extensively from Franklin, Jefferson and Locke...among others that pertain to the topic...can you say the same?

Oh my no red tape you say? How are you going to enforce a miriad of different rules you just sugested? To ensure what you said is followed the government will need a heavy hand in this. What is stopping a company from donating through individuals living in the district? ---- as i corrected earlier...much LESS red tape than what is in place currently, the rules i suggest are MUCH simpler, and help to ensure the rights of the Individual over any collective, as well as reforming most of the possibilities for corruption completely out of the system itself.

i really should charge you for tutoring in ethics and civics...

:bang::bang::bang:

Skree

10-20-2008, 03:46 AM

Yes, you did. Repeatedly, when you kept bringing up dictionaries.Do you see the word "acts" anywhere in the definition when used as a noun ? If someone is a member of the republican party he is, by definition, a republican. It's not open to "interpretation".

That is the context this entire conversation started in.

Skree

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 03:47 AM

Silverhand I like that you are talking about this stuff with us, because it's literally the one grey area for me in the libertarian belief structure. It's the one thing I can't quite figure out and am actively researching. In many ways I am inclined to agree with you that regulating and monitoring can't work. The corporation is a disease, it really is. However there has to be something done. Either eliminating the corporation and replacing it with something more society friendly, or by limiting its power. Because it quite literally feeds on the abuse of society to grow in the most effective (cheapest) way possible. I'm all about capitalism, but you know that if you are a true supporter of liberty, you believe that it is never within the bounds of reason to infringe on someone else's well being. Something has to be done.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 03:51 AM

Temet nosce

10-20-2008, 03:53 AM

Do you see the word "acts" anywhere in the definition when used as a noun ? If someone is a member of the republican party he is, by definition, a republican. It's not open to "interpretation".

That is the context this entire conversation started in.

Skree

Which brings us back to what I said. Why didn't you just agree if that was your position? Regardless of whether you used the word acts you're implying the same thing.

In summary, you still seem to be maintaining that someone is a Republican irregardless of what they do, or what positions they maintain, just so long as they're a registered member of the party. Or are you arguing something else, and if so, what?

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 04:17 AM

I have to agree Doc is more agreeable opponent then libetard trolls we had in the past and he does know his stuff.

Where disagreement comes is that his ability to accept that government is an efficient entity. Everything government does suggests that the more power they have the more harm they cause.

Lindorn as far as I understand is that corporations are not inherently evil. There are rules in our constitution that can easily stop any transgression by a corporation. A corporation letting toxic chemicals go into a river because it found the fine is less then it would cost it to dispose of them safely is breaking the law. I can not imagine however that a fine will be smaller then it would cost of disposing of these chemicals. The fine can be adjusted to the amount of damages the corporation did. That is lawyer stuff though.

The basic idea is that libertarian government is responsible to enforce contracts, protect your basic human rights (property being a big one) and to punish corporations who create monopolies by force.

No system is perfect the libertarian system requires that people keep their eye on their politicians to make sure that they do not expand the federal government.

I simply think that when ever you have big government involved things go south faster then when private individuals are involved. A corporation can not take away your property by force because it chose that it needs your land for progress. Government on other hand can pull out eminent domain and there is nothing you can do. For a corporation it is illegal to use force against you.

Skree

10-20-2008, 04:22 AM

Which brings us back to what I said. Why didn't you just agree if that was your position? Regardless of whether you used the word acts you're implying the same thing.I never implied anything. Acts has nothing to do with it and have no place in the conversation. "None so blind as those who will not see." ;)

You keep wanting to make this about me. Your argument is with Websters dictionary.

In summary, you still seem to be maintaining that someone is a Republican irregardless of what they do, or what positions they maintain, just so long as they're a registered member of the party. Or are you arguing something else, and if so, what?The ONLY thing I'm maintaining is that the definition is the definition. That seems to be a really difficult concept to grasp.

Your discomfort in not being able to deal with the definition is seriously funny.

In summary, you still seem to be maintaining that "terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual." Or are you arguing something else, and if so, what? :lmao:

Seriously, at this point a six year old could look up the definition and get this.:ohno:

Skree

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 04:27 AM

again...my responses are in bold...

I have to agree Doc is more agreeable opponent then libetard trolls we had in the past and he does know his stuff. --- gee, thanks...that really is a "left" handed compliment..heh

Where disagreement comes is that his ability to accept that government is an efficient entity. Everything government does suggests that the more power they have the more harm they cause. --- efficiency in government is what i am striving for...a more efficient governmental operation is smaller by definition...engineering makes form follow functions, the same principles shoudl apply...ohne of my big issues with the neocons is that they blew efficiency completely...they are horrible at it, and thus extremely wasteful of our tax dollars rather than frugal and using each dollar with the most effect possible

Lindorn as far as I understand is that corporations are not inherently evil. There are rules in our constitution that can easily stop any transgression by a corporation. A corporation letting toxic chemicals go into a river because it found the fine is less then it would cost it to dispose of them safely is breaking the law. I can not imagine however that a fine will be smaller then it would cost of disposing of these chemicals. The fine can be adjusted to the amount of damages the corporation did. That is lawyer stuff though. --- as Lindorn stated...corps are sociopaths, by definition...you are VERY wrong about the fines...EVERY day ships go out to sea with an EPA agent on board, they dump millions in waste over the side, and get fined $250k...thus with a net profit...look it up yourself....again, Lindorn is factually accurate

The basic idea is that libertarian government is responsible to enforce contracts, protect your basic human rights (property being a big one) and to punish corporations who create monopolies by force.

