Yup, that statement all but guarantees a 3rd party vote from me.

No Obama, it is not your place to tell me that I make a bit too much money, so I should give it to you and let you share it with everyone. I earned my piece of the pie and I'll be dammed if you are going to take it. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is just what we need in a capitalist society:rolleyes:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, etc. Basic fundamentals of a capitalist society, which made us the super power that we are today. Everyday the government gets more involved, national debt goes up and foreign policy stays the same. This is not going to change with either Mccain or Obama.

American fundamentals are going down the shitter. The constitution is all but a pipe dream. America is no longer America.

Ehh, basically we are fucked no matter who we chose.

Yup, that statement all but guarantees a 3rd party vote from me.

No Obama, it is not your place to tell me that I make a bit too much money, so I should give it to you and let you share it with everyone. I earned my piece of the pie and I'll be dammed if you are going to take it. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is just what we need in a capitalist society:rolleyes:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, etc. Basic fundamentals of a capitalist society, which made us the super power that we are today. Everyday the government gets more involved, national debt goes up and foreign policy stays the same. This is not going to change with either Mccain or Obama.

American fundamentals are going down the shitter. The constitution is all but a pipe dream. America is no longer America.

Ehh, basically we are fucked no matter who we chose.

What makes you think, even if Obama really wanted to push socialism on America, that it would ever, EVER get through Congress?

I mean, vote for who you want to, I'm thinking about a 3rd party vote myself, but realize that no president has ever kept their campaign promises. America will not change much under Obama.

considering that the democrats will have majority in Congress and that could mean it would be exactly like the past 8 years except...liberal

Obama is not calling for redistribution.

Henry Ford's car company was so successful b/c the man understood that if he paid his employees enough money to be able to afford one of his cars, his business would be highly successful.

The housing crisis is this......average people cannot afford to purchase an average home.

In the 1950's a man could work a 9-5 five day a week job and take care of himself, his wife, his house, his car and his children. This is no longer the case. I believe that a person should be able to work 40 hours a week at any job and live. That means food, shelter, transportation and healthcare.

If the 1% who control 80% of the wealth do not agree, and they must be forced to give people who spend a majority of their waking hours making them the NEXT million, then so be it. If they lack the vision and understanding of men like Henry Ford, or are just simply blinded by their wanton greed, then they should be forced to come around, either through legislation or violence.

I will not eat cake.

In the 1950's a man could work a 9-5 five day a week job and take care of himself, his wife, his house, his car and his children. This is no longer the case. I believe that a person should be able to work 40 hours a week at any job and live. That means food, shelter, transportation and healthcare.

In the 1950s there was much less of this rampant materialism and people living outside their means. You know what my grandparents considered debt? A mortgage. Maybe, and I stress maybe, a car payment. One. Not two, not three, not four. One. Now what do we have today? Credit cards out the ass. Advertising throwing shit at us faster than we can think, telling us how we must have this, must have that. People pay for fucking tv today. My parents pay a good $70/month cable bill. That is an expense that just didn't exist in the 1950s. It doesn't have to exist now, but people choose to "need" cable and pay that bill. You want high definition tv too? Aw shit. What about satelite radio? Same thing with cell phones. Same thing with internet access. Same thing with having to have cool new cars and trendy ass mini mansion houses. Oh yeah and you just GOT to take a vacation somewhere at least once a year. You're a complete yokel if you don't. And how dare you drive there and stay in cheap motels? Fuck that.

People are retarded with their money sometimes, plain and simple.

People pay for fucking tv today. My parents pay a good $70/month cable bill. That is an expense that just didn't exist in the 1950s.

[...]

People are retarded with their money sometimes, plain and simple.

Ha. You think that is expensive? I pay more than twice that amount for cable. Which pretty much gives evidence to the retarded with money comment. :D

People are retarded with their money sometimes, plain and simple.

If I did it alone...

I make 1200 a month, I work 40 hours a week. I have a 300 car payment, 100 dollar insurance, 510 rent (all utilities included) and a 40 dollar phone bill.

That leaves me roughly 250 a month for food, and gas. Thats about 63 bucks a week. I spend about 30 on gas, and 30 on food.

That leaves me 3 dollars to get soap, shampoo, dish soap, laundry detergent, laundry matt fees, shit paper, deodarant, toothpaste, mouth wash, garbage bags, sponges, Q-tips, razors, haircuts, new underwear and socks, new shoes, new clothes etc.

God forbid I need new tires, brakes, dental work, eyecare, oil change, wiper blades, car work etc. Or that I get a parking fine, a seat belt ticket, speeding ticket, overdraft fee etc.

I don't have a kid, otherwise.....WOW. What if I needed medicine as well? What about when I have to bury my family members? What about saving for retirement? What about sending kids to college?

All of the above on 3 bucks a week? Nope. Not going to happen. Luckily my girlfriend splits the bills with me. We are still quite poor. We work our respective dicks in the dirt, for mere survival.