No system is perfect the libertarian system requires that people keep their eye on their politicians to make sure that they do not expand the federal government.

I simply think that when ever you have big government involved things go south faster then when private individuals are involved. ---- check your facts, you are not correct here in your basic assumption A corporation can not take away your property by force because it chose that it needs your land for progress. ---happens all the time, the Chamber of Commerce lobbies the Town Council and takes shit via eminent domain...the government rarely takes land for itself...look at who gets it and who makes a profit from it...that is your signpost, follow the money Government on other hand can pull out eminent domain and there is nothing you can do. For a corporation it is illegal to use force against you.

being naive because you are young is one thing, being willfully so because learning the Truth conflicts with your ideology is self delusional, and self defeating...

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 04:32 AM

Atua

10-20-2008, 04:34 AM

fair enough...and i can agree that there are many wasteful programs that need to be either fixed, or removed...that being said, i think we might disagree about which of those should go first...but that exact kind of thing is what our government is supposed to be sorting out....by arguing, debating and voting

unfortunately...too many on both sides are just about the pork and the lobbyists

if it were me, lobbying would be made completely il;legal, and ONLY registered voters within the district of an election could contribute to campaigns...NO corporation or foreign agency can contribute AT ALL, to either parties or candidates

that woudl be a decent start to cleaning up the system, but we all know it's highly doubtful the pigs will vote to clean up their own trough

I agree, on both points.

Any time corporations start sleeping with gov't we are abandoning a free market, and turning to corporatism. Lobbying is retarded, as are corporate donations to campaigns. There isn't even an attempt to hide the favor buying anymore, now it's an open contest of who can buy the most pork.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 04:40 AM

I pointed out if the corruption in the system happens do you blame the system or the sloth public that allows this to happen.

How are you going to provide all these efficiency reforms if there is no pressure from the public to hold the people handling their money responcible for fuck ups.

I think that the failure is not in the corporation taking the fine and dumping I think the damn ships should be seized and people on board arrested.

i blame the fucking CRIMINAL WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, self fucking responsibility...i always thought those who considered themselves Libertarian or Conservative were big fans...why is it that you keep trying to work the collective rather than hold the individual responsible?

the Laws are to be enforced buy the Justice Department, or the EPA or whichever...it's their fucking JOB to enforce those rules...they have been lax these last 8 years because the Executive branch has TOLD them to be so...that's what an Executive does...oversee and set policy, then enforce policy....go and look up "the buck stops here", find who said it...and why

as for your seizing of property (the ship), under what law and for what cause?

far better to go over the Laws, and make certain they work for U.S. and NOT the lobbyists who fucking wrote them for the puppet representative they paid for (see earlier bit about election reform, and now realize why it's so important)

Atua

10-20-2008, 04:43 AM

i blame the fucking CRIMINAL WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, self fucking responsibility...i always thought those who considered themselves Libertarian or Conservative were big fans...why is it that you keep trying to work the collective rather than hold the individual responsible?

the Laws are to be enforced buy the Justice Department, or the EPA or whichever...it's their fucking JOB to enforce those rules...they have been lax these last 8 years because the Executive branch has TOLD them to be so...that's what an Executive does...oversee and set policy, then enforce policy....go and look up "the buck stops here", find who said it...and why

as for your seizing of property (the ship), under what law and for what cause?

far better to go over the Laws, and make certain they work for U.S. and NOT the lobbyists who fucking wrote them for the puppet representative they paid for (see earlier bit about election reform, and now realize why it's so important)

It's for sure a big gongshow, everyone is paying everyone else off to either rewrite the laws in their favor, or turn a blind eye, or offer a trillion dollar bailout. There is no more personal responsibility, in the corporate world or the government, or private life.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 04:48 AM

Your system just like mine can not stop corrupt representatives. You must realize that. And I am all for punishing the criminals for what they do thats why I asked do you blame the system ro the sloth public? Who allowed it to happen under their noses. The criminals should have been hanged by the public as soon as it happened. No system can stop law breakers.

I am all for the laws working for US, that is why I support that government gets its hands out of economy. Everytime government makes a law it benefits one person over another. Unfortunately for us it is ussualy the corporations that bribe the politicians.

Again I am all for what you stand for I just would like to take ti fruther and cut out the second culprit in ourtroubles which is the government that does things that are not even in the constitution.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 04:49 AM

There is no more personal responsibility, in the corporate world or the government, or private life.

That's where you're wrong. There's a shit load of personal responsibility where I am.

I've been working 50 hours a week (with 10 hours of weekly driving) for 10 straight weeks just to pay my bills. If there were more I could do, I would.

There's a ton of people out there working their asses off and getting next to nothing for it. They're held personally responsible every day of their lives. A missed payment here, a car breaks down, medical bills, there's really very little room for error.

But you don't want to hear that, you don't want to see reality. It's not a question of who's working harder or smarter, it's a numbers game. The US economy is a giant pyramid scheme, and if you're lucky you're further away from the bottom than the other guy.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 04:51 AM

It's for sure a big gongshow, everyone is paying everyone else off to either rewrite the laws in their favor, or turn a blind eye, or offer a trillion dollar bailout. There is no more personal responsibility, in the corporate world or the government, or private life.

so then we can agree...even from all these different perspectives...that Responsibility, and holding individuals responsible for their actions is one of the single greatest challenges to be faced in this early part of the 21st century in the U.S.?

Atua

10-20-2008, 04:55 AM

That's where you're wrong. There's a shit load of personal responsibility where I am.

I've been working 50 hours a week (with 10 hours of weekly driving) for 10 straight weeks just to pay my bills. If there were more I could do, I would.

There's a ton of people out there working their asses off and getting next to nothing for it. They're held personally responsible every day of their lives. A missed payment here, a car breaks down, medical bills, there's really very little room for error.

But you don't want to hear that, you don't want to see reality. It's not a question of who's working harder or smarter, it's a numbers game. The US economy is a giant pyramid scheme, and if you're lucky you're further away from the bottom than the other guy.

This would have more effect if less people went crying to the nanny gov't every time they got a little blister. And nanny gov't seems more than willing to grease the squeaky wheels. But, at least you are working now so that is a step in the right direction. I put in 105 hours last week, not including 40 minutes drive each day, and I know what it's like to worry about having rent or gas or food money, pretty much anyone not living in their parent's basement has been there, and even some who are have too.

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 05:00 AM

Lindorn as far as I understand is that corporations are not inherently evil. There are rules in our constitution that can easily stop any transgression by a corporation. A corporation letting toxic chemicals go into a river because it found the fine is less then it would cost it to dispose of them safely is breaking the law. I can not imagine however that a fine will be smaller then it would cost of disposing of these chemicals.

This is why we are having this discourse, because the fact that you are unaware of these things I think explains your stance on some of these issues.

Look it up. Watch the documentary "the corporation". They are not inherently evil but they ARE inherently sociopathic. You will see for yourself. If you think that corporations don't break laws simply because it is a business decision you are mistaken. Unfortunately I have still as of yet not been able to find any online data that shows all of the major laws broken by corporations over the past few years and the fines incurred, but it would blow your fucking mind.

Do you honestly think that 500 million dollars means anything to Exxon, Nike, or Coca Cola? You'd have to be insane to think it did. That's about the ballpark range of most government fines against corporations. Again I never said corporations are inherently evil, but they are inherently predisposed to certain types of behavior. They are sociopathic. Right now Monsanto corporation is pumping your milk full of chemicals that have been literally proven to cause disorders in human beings.

Last year there was a huge debate nationally because Monsanto was charging farmers who had monsanto genetically engineered crops growing on their land. How did they get there? The winds were blowing the seeds from nearby farms and landing on these guys plots. Montanto then sued them for use of their seed.

Tell me how this behavior can be described as anything other than sociopathic?

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:00 AM

so then we can agree...even from all these different perspectives...that Responsibility, and holding individuals responsible for their actions is one of the single greatest challenges to be faced in this early part of the 21st century in the U.S.?

I think that's one of the major short comings of society in general today. It seems that everyone is out to blame someone else, or look to someone else for help when they are too lazy to get up and look for solutions themselves. It's a byproduct of life getting easier and easier, and in my opinion it will just keep getting worse, and the nanny state will keep slowly taking more power from the people, and the majority of people will like it.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 05:04 AM

Lindorn

10-20-2008, 05:06 AM

looked at in the context of cultural anthropology, you might discern that the Boomers, being the lazy trendoids that they are, are the origins for much in the way of denying Responsibility...

The boomers are children of the fake economic bubbles created during the first half of the 20th century. They are the beginning of the American self entitlement movement.

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:10 AM

/sigh...

i was right there with you until you hit that stale old "nanny state" note

looked at in the context of cultural anthropology, you might discern that the Boomers, being the lazy trendoids that they are, are the origins for much in the way of denying Responsibility...

but i digress

I guess that's where we differ, I don't think the gov't should be giving out handouts to anyone, whether corporation or private citizen (whether it is subsidies to corps, child care credits, bailouts etc.) where as you don't mind some of these programs. This is why conversations are interesting, not everyone has the same views.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 05:17 AM

I guess that's where we differ, I don't think the gov't should be giving out handouts to anyone, whether corporation or private citizen (whether it is subsidies to corps, child care credits, bailouts etc.) where as you don't mind some of these programs. This is why conversations are interesting, not everyone has the same views.

fair enough... do note than anything i have spoken in favor of are to Individuals, especially those who cannot take care of themselves...old, blind, disabled, children...

healthy folks who can work, should work...if they won't, fuck them

no corps should get tax dollars for anything other than research, imo

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 05:18 AM

I think that's one of the major short comings of society in general today. It seems that everyone is out to blame someone else, or look to someone else for help when they are too lazy to get up and look for solutions themselves. It's a byproduct of life getting easier and easier, and in my opinion it will just keep getting worse, and the nanny state will keep slowly taking more power from the people, and the majority of people will like it.

I don't see it like that at all.

Let me first say that YES - there are people out there are lazy. YES - there are people out there that work the system. They're both wrong for doing that.

But as I see it, in my 20 years of working for various companies, corporations are uninterested in helping people, they're only interested in profits. Many people here will quickly agree with this statement and then follow up by yelling at me for suggesting it be any different.