Meanwhile out of all the taxes we pay in a given year DMV, state, federal, sales, sin, county, city, etc. one out of every three dollars we make is taxed. I am entitled to one of two things: Either the government offers me something more for my money, or they stop taking so fucking much of it.

I agree with BrokePhrophet on this. Although, I do not agree with class warfare; there is truth in that commerce comes from the bottom up, not the top down. I mean... seriously, there are a shitload of rappers on MTV's Cribs showing off ridiculous amounts of shit they have no need for in their homes. How did that happen? A shit load of idiots bought their stuff. A shit load of middle class and lower idiots to be exact. Sure rich people buy stuff too, but they only count as 1% of the population. We really depend on the idiocy of the other 99% to keep the economy going. Giving the other 99% some money will only result in the money returning to the market. Whether it be iPhones, 20 inch rims on their Lexus, or a walk-in closet full of niggerish clothes.

If we just let the 1% keep their money, you think they are going to spend it? Seriously think about it. I mean, how the hell did they become the top 1% in the first place. Obviously not from spending all of their money and living paycheck to paycheck. No... thats the other 99%. Us, the idiots.

considering that the democrats will have majority in Congress and that could mean it would be exactly like the past 8 years except...liberal

Fine by me as long as it means getting the fuck out of Iraq, shutting down Gitmo, and implimenting pay-as-you-go that Obama wants for new spending.

There's so much rampant liberalism in this thread it makes me fucking sick.

I agree with BrokePhrophet on this. Although, I do not agree with class warfare; there is truth in that commerce comes from the bottom up, not the top down. I mean... seriously, there are a shitload of rappers on MTV's Cribs showing off ridiculous amounts of shit they have no need for in their homes. How did that happen? A shit load of idiots bought their stuff. A shit load of middle class and lower idiots to be exact. Sure rich people buy stuff too, but they only count as 1% of the population. We really depend on the idiocy of the other 99% to keep the economy going. Giving the other 99% some money will only result in the money returning to the market. Whether it be iPhones, 20 inch rims on their Lexus, or a walk-in closet full of niggerish clothes.

If we just let the 1% keep their money, you think they are going to spend it? Seriously think about it. I mean, how the hell did they become the top 1% in the first place. Obviously not from spending all of their money and living paycheck to paycheck. No... thats the other 99%. Us, the idiots.

They got it by making sure they pay a smaller percentage of taxes than their workers. Some got lucky and got in n the game when it was cheap.

You will not see another Hector Ruiz. Ruiz was an American success story, and I doubt very seriously we will see another person rise from immigrant poverty to CEO of a world-class company in America with this climate.

America has always had success built atop of technology. From Ford's assembly line to digging deeper than anyone else, that's what America has always had that no one else could rival. Technology then was much simpler and much easier to get a foot in economically speaking. You can't start a small stagecoach company and take it to one of the only automotive manufacturers anymore. Technology often comes at a price that many people today cannot afford in their entire lifetime.

The game has changed. The most that American dream that holds true is being like this "Joe the Plumber" guy that owns his own small business. America grew to it's dominant status on the backs of small business, but mark my words that it will not continue on the same back. To say that small business is what drives America is to say we have given up on becoming better. Our economy has evolved beyond what the average potential can sustain.

The American dream ended long ago.

Obama is not calling for redistribution.

Uh, yes he is.

Henry Ford's car company was so successful b/c the man understood that if he paid his employees enough money to be able to afford one of his cars, his business would be highly successful.

No, Henry Ford's company was so successful because of his hard work and innovation. As a result of his success, his employees benefited.

The housing crisis is this......average people cannot afford to purchase an average home.

That's what mortgages are for. And, if they can't afford a house, then they shouldn't go out and buy one. They shouldn't take out a loan they know they can't pay back. That's why the housing market is so fucked up right. Banks lent money to people they knew couldn't pay it back, just to make a quick buck, and these people borrowed this money, knowing full well they couldn't pay it back. Fuck both of them. They fucked up, it's their fault, not mine.

In the 1950's a man could work a 9-5 five day a week job and take care of himself, his wife, his house, his car and his children. This is no longer the case. I believe that a person should be able to work 40 hours a week at any job and live. That means food, shelter, transportation and healthcare.

You have to account for inflation. The dollar can't buy as much now as it could back then.

If the 1% who control 80% of the wealth do not agree, and they must be forced to give people who spend a majority of their waking hours making them the NEXT million, then so be it. If they lack the vision and understanding of men like Henry Ford, or are just simply blinded by their wanton greed, then they should be forced to come around, either through legislation or violence.

No, that's fucking socialism, bordering on fascism. So, wealthy people should be forced to give poor people money, that they earned through their hard work and innovation. and if they don't they should be made to give it to them? They do have the vision of Henry Ford, that's why their wealthy.

I will not eat cake.

I like cake:)

If I did it alone...