I find this fact inherently wrong. We're all in this together. My fellow man, simply because he has the means to do so, should not risk the lives of workers, pay them just enough to make them do the work, or provide them a working environment that uses their work to line the pockets of investors. That's anti-American in my opinion, it's unethical, and wrong.

I almost started my own business and never did I consider "taxes" as anything but a reality. I thought first about the people that would work for me, what their rate of pay would be, what kind of healthcare they'd have. These were the things that were on my mind first when creating a business model. Why? Because I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I under paid, or I provided benefits that did little to help my workers live a good life. I felt that I'd owe people that if I expected them to work hard for me.

How there are people that don't think like this is beyond me. But I hate them, I hate them for being short sighted and greedy, I hate them for using the system to create wealth FOR THEM at the expense of people worth every bit as much as anyone else. I hate them for using their fellow man so that they can get MORE.

I'm not against people having more wealth than me, I'm not against people spending more than me. But I'm firmly against them doing it in spite of me. I'm completely against the wealthy in this country making more wealth for themselves simply because they can, while thinking nothing of those who have not the opportunity or the means to achieve a better life for themselves.

You and others will quickly lash out at me by saying that we all have the same means and opportunity - and I flatly discount this statement in advance because it's false on every level.

Don't take this to mean that I say that there's no opportunity or means to create wealth for I've said no such thing. Rather I've stated that all men are not created equal in this system and some men are simply more lucky than they are smart. We should value neither of these traits and dismiss any system of government that promotes them.

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:30 AM

I don't see it like that at all.

Let me first say that YES - there are people out there are lazy. YES - there are people out there that work the system. They're both wrong for doing that.

But as I see it, in my 20 years of working for various companies, corporations are uninterested in helping people, they're only interested in profits. Many people here will quickly agree with this statement and then follow up by yelling at me for suggesting it be any different.

I find this fact inherently wrong. We're all in this together. My fellow man, simply because he has the means to do so, should not risk the lives of workers, pay them just enough to make them do the work, or provide them a working environment that uses their work to line the pockets of investors. That's anti-American in my opinion, it's unethical, and wrong.

I almost started my own business and never did I consider "taxes" as anything but a reality. I thought first about the people that would work for me, what their rate of pay would be, what kind of healthcare they'd have. These were the things that were on my mind first when creating a business model. Why? Because I couldn't look myself in the mirror if I under paid, or I provided benefits that did little to help my workers live a good life. I felt that I'd owe people that if I expected them to work hard for me.

How there are people that don't think like this is beyond me. But I hate them, I hate them for being short sighted and greedy, I hate them for using the system to create wealth FOR THEM at the expense of people worth every bit as much as anyone else. I hate them for using their fellow man so that they can get MORE.

I'm not against people having more wealth than me, I'm not against people spending more than me. But I'm firmly against them doing it in spite of me. I'm completely against the wealthy in this country making more wealth for themselves simply because they can, while thinking nothing of those who have not the opportunity or the means to achieve a better life for themselves.

You and others will quickly lash out at me by saying that we all have the same means and opportunity - and I flatly discount this statement in advance because it's false on every level.

Don't take this to mean that I say that there's no opportunity or means to create wealth for I've said no such thing. Rather I've stated that all men are not created equal in this system and some men are simply more lucky than they are smart. We should value neither of these traits and dismiss any system of government that promotes them.

I don't buy into your collectivism. I'm here for me and my immediate family, friends etc. I owe nothing to anyone, nor do they owe anything to me. I don't want the gov't to force me to give them things, nor do I want the gov't to force them to give me things. If they want to give me something out of free will, then I will accept it, as I hope they would accept any gesture that I give them.

And I think you are misguided in your condemnation of corporations not willing to help people, or not looking out for their workers. There are plenty of places that treat employees well, so much so that when unions come calling they are voted down by landslides.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 05:36 AM

I don't buy into your collectivism. I'm here for me and my immediate family, friends etc. I owe nothing to anyone, nor do they owe anything to me. I don't want the gov't to force me to give them things, nor do I want the gov't to force them to give me things. If they want to give me something out of free will, then I will accept it, as I hope they would accept any gesture that I give them.

Generally speaking I take care of my family and myself...but any time that I've been in management I've taken care of the people that worked for me. Ultimately, I was fired from my last job for doing just that. I didn't even like the person I was helping out, but I owed it to that person because I was in a position of power, and that person as an employee was powerless and would've lost her job.

Again, the entire corporate structure is bullshit, it's designed for profits - fuck the people it crushes in the process.

And I think you are misguided in your condemnation of corporations not willing to help people, or not looking out for their workers. There are plenty of places that treat employees well, so much so that when unions come calling they are voted down by landslides.

They're often voted down out of fear from management - or from the company threatening to leave the country or the town they're in if a union comes in.

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:37 AM

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 05:39 AM

Lindorn I think that the problem is again not with the corporation but with the way we diagnose the problem. If the government did it's part then this would not be a problem. I mean what would be your answer to stopping the dumping of toxic chemicals? You would naturally ask for larger fines no? I mean what else can you ask for? More regulation? They already don't follow the law what will make them follow it now?

All we can ask for is that government enforces its laws, the laws that would put a stop to a corporation trying to stifle competition illegally.

It is not that I am saying it is a perfect system I just see it as the best we got. We do each other good if we are vigilant and police the system. Right now the big corporations are in collusion with government. I would be interested in finding a away to break this up and prevent it from happening.

I don't necessarily disagree I am just letting out my thoughts. At this point we are having 3 different discussions as opposed to one unified one. There are too many point left where everyone has their own version. So where do we start to build common ground?

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:42 AM

Generally speaking I take care of my family and myself...but any time that I've been in management I've taken care of the people that worked for me. Ultimately, I was fired from my last job for doing just that. I didn't even like the person I was helping out, but I owed it to that person because I was in a position of power, and that person as an employee was powerless and would've lost her job.

Again, the entire corporate structure is bullshit, it's designed for profits - fuck the people it crushes in the process.

They're often voted down out of fear from management - or from the company threatening to leave the country or the town they're in if a union comes in.

Yes, a corporation is about profit. That's why it's called a corporation, not a playpen. People work in this corporation for money, if they don't like it, they can join another corporation to work for their money. Yes, corporations will make more money than an easily replaced worker. They will also divy up this money to the people who made the corporation possible in the first place. Because you are there by choice, and are easily replaced, and have not invested in the company, you don't get the spoils. Nothing is stopping you from buying stock. (Unless it's a private corp or course)

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 05:42 AM

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 05:45 AM

Or from a company treating their employees well, and the employees not wanting to be controlled by a Union. But no way that could ever happen, right?

It could happen - but it's too bad that the laws in place now don't allow us to know if that's what's really happening.

Unions are great, I wish I could start one where I work - and they treat me pretty well. They're probably the best company I've ever worked for. But it doesn't mean that I have bargaining power there, I don't. I'm just a cog in the machine, and no one is going to listen to me when they can simply replace me.

Unions keep companies honest, and that's what we're lacking a lot of right now - honesty.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 05:46 AM

Yes, a corporation is about profit. That's why it's called a corporation, not a playpen. People work in this corporation for money, if they don't like it, they can join another corporation to work for their money. Yes, corporations will make more money than an easily replaced worker. They will also divy up this money to the people who made the corporation possible in the first place. Because you are there by choice, and are easily replaced, and have not invested in the company, you don't get the spoils. Nothing is stopping you from buying stock. (Unless it's a private corp or course)

Nothing is stopping these companies from being less greedy - other than greed of course.

So I'd prefer regulation, seems more realistic to me.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 05:51 AM

Nothing is stopping these companies from being less greedy - other than greed of course.

So I'd prefer regulation, seems more realistic to me.

this...

until and unless someone can show a better solution

now, finding the proper balance is not an easy thing...but i think that reasonable people, working together honestly, can solve most any problem

unfortunately there's precious little of that in DC, not that there usually ever is...but we have been lucky enough to have our Moments , as a Nation...

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 05:54 AM

this...

until and unless someone can show a better solution

now, finding the proper balance is not an easy thing...but i think that reasonable people, working together honestly, can solve most any problem

unfortunately there's precious little of that in DC, not that there usually ever is...but we have been lucky enough to have our Moments , as a Nation...

FDR for the win.

Obama for the challenge ahead.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 05:54 AM

/sigh

i gave you a way to break it up, now didn't i?

and to help stop that dumping, for example...how about holding all responsible CRIMINALLY liable, rather than a civil fine?

if there's another answer besides those two...i'm more than willing to listen

I agree with you on that completely. I disagree with you that we should tell a corporation. "You this is the standard you follow or we come and shut you down".

First the laws should be constitutional on which we can agree. So right away where does the government get the right to come in and guarantee insurance to Fannie and Freddy? See some the blame lies on the government and it should be corrected. All I herd from Obama is that de regulation failed. I did not hear that government overstepped its bounds in the first place. McCain is no better but you don't need me telling you this.

Second what makes you think these sociopath corporations will have any qualms in bribing the politicians and have a say about what these regulations will be. See 100 years ago if a company would pollute a river they would be charged with damaging public property and the fines/punishment should fit the bill.

Keeping these points in mind I agree with you on the punishment for all criminals. I also welcome any ideas you may have about stopping the business colluding with government. What I disagree is that it will not happen through more rules put on public financing and such.

A novel idea I herd couple of days ago would be expanding congress to include more representatives.

Atua

10-20-2008, 05:55 AM

It could happen - but it's too bad that the laws in place now don't allow us to know if that's what's really happening.

Unions are great, I wish I could start one where I work - and they treat me pretty well. They're probably the best company I've ever worked for. But it doesn't mean that I have bargaining power there, I don't. I'm just a cog in the machine, and no one is going to listen to me when they can simply replace me.

Unions keep companies honest, and that's what we're lacking a lot of right now - honesty.

Start a union, lobby the company for higher wages and more vacation time, watch the company go oversees, go home and take handouts from the gov't. Who is there to keep the union honest? UAW, CAW anyone? They have billions of dollars in the coffers, while their employers are broke. If it wasn't for the gov't they would all be out of jobs and I'd be laughing at them.
I can see why you go through jobs like I go through toilet paper.

Skree

10-20-2008, 05:56 AM

Just a fyi. I can easily see the analogy you are trying to draw (it's the same one I used to draw 30 years ago). It's is fundamentaly incorrect.

Rather than rip what you have posted to shreds (you used "revenue" incorectly for starters, but I digress), you posted something that, I think, cuts to the heart of the matter.

Both entities are special interest groups that lobby the government. Both entities use their political and economic leverage to influence policy.Here we have arrived at the crux of the issue. This is exactly the modern view of unions and union leaders, both externaly and internally (I'm generalizing quite a bit here). And exactly why they are loosing and have lost so much influence and membership for so long.