I make 1200 a month, I work 40 hours a week. I have a 300 car payment, 100 dollar insurance, 510 rent (all utilities included) and a 40 dollar phone bill.

Okay, here we go.

I make 1200 a month. I work 40 hours a week. I don't have a car payment. Why? Because I saved up and bought a car. No financing. No car payment. I have 140 car insurance a month. I pay 400 dollar a month rent (utilities included)' I have an 80 dollar phone bill.

That leaves me roughly 250 a month for food, and gas. Thats about 63 bucks a week. I spend about 30 on gas, and 30 on food.

That leaves me 620 a month for food and gas. That's 155 a week. I spend 60 on gas and 60 on food.

That leaves me 3 dollars to get soap, shampoo, dish soap, laundry detergent, laundry matt fees, shit paper, deodarant, toothpaste, mouth wash, garbage bags, sponges, Q-tips, razors, haircuts, new underwear and socks, new shoes, new clothes etc.

That leaves me 35 a week to get all that shit you said. But, wait, you shouldn't need soap, shampoo, dish shop, laundry detergent, shit paper, deoderant, toothpaste, mouth wash, garbage bags, sponges, q-tops, razor, haircuts, new underwear and socks, new shoes, new clothes, etc., every fucking week.

God forbid I need new tires, brakes, dental work, eyecare, oil change, wiper blades, car work etc. Or that I get a parking fine, a seat belt ticket, speeding ticket, overdraft fee etc.

Tires last at least 60,000 miles, if you take care of them. Brakes should last awhile if you properly maintain them. An oil change is 20 bucks if you do it yourself, and that should only be needed every three months. Your car shouldn't need work if you properly take care of it. As for medical expense. I have medical insurance through my work. That's right. My company pays for it. As for the parking ticket, seat belt ticket, and speeding ticket. If you obey the law, that shouldn't be a problem. The overdraft fee? Simple, don't overdraw. In other words, don't spend money you don't have.

I don't have a kid, otherwise.....WOW. What if I needed medicine as well? What about when I have to bury my family members? What about saving for retirement? What about sending kids to college?

As for the kid thing. Don't have kid if you can't afford it. Hopefully by the time you decide to have a family, you'll have a better paying job. Medicine? Again, I have insurance through my work. Burying family members? You shouldn't be responsible for that. They should have thought that out before they passed. Life insurance, IRA's 401(k)'s, etc. Saving for retirement? Start now, a little now is better then nothing. As for me, my company has a one to one 401(k) progarm.


All of the above on 3 bucks a week? Nope. Not going to happen. Luckily my girlfriend splits the bills with me. We are still quite poor. We work our respective dicks in the dirt, for mere survival.

All the above on 35 bucks a week? It's tought, but I think I can handle it. I'm not porr though, I'm middle class, I have luxuries the poor don't. I don't have anyone to share my financial burden with. I work my ass off, and my employer reward my for it.

Meanwhile out of all the taxes we pay in a given year DMV, state, federal, sales, sin, county, city, etc. one out of every three dollars we make is taxed. I am entitled to one of two things: Either the government offers me something more for my money, or they stop taking so fucking much of it.

I don't know about you, but I get my taxes back when I file. You're not entitled to anything. No one owes you a decent job with a decent wage. These are things you earn. I'm so suck of that fucking word. If don't think you're making enough, get a different job. If you don't have the education or skills necessary to get a better job, then go our and fucking acquire them. The government owes you nothing and neither do I. You're responsible for your own life, as am I.

What's the difference between me and you? Perhaps I manage my money better. Perhaps my standard of living is lower then yours. Perhaps I do away with certain luxuries that you can't bear to part with. Perhaps I'm more educated and have more skills then you. Perhaps I'm willing to work harder and longer and sacrifice more then you are. Perhaps my priorites are different than yours. The fact of the matter remains, I'm on my own, as are you.

I agree with BrokePhrophet on this. Although, I do not agree with class warfare; there is truth in that commerce comes from the bottom up, not the top down. I mean... seriously, there are a shitload of rappers on MTV's Cribs showing off ridiculous amounts of shit they have no need for in their homes. How did that happen? A shit load of idiots bought their stuff. A shit load of middle class and lower idiots to be exact. Sure rich people buy stuff too, but they only count as 1% of the population. We really depend on the idiocy of the other 99% to keep the economy going. Giving the other 99% some money will only result in the money returning to the market. Whether it be iPhones, 20 inch rims on their Lexus, or a walk-in closet full of niggerish clothes.

If we just let the 1% keep their money, you think they are going to spend it? Seriously think about it. I mean, how the hell did they become the top 1% in the first place. Obviously not from spending all of their money and living paycheck to paycheck. No... thats the other 99%. Us, the idiots.

You really don't think the wealthy spend there money? You think they just hold on to it and do nothing? Who do you think creates jobs? Who do you think invests most of the money in this country? That's right, the wealthy. You're understanding of basic economics, financing, and how this country runs makes me sad that the public school system failed you so horribly.