With any understanding of union history you would know that when unions are the most powerful they do not go begging/lobbying the government.

The unions power is in their membership. Not as a special intrest lobbying group.

When unions led the fights for a 40hr work week, Overtime pay, Safe working conditions, etc..etc..etc.. They were fighting to improve conditions for all workers, union and non-union (because if they got it, others got it to 1 degree or another). And they enjoyed widespeard community suport.

Those fights (and they were very much fights, those things were never "given") were from outside, and independant of, the political system. Not thru lobbyists. They were an independant political threat.

On the contrary Corporations power comes directly from buying/lobbying government officials and elected leaders. From money, not people.

Major fundamental difference.

So if you can manage to expand your thought process outside of a simple wikipedia definition, then you will see many similarities between the corporation and the labor union.Expanding my thoughts to buy into that thought process which has led to the emasculation of unions, I totaly reject. Consciously.

I have protested with the grocers union, spent time on the streets at 3AM with truckers union members, and read quite a bit myself.Unfortunatly none of that experience and aparently nothing you have read offers any way forward for unions.

And how could it ? It's not like any union leaders are out there with any other perspective than
'act like a special intrest". More of the same is leading to more of the same, declining membership and no influence. :bang:

Members in unions, in my experience, pay no more attention to what politician their union suports than they do to the next political mailer they deep-six (example of lack of intrest even in the membership).

I'm not saying I disagree with you on everything, but your obnoxious posting style is extremely belligerent and turns a lot of people off, myself included. [quote]If you care to review this tread you will notice that you began this exchange. Not I. If you are going to challenge me with something as incorrect as you posted, backed up by a wall of text, it's "on" and I pack a lunch.:D

[quote]As far as subjective terms, you are quite dense if you don't understand the difference between a term like "conservative" and a term like "union". Most people will agree that one is an objective term and one is a subjective term that can be defined by the individual. (to a degree).Very good tactic. Sinse that other subject had to do with "conservative" and "republican"(nothing to do with "union"). Which I did say you could make a case for saying "Goldwater" was the last "conservative". But you can not make the case that Goldwater was the last Republican.

How "dense" do you have to be to say: Originally Posted by Lindorn http://forums.darkfallonline.com/ima...s/viewpost.gif (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=1833512#post1833512)
Both terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual. In relation to "conservative" and "republican". See Mr. Dence you used the word "both". Conservative by definition is subjective, republican is not.:rolleyes:

If what you posted about your union activities, especially if you were not part of those unions at the time is worthy of major respect, imo.

Skree

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 06:01 AM

Start a union, lobby the company for higher wages and more vacation time, watch the company go oversees, go home and take handouts from the gov't. Who is there to keep the union honest? UAW, CAW anyone? They have billions of dollars in the coffers, while their employers are broke. If it wasn't for the gov't they would all be out of jobs and I'd be laughing at them.

Our laws make it easy and attractive for those companies to go overseas.

I can see why you go through jobs like I go through toilet paper.

This response left intentionally blank.

Skree

10-20-2008, 06:02 AM

FDR for the win.

Obama for the challenge ahead.Wouldn't it be nice if it was that simple ?

People gave Democrats control of congress to stop the war. And they did, nothing. Well they did pass meaningless "resolutions".

Obama may well win for "change". When people see once again that nothing "changes", it will be 1 more dagger in the heart of people tollerating this political system.

Step by small step we will learn.

In my most humble opinion.

Skree

Atua

10-20-2008, 06:05 AM

Our laws make it easy and attractive for those companies to go overseas.

This response left intentionally blank.

The CEO salary cap you proposed would make going oversees a sure thing.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 06:08 AM

The CEO salary cap you proposed would make going oversees a sure thing.

Good, let them go, they're morons.

Seriously, I've seen so many companies go under over the last 20 years I have no doubt in my mind I could do just as good of a job. I'll bet we could hire any jerk off the street to do that job. I'm dead serious. CEO's are fucking retarded.

Atua

10-20-2008, 06:10 AM

Good, let them go, they're morons.

Seriously, I've seen so many companies go under over the last 20 years I have no doubt in my mind I could do just as good of a job. I'll bet we could hire any jerk off the street to do that job. I'm dead serious. CEO's are fucking retarded.

Here end my responses to you.
If any retard off the street could do it, start a company and be it's CEO and make the millions you are oh so jealous of. I mean, it would take a moron to not be able to pull that off.

Skree

10-20-2008, 06:10 AM

This is why we are having this discourse, because the fact that you are unaware of these things I think explains your stance on some of these issues.

Look it up. Watch the documentary "the corporation". They are not inherently evil but they ARE inherently sociopathic. You will see for yourself. If you think that corporations don't break laws simply because it is a business decision you are mistaken. Unfortunately I have still as of yet not been able to find any online data that shows all of the major laws broken by corporations over the past few years and the fines incurred, but it would blow your fucking mind.

Do you honestly think that 500 million dollars means anything to Exxon, Nike, or Coca Cola? You'd have to be insane to think it did. That's about the ballpark range of most government fines against corporations. Again I never said corporations are inherently evil, but they are inherently predisposed to certain types of behavior. They are sociopathic. Right now Monsanto corporation is pumping your milk full of chemicals that have been literally proven to cause disorders in human beings.

Last year there was a huge debate nationally because Monsanto was charging farmers who had monsanto genetically engineered crops growing on their land. How did they get there? The winds were blowing the seeds from nearby farms and landing on these guys plots. Montanto then sued them for use of their seed.

Tell me how this behavior can be described as anything other than sociopathic?lol, I'm literally laughing my ass off. I had no idea we agreed, basically, on so many things.

Sometimes it's easier to find evidence down thru more distant history than recent. Like the San Fransisco trolly car scandal (with standard oil if I remember right and the ludlow masacre (private armies killing strikers) etc...

Skree

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 06:23 AM

Here end my responses to you.
If any retard off the street could do it, start a company and be it's CEO and make the millions you are oh so jealous of. I mean, it would take a moron to not be able to pull that off.

very few are the CEO's who started the actual corp

and therein lies the rub...

back up to the late 70's, a CEO in many instances was someone who worked their way up, inside the business, and knew how it worked at every level...and thus could make informed executive decisions

that changed, and the folks running those businesses became people with MBAs who didn't give a shit about what was being made, or the town the business was in...or anything but $$

then you hit the deregulation and business model of the "gordon gecko, greed is good" 80's...and so on...until today

but that's Big Money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA77MZPK68Q) for you...

Temet nosce

10-20-2008, 06:25 AM

I never implied anything. Acts has nothing to do with it and have no place in the conversation. "None so blind as those who will not see." ;)

You keep wanting to make this about me. Your argument is with Websters dictionary.

The ONLY thing I'm maintaining is that the definition is the definition. That seems to be a really difficult concept to grasp.

Your discomfort in not being able to deal with the definition is seriously funny.

In summary, you still seem to be maintaining that "terms are completely subjective and can be defined specifically by each individual." Or are you arguing something else, and if so, what? :lmao:

Seriously, at this point a six year old could look up the definition and get this.:ohno:

Skree

Very well, I'll give it one last shot at getting through to you. I'm aware you're probably trolling, because no one could be that dense and survive Forumfall, but one last explanation on the off chance you actually are this confused.

Irregardless of what your precious dictionary says (which really, you should have been using a encyclopedia at least, do you think the dictionary really works for information on a group?), any given group has something they stand for generally. lets take PETA as an example, I doubt I need to explain what they stand for. However on the off chance you haven't managed to figure that out either they're an animal rights organization. Now lets say that someone who is a member of PETA starts a movement inside PETA to torture animals and then everyone goes along with them while still calling it PETA. I would maintain that regardless of what their name is they are no longer representing the principles involved. That in fact regardless of what the dictionary has to say about it they are no longer representing PETA's standards at all.

Now this has already hit the point of ad nauseum, so I'm done. If you still find yourself utterly unable to grasp this point, fine. I find myself incapable of caring as to the state of your mental acuity at this point.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 06:55 AM

very few are the CEO's who started the actual corp

and therein lies the rub...

back up to the late 70's, a CEO in many instances was someone who worked their way up, inside the business, and knew how it worked at every level...and thus could make informed executive decisions

that changed, and the folks running those businesses became people with MBAs who didn't give a shit about what was being made, or the town the business was in...or anything but $$

then you hit the deregulation and business model of the "gordon gecko, greed is good" 80's...and so on...until today

but that's Big Money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA77MZPK68Q) for you...

Right but it is none our bussiness how these folks run their companies. Our responcibility is to our selves and making sure government is not giving them any favors.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 06:58 AM

Right but it is none our bussiness how these folks run their companies. Our responcibility is to our selves and making sure government is not giving them any favors.

it is part of the duties We the People have given our government...to ENFORCE THE LAW, and to look out for "the general Welfare" for "us and our Posterity"

as long as they operate within both the letter and the spirit of the Law..i have no problems

but sociopaths have no conscience, and must be watched at all times

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 07:00 AM

but sociopaths have no conscience, and must be watched at all times

Like Bush. Or Sean Hannity.

Septus

10-20-2008, 07:10 AM

Good, let them go, they're morons.

Seriously, I've seen so many companies go under over the last 20 years I have no doubt in my mind I could do just as good of a job. I'll bet we could hire any jerk off the street to do that job. I'm dead serious. CEO's are fucking retarded.

Then make a company and be a CEO. Have fun with that.

Jesus, I'm sorry there are children in this world who are fucking dependent on YOU.

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 07:14 AM

Then make a company and be a CEO. Have fun with that.

Jesus, I'm sorry there are children in this world who are fucking dependent on YOU.

I'll see your random insult to an anonymous forum poster and I'll raise you a who gives a fuck?

Septus

10-20-2008, 07:18 AM

I'll see your random insult to an anonymous forum poster and I'll raise you a who gives a fuck?

anonymous implies I don't know you. I have a pretty good idea what you're capable of (mentally anyway).

Here is the sum of your potential: "I DUNZ KNOW HOW TO THINK SO I WILL CLEAN TOILETS AND FILE PAPURZ, YOU MAKE THE ROCKETZ AND WE SHAREZ"

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 07:18 AM

it is part of the duties We the People have given our government...to ENFORCE THE LAW, and to look out for "the general Welfare" for "us and our Posterity"

as long as they operate within both the letter and the spirit of the Law..i have no problems

but sociopaths have no conscience, and must be watched at all times

My beef is not with the enforcement of the law on which we can agree must be enforced. My beef is that if corporation is not directly harming you then the general welfare caluse should not be applied. If they provide a service or a product you are free to either take it or not. So if they earn their fortune through that that is their money and should not be messed with. If they lie they should be punished on the lie not because we think they lied therefore to be safe lets tax them more.