Basically, taxation is needed to fix the errors of previous governments. America has some serriioouuss fucking problems because too many idiots have taken your freedoms for granted.

You can't expect society to return to greatness without a cost, there needs to be a certain amount of effort and money needed to re-educate people, provide healthcare to get people back on their feet, sort out the ghettos .etc When you've dealt with all that, THEN you can think about a perfect libertarian society.

As for people whinging about the rich shouldn't have to give up their money: it's their collective greed and irresponability which has deprived some people the right to a decent life straight from birth. As an adult, it should be survival of the fitness: you should be responsible and not rely on handouts; but EVERYBODY deserves an equal chance at birth: it's the key to a harmonious and civilised society.

....

Not going to go into further details about my life and why it is difficult to improve my situation. Dont give a fuck if you believe I am just not as motivated as you. Whatever makes you feel better....my point is still this:

A person who works 40 hours a week, should be able to afford to live. You will not convinve me otherwise. Not when 1% control 80% of the wealth, and everyone in America spends at least 4 months working just to pay taxes, and may do it at a job that does not provide them the means to live.

Either I am entitled to help from the government, OR the government needs to stop taxing us to death. I don't give a fuck which.

As far as getting an education.........you will still need SOMEONE to clean, cook, mow lawns, etc. no matter if everyone in America got a doctorate tommorrow. You would have nuerosurgeons cleaning shitters for 7 bucks an hour.

No, Henry Ford's company was so successful because of his hard work and innovation. As a result of his success, his employees benefited.


One of the most innovative things the man did was paying his employees a fair fucking wage. It shocked the business world when he did it. His sales records held for almost 50 fucking years.

Trickle this down.....

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage, which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. The move proved extremely profitable. When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street. He proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#Ford_Motor_Company

That's what mortgages are for. And, if they can't afford a house, then they shouldn't go out and buy one.

But they do need a house, a place to live, and the average person cannot afford an average house. Our economy needs a housing industry, and the growing poverty in this country cannot sustain it. Either wages need to be increased, cost of living driven down, or the market needs to correct and home values drop to the point that people can afford them. That is the most simple and root fucking cause of this crisis. Your inability to see it, or acknowledge it does not make it any less true.

Do you think these people realized they could not afford it and said "Fuck it, let's waste a bunch of time, money, and energy for shits and giggles", or do you think predatory lending is myth?

Not taking away personal responsibility here, just suggesting before you look down your nose at these people any further (no matter how good that undoubtedly makes you feel), maybe walk a mile in their shoes, if you can be that un-self-centered for a brief moment.

No, that's fucking socialism, bordering on fascism.

1% controlling 80% of the wealth is slavery. The banking system, a system designed to constantly fuck someone, somewhere, and globalization are travesties of the human condition. We are wage slaves, but traditional slaves at least had a place to lay their heads at night.

You know what kind of shit you get with 1% controlling 80% of the wealth? You get private wealth and public debt. You get a 700 billion dollar bail out. You get fucked. Daily. Hard. You are just either too fucking stupid, or arrogant to realize it.

You get a system of wealth that by it's very fucking nature is designed to fuck over someone. Nobody can pay off all of their debt. If every American paid every debt they owed there would still be countless people fucked, because...

THE MONEY TO PAY BACK ALL DEBTS DOES NOT EXIST. Eternal debt. This unfairness is beyond words. It is beyond description, and most likely beyond you.

I like cake

I know you like cake. You would have happily eaten it and let the bitch keep her head. Thank goodness more of you didn't exist then. Too bad more of you exist now.

I think what Obama has in mind is that, if you tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor, it'll naturally fall back into the hands of the rich. It just means it cycles a little faster. I don't think a whole lot will change, except the poor will be a little better off.

I think what Obama has in mind is that, if you tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor, it'll naturally fall back into the hands of the rich. It just means it cycles a little faster. I don't think a whole lot will change, except the poor will be a little better off.

Why stop there?

Why doesn't the government just take all the money and then redistribute it to everyone. Fair is fair, right?

Trickle this down.....

This is the trickle-down Reagan had in mind that hasn't existed for years. Employers these days love to nickle and dime everyone out of what's fair. "Why you're lucky to even have a job in this tough economy!"

I know of one place that is good to it's employees like that. A bar here offers its security personnel $15/hr instead of $10 like all the other bars in town.

Not even government employees of all people can always get away with just (hell, any) compensation for hundreds of hours of overtime. I can personally attest to that.

SNIP

WOW.

You are totally oblivious to the situation that is at hand. Fuck you for blaming capitalism.

Why is the market so messed up right now? Not because 1% is controlling 80% of the wealth, but because people are living beyond their means and the current economic policies are doing nothing but reinforcing it.

Everyone's panicking and asking for the government to step in but all that's going to do is prolong the inevitable and eventually make things worse. For the past decade people have been borrowing with limited to no consequences and now they can't afford to pay it back.

Trillions of dollars are being printed to pay back what the bank's lost. This creates massive inflation and threatens the dollar.

Want to blame someone? Blame the millions of people who took out loans for houses they couldn't afford. Blame the people who bought that fancy car that they shouldn't have. They're the reason you can't pay for anything. But don't blame the free market and the people who worked their asses off to get where they are.

Oh and here is a good read, educate yourself-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503166.html

I think what Obama has in mind is that, if you tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor, it'll naturally fall back into the hands of the rich. It just means it cycles a little faster. I don't think a whole lot will change, except the poor will be a little better off.

I get that impression as well.

The problem I see is that rich people do four things with their money on a macro scale: spend it on niche merchandise, invest in their companies (sometimes bringing savings to their companies and it sometimes makes it's way to the customer), hoarding it, or investing or starting new companies. Nothing intrinsically wrong with any of that, except for the fact that as long as they maintain a significant net profit the money keeps going to them. Again, nothing intriniscally wrong.

The problem becomes when money becomes scarcer for the bottom (you can't just pirnt the shit), like we have been seeing for the past few years. Rich people are rich because lots of people buy lots of their crap. When rich people have all the money, the lower classes can't afford it, and then the economy starts collapsing until it finds a point at which the lower classes can afford to prop it up. It's how the free market is supposed to work: equilibrium.

I find it difficult to balance the addage of "whats good for the goose" and how the country and markets are supposed to work. It is difficult to balance socialism to be good for everyone, but keeping your money in your pocket and not demoralizing hard work. I'm just not sure how this can be accomplished objectively.

but because people are living beyond their means and the current economic policies are doing nothing but reinforcing it.

Uhhh, that's exactly what happens when %1 controls %80. Money becomes much, much scarcer for the other %99. It's no fucking wonder that people by and large live off of credit when wages have been stagnating and declining in the past years and costs have gone up greatly, especially when transportation is involved.

Blaming people for doing whatever they could to get by is the wrong way to go about this.

I'm not even immune to this. My family is poor as shit thanks to shit-cheap Chinese electronics, and I am also poor. I even have a government job with a nice salary and it's still not enough. I almost had to skip a year of univeristy just because I almost was unable to repay last semester's debt. I don't live outside of my means at all, and I just barely get by except for school bills. I'll be fucked hardcore if I can't get a loan next semester. Off to the factory for me, then.

I get that impression as well.

The problem I see is that rich people do four things with their money on a macro scale: spend it on niche merchandise, invest in their companies (sometimes bringing savings to their companies and it sometimes makes it's way to the customer), hoarding it, or investing or starting new companies. Nothing intrinsically wrong with any of that, except for the fact that as long as they maintain a significant net profit the money keeps going to them. Again, nothing intriniscally wrong.

The problem becomes when money becomes scarcer for the bottom (you can't just pirnt the shit), like we have been seeing for the past few years. Rich people are rich because lots of people buy lots of their crap. When rich people have all the money, the lower classes can't afford it, and then the economy starts collapsing until it finds a point at which the lower classes can afford to prop it up. It's how the free market is supposed to work: equilibrium.

I find it difficult to balance the addage of "whats good for the goose" and how the country and markets are supposed to work. It is difficult to balance socialism to be good for everyone, but keeping your money in your pocket and not demoralizing hard work. I'm just not sure how this can be accomplished objectively.

The problem isn't with money becoming scarcer, it's with the dollar plummeting because of inflation. Minimum wage in my state has gone up dramatically but all that is doing is price fixing. We are not attacking the problem, we are merely reinforcing it. We can't attempt to do the markets job, it creates a whole mess of problems as you are seeing right now.

Things will balance themselves out if we just let them. People need to start saving, I know that's hard when some people can't even afford basic needs but it will solve the problem a whole lot faster then our current plan. Sure things will be bad for a year or so, but that is a lot better then another depression.

Uhhh, that's exactly what happens when %1 controls %80. Money becomes much, much scarcer for the other %99. It's no fucking wonder that people by and large live off of credit when wages have been stagnating and declining in the past years and costs have gone up greatly, especially when transportation is involved.

Blaming people for doing whatever they could to get by is the wrong way to go about this.

I'm not even immune to this. My family is poor as shit thanks to shit-cheap Chinese electronics, and I am also poor. I even have a government job with a nice salary and it's still not enough. I almost had to skip a year of univeristy just because I almost was unable to repay last semester's debt. I don't live outside of my means at all, and I just barely get by except for school bills. I'll be fucked hardcore if I can't get a loan next semester. Off to the factory for me, then.

Okay, first of all that statistic is 100% pulled out of the ass. I only referenced it because of how ridiculous it is to the current situation.

You're telling me that we are in this mess because the rich people aren't spending money and they are "hording" it?

The only thing that's changed in the past decade is that people have been living above their means. Building houses, buying cars and buying things with credit that they can't afford. Then they get away with this because the government turns right around and basically says it's alright and then bails out the banks.