DocGonzo

10-20-2008, 07:26 AM

My beef is not with the enforcement of the law on which we can agree must be enforced. My beef is that if corporation is not directly harming you then the general welfare caluse should not be applied. If they provide a service or a product you are free to either take it or not. So if they earn their fortune through that that is their money and should not be messed with. If they lie they should be punished on the lie not because we think they lied therefore to be safe lets tax them more.

and my point is that they should pay for the pie tin like the rest of us...no loopholes, and no welfare...this includes the costs to the government for having to keep watch over them in our interests, and that they stay within the standards set by both the letter and spirit of the Law...just like the rest of us

the corp i work for does a decent job at it, and tries it's best to be a good global citizen (it's a worldwide corp, and my company is but one part of it)

within those guidelines, which are the Rules that must be followed for the privilege of operating and making money in our nation, it's all good, imo

Airius Droc

10-20-2008, 07:29 AM

anonymous implies I don't know you. I have a pretty good idea what you're capable of (mentally anyway).

Here is the sum of your potential: "I DUNZ KNOW HOW TO THINK SO I WILL CLEAN TOILETS AND FILE PAPURZ, YOU MAKE THE ROCKETZ AND WE SHAREZ"

lol

What's funny is that the country is like that now - but in reverse.

Silverhandorder

10-20-2008, 07:36 AM

Doc be careful you talk as if corporation has the rights of an individual. Corporation is a contract between a group of individuals.

Anyways the point is that percentage tax should in it self make corporations pay more then the poor. Progressive tax is on a whole another scale straight redistribution of wealth. Then the corporations fight back and have government do favors for them. I view it as out of line for government to charge some one more or less for the amount they get out of the service. If government was a business it would loose all the customers who it is making pay more. Not a good business model.

I am sure there are plenty of government around the world that would collude with corporations if US decides not to and tax them at higher rate then the rest. At the same time if we try to close our markets to them then we will have new domestic corporations rise and the new corporations will go through the same cycle.

I predict that it will be easier for these sociopath corporations to bribe government before they move.

Septus

10-20-2008, 07:38 AM

lol

What's funny is that the country is like that now - but in reverse.

No right now it's "I DUNZ KNOW HOW TO THINKZ SO WHY SHOULD TEH PREZIDENT?" at which point we elect Bush who appoints idealogical zealots who fuck everyone over.

Here is the Bush mantra: "PRIVATE BUSINESS IS GOOD SO IF WE DUN REGULATE THEM THAT IS MOAR GOOD."

Skree

10-20-2008, 07:38 AM

Very well, I'll give it one last shot at getting through to you. I'm aware you're probably trolling, because no one could be that dense and survive Forumfall, but one last explanation on the off chance you actually are this confused.Yep using the correct definitions of words and using them in context is definatly "trolling".:lmao:

There is a condition known as Neurotic Projection. Just thought you might be intrested.Neurotic projection is perceiving others as operating in ways one unconsciously finds objectionable in yourself. http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm

Irregardless of what your precious dictionary says (which really, you should have been using a encyclopedia at least, do you think the dictionary really works for information on a group?), any given group has something they stand for generally. Make your case then and quote an encyclopedia. No let's not do that. Lets get completely away from reality and go into Hypotheticals ! :lmao:

lets take PETA as an example, I doubt I need to explain what they stand for. However on the off chance you haven't managed to figure that out either they're an animal rights organization. Now lets say that someone who is a member of PETA starts a movement inside PETA to torture animals and then everyone goes along with them while still calling it PETA. I would maintain that regardless of what their name is they are no longer representing the principles involved. That in fact regardless of what the dictionary has to say about it they are no longer representing PETA's standards at all.It is a never ending source of amusement to me when people want to make stuff up they always wind up talking in hypotheticals.

Now this has already hit the point of ad nauseum, so I'm done. If you still find yourself utterly unable to grasp this point, fine. I find myself incapable of caring as to the state of your mental acuity at this point.Hurt me baby ! You have got to be one of the most gifted idiots I have ever encountered in forumfall and that is quite an acomplishment. :eek:

Instead of a hypothetical, I'll use a real life example. I know it's completely insane on my part to stick to RL, I'm just crazy that way.

If you go back and look at the republican party history you will see that they, at one time, advocated issues that you would not today associate with them.

You can look it up yourself as my factual links are meaningless in the face of your superior comprehension skills based on fantasy definitions and hypothetical blathering.

The changing ideology of the party has nothing to do with the members back then and today being "Republicans".

Powell endorced Obama. He is still a Republican, until he is not. Pete McCloskey left the republican party. He is no longer a republican in the context of the original post. inny meany miny mo - Infantile still beyond you ?

Irregardless of what your precious dictionary saysYes, because I wrote it. Your wanton display of stupidity is impressive beyond the pale.:lmao: "Dam the Dictionary Full Idiots AHEAD !"

Let's review, Neurotic projection, fantasy definitions, talking in hypotheticals after telling me I should be using an encyclopedia. Are you one of those "special" persons ?

This is just too much fun.

Skree