Times have gotten tough because of inflation. Just a little while ago the house market was at it's peak, the economy was doing great and everyone was getting by just fine. Then people couldn't pay the credit that they owed, banks went under and we are now in this shitstorm. Not because of the, "greedy rich".

$1200/month is like $7.50/hr. Teenagers work for that much, for pocket money. A person in your situation can and I believe does, qualify for government assistance, in the way of food stamps and possibly medicaid insurance. But you shouldn't be making only $7.50/hr for very long. Either you move up and make more and gain seniority, or you find a real job making at least twice as much and you survive fine.

The basic question here is and always has been: how should society reward those who put their lives into this economy? Is the value of a life defined by the market? Is the value of a life defined by the dictates of the government? Or does the value of a life derive from the very definition of life (in this context), that is, as one's effort?

We need efficient government.

You really don't think the wealthy spend there money? You think they just hold on to it and do nothing? Who do you think creates jobs? Who do you think invests most of the money in this country? That's right, the wealthy. You're understanding of basic economics, financing, and how this country runs makes me sad that the public school system failed you so horribly.

Umm... demand creates jobs. You fail at basic economics. If there is no demand for a certain product, no amount of money being thrown at it will save it or every single person that works on its product line. From the manufacturer all the way to the director that sits on the board that oversees the whole operation. So you think if some wealthy investors started throwing money into reintroducing the Pet Rock, that it will flourish into an entirely new toy industry? Thats just plain stupid. Investments can only get a company started. Reinvestment from the company 's own profits is what makes it grow and create new jobs.

You have a horrible grasp on the market and you should feel horrible. I don't want to make assumptions, but you sound like haven't even worked in a corporation yet. Seriously... I'm going to learn you something here... in industry when sales of a product line starts failing the first thing a corporation does is redistributes money from whatever division that product line falls under to reinvest in its marketing and R&D to see if they can either save it or reinvent it for the customer. If it continues to fail they start cutting it down from R&D to just Development to Marketing to Manufacturing and, finally, Sales. The only hope anyone working on that line can have is that another line is doing so well that they will only be transferred within the company instead of being laid off to find another company to work for.

Stupid kids with their ideals. Sure ideals are what we are taught in school. But anyone that has finished school and were actually taught the harshness of reality will tell you that industry is nothing they teach you at school. Its pretty much like government. School teaches you that there are 3 branches that have checks and balances, but you see none of that shit happening.

Why stop there?

Why doesn't the government just take all the money and then redistribute it to everyone. Fair is fair, right?

It will devalue the money even more than it is now. Everyone knows that route will not work. We have seen it fail time and time and again. Shit, even Red China isn't even Red anymore.

$1200/month is like $7.50/hr. Teenagers work for that much, for pocket money. A person in your situation can and I believe does, qualify for government assistance, in the way of food stamps and possibly medicaid insurance. But you shouldn't be making only $7.50/hr for very long. Either you move up and make more and gain seniority, or you find a real job making at least twice as much and you survive fine.

It sucks that people make that much. But in all honesty... if someone is working 40 hours a week, they may be too proud to ask for government assistance. I know libertarians and conservatives like to complain about if there is a safety net, people will take advantage of it. Sure there may be a few, but we are in a country where work is our culture. Everything is revolved around getting us everything here and now. We don't have time to wait because we are always on the go. In a culture like that the majority have too much pride to ask for assistance.

Shit, this financial crisis started even before the new millennium. The only reason why no one saw it coming is credit cards. When people start paying for gas, groceries, and basic essentials with credit cards thats the beginning of financial woes. That kind of speaks to the mentality of our people. We will hide behind credit and make it worse for ourselves before we swallow our pride and ask for assistance. Socialism for the impoverish has got nothing on the credit problems in this country.

Yup, that statement all but guarantees a 3rd party vote from me.

No Obama, it is not your place to tell me that I make a bit too much money, so I should give it to you and let you share it with everyone. I earned my piece of the pie and I'll be dammed if you are going to take it. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is just what we need in a capitalist society:rolleyes:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, etc. Basic fundamentals of a capitalist society, which made us the super power that we are today. Everyday the government gets more involved, national debt goes up and foreign policy stays the same. This is not going to change with either Mccain or Obama.

American fundamentals are going down the shitter. The constitution is all but a pipe dream. America is no longer America.

Ehh, basically we are fucked no matter who we chose.

stop complaining you damn jew.

People are still arguing about 'What caused' this econ mess? Clearly it was the econ policies that have been implemented under (and since) Reagan and continued largely by the Bush admin. No regulations on Wall st. for lending, the oil prices in the summer, privatizing high gains on risk and socializing the losses, recklessness with OUR money (the people who aren't in the top 1%). To say it's all predatory lending or the fault of those who took out mortgages is simplistic and irresponsible.

Also, I seem to remember back in February some of us debating on totse whether or not the then economic climate signaled disaster. Some of us (especially BrokeProphet if I remember) saw the unemployment numbers rising, inflation, housing crisis continuing, etc. and made the argument that something had to change or there was going to be a huge problem. Out loyal conservatives here on totse (Zman specifically, but others too) kept their heads in the sand and defended the Republicans with every breath. Well now there very clearly is a fucking problem. What the hell is wrong with you people? Now that we're in a position to say 'I told you so', nobody wants to.

So to attack people on this board who so clearly have shown that they know what their talking about with regards to the current economic situation is fucking ridiculous. It strikes me that anybody who can still support the type of wild-west free market that Regan and Bush allowed for must be fucking retarded...This shit pisses me off..Goddamnit.

I bet its going to get better for you guys though. You guys as in Canadians. Whoever the next president is will open up your meds market to us since health care seems to be a really big issue this time around and your meds are dirt cheap compared to ours. With life expectancy rising and meds for practically everything, you guys are about to get a huge boost to your economy within 2 years. Shit, if BioPharma and Biotech starts moving up there to make Biotech hot spots, I'll move up there. I've already considered it before but you guys just don't have the science industry outside of Academia yet.

Umm... demand creates jobs. You fail at basic economics. If there is no demand for a certain product, no amount of money being thrown at it will save it or every single person that works on its product line. From the manufacturer all the way to the director that sits on the board that oversees the whole operation. So you think if some wealthy investors started throwing money into reintroducing the Pet Rock, that it will flourish into an entirely new toy industry? Thats just plain stupid. Investments can only get a company started. Reinvestment from the company 's own profits is what makes it grow and create new jobs.

You have a horrible grasp on the market and you should feel horrible. I don't want to make assumptions, but you sound like haven't even worked in a corporation yet. Seriously... I'm going to learn you something here... in industry when sales of a product line starts failing the first thing a corporation does is redistributes money from whatever division that product line falls under to reinvest in its marketing and R&D to see if they can either save it or reinvent it for the customer. If it continues to fail they start cutting it down from R&D to just Development to Marketing to Manufacturing and, finally, Sales. The only hope anyone working on that line can have is that another line is doing so well that they will only be transferred within the company instead of being laid off to find another company to work for.

Stupid kids with their ideals. Sure ideals are what we are taught in school. But anyone that has finished school and were actually taught the harshness of reality will tell you that industry is nothing they teach you at school. Its pretty much like government. School teaches you that there are 3 branches that have checks and balances, but you see none of that shit happening.

Wow, and I fail at economics. You totally did not get what I was saying at all.

Umm... demand creates jobs. You fail at basic economics. If there is no demand for a certain product, no amount of money being thrown at it will save it or every single person that works on its product line. From the manufacturer all the way to the director that sits on the board that oversees the whole operation. So you think if some wealthy investors started throwing money into reintroducing the Pet Rock, that it will flourish into an entirely new toy industry? Thats just plain stupid. Investments can only get a company started. Reinvestment from the company 's own profits is what makes it grow and create new jobs.

Um, no. Demand does not create jobs. It creates a need for supply. Businesses created jobs. That whole pet rock thing you went into means you totally did not understand what I said about the wealthy investing their money. If investments don't get a company started then how does it get started? Either the owners invest their own capital in it or they borrow money from a bank. How does the bank get this money to loan out? That's right, by people investing it. You're correct that reinvestment from the company's own profits is what makes it grow and create new jobs, though. If the wealthy are being taxed more, then they are going to be hesitant to invest it more in companies or start new businesses. If the return they get on their money isn't high enough, then they will just hang onto their money. It's simple economics. Which brings me to another point. If corporations are being taxed more, then they won't have a high enough profit to reinvest into the company. Which means they won't be able to grow. We you tax a corporation more, one of two things happens. They either raise prices or lay off workers. Sometimes both. In the end, it's the middle class that always pays. The consumer. It amazes me that liberals still think that raising taxes on the wealthy and the corporations will end up helping the middle class. It doesn't. They end up having to pay higher prices for goods, or they get laid off. I don't see how they can't grasp this simple concept.

Basically, taxation is needed to fix the errors of previous governments. America has some serriioouuss fucking problems because too many idiots have taken your freedoms for granted.

No, we need to cut spending. Seriously, we spend way more then we bring in in taxes. Taxing more will not help anything. Can you name we one civilization that taxed itself into prosperity? No, you can't. People are just gonna have to be prepared to lowering their standard of living.

You can't expect society to return to greatness without a cost, there needs to be a certain amount of effort and money needed to re-educate people, provide healthcare to get people back on their feet, sort out the ghettos .etc When you've dealt with all that, THEN you can think about a perfect libertarian society.

Why should I give money to re-educate people? No one gave me money for education. I had to take out loans to pay for my college education. Healthcare? That's what companies are for. Find a job with a company that provides benefits or get a policy of your own. Healthcare isn't as expensive as people make it out to be.

Can you name we one civilization that taxed itself into prosperity?
The Scandinavians.

I think what Obama has in mind is that, if you tax the rich a little more and give it to the poor, it'll naturally fall back into the hands of the rich. It just means it cycles a little faster. I don't think a whole lot will change, except the poor will be a little better off.

No, it doesn't. Taxing the rich always ends up hurting the middle and lower classes. It's basic economics.

Why is the market so messed up right now? Not because 1% is controlling 80% of the wealth, but because people are living beyond their means and the current economic policies are doing nothing but reinforcing it.

That 1% is poised to buy up corps for pennies on the dollar thanks to the market crash. That 1% stole 700 billion from the citizens of the United States and did it in a few weeks, with little resistance, threatening us with "If you don't do this, your employer wont be able to pay you". Held us fucking ransom. That 1% was the driving force behind buying our leaders and having them deregulate the market for the express purpose of raping it dry.

But no, let's mostly blame the foolish people who WERE swindled by predatory lenders, who did not really expect or want these fools to pay it back. Did not care if they paid it back, b/c deregulation allowed that buck to be passed. This drove home prices up beyond the means of average people, who still need a place to lay their fucking heads at night.

Yes, people live beyond their means, b/c we live in a country whose......

ENTIRE MONETARY SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE CORE PRINCIPAL OF ETERNAL DEBT!

If everyone started paying off their debts, all countries, all people, all business etc. there would not be enough money to pay it off, and here is the secret....

There never can be. This is most certainly by design, not by accident. That is how 1% have 80%. That is how avarice truly came to rule the Earth.

----

How do you all think 1% of the world controls 80% of the wealth? Through fair business practices? By obeying laws and ethical principles? By hard work and innovation?

No. There has been something very wrong with American business and economics since the early part of the 20th century. It seems some of you actually believe there is a truly free market out there. If you are this fucking stupid, it would be an exercise in futility for me to attempt to change what you call your mind.

1% controlling 80% of the wealth is a plutocracy. Not capitalism, not free market, not democratic, not communist, not facist, not socialist but a plutocracy. They may be able to fool you into believing it is something else, and it may even have some of the bells and whistles of these other governments, but we ultimately live in, and have ultimately lived in, a plutocracy.

No, it doesn't. Taxing the rich always ends up hurting the middle and lower classes. It's basic economics.

Do you think the rich want lower taxes on them so they can pass the savings on to their workers? Golly gee, that is mighty fucking noble of them.

Trickle down fails.

The rich have influenced tax law for so fucking long now, the loopholes and shelters that exist are deplorable.

This is supposed to be a government by and for the people and this country and the world is becoming a plutocracy.

If investments don't get a company started then how does it get started? Either the owners invest their own capital in it or they borrow money from a bank. How does the bank get this money to loan out?


Or the old fashion way... you start modestly and branch out as profits rise. Thats how Walmart started, thats how McDonalds started, thats how Dominos Pizza started. Thats food and services.

What about technology? You create the idea and buy the intellectual rights to the idea. You sell it to an established business and collect a dividend. When enough is collected and enough is learned having spent time in the company you sold it to, you find a partner and start your own.

What about science? You do the research and publish the finding. The tax payers pay for this through government grants. Once pharma companies pick up on your findings you continue on like the guy who developed the technology in the last example.

What about people that just want to start on anything? Well properly established companies allow people to buy a branch off of them to run and if that person is actually successful, the branch becomes its own entity and the loan that the company itself provided to start that branch can be paid off for.

Taking a loan to start off past a modest beginning only means whatever your selling has either been half assed and you are under pressure to get it out there or it isn't good enough to develop a profit off of it through pure demand. Shit like this comes and goes all the time. Businesses rise and fall due to this half assed invention and routine. The only way a person can be successful starting off with a loan is if their only intention is to temporarily start a company only to have the company and loan bought out by a larger company. That only creates jobs temporarily. Once it hits the larger company, those jobs are either lost, transferred to cheap foreign lands, or consolidated to those who already work in the bigger company.

I for one, will not advocate those taking advantage of the system where others suffer the consequences. I'm not going to say there should be laws against it ... because there shouldn't... but I seriously hope people like that are exposed for who they really are after they have developed the lifestyle where they cannot afford to not make as much as they have.

If corporations are being taxed more, then they won't have a high enough profit to reinvest into the company. Which means they won't be able to grow. We you tax a corporation more, one of two things happens. They either raise prices or lay off workers. Sometimes both. In the end, it's the middle class that always pays. The consumer. It amazes me that liberals still think that raising taxes on the wealthy and the corporations will end up helping the middle class. It doesn't. They end up having to pay higher prices for goods, or they get laid off. I don't see how they can't grasp this simple concept.

Can you even give me an example to where a corporation failed due to taxes? I hear this shit all the time and I have never seen an example of it. Sun Microsystems = failing due to the campaign waged by Microsoft against it. Long Drugs = failing due to Walmart and Walgreens getting contracts from suppliers because they have the purchasing power Long Drugs doesn't have. I've seen in my career of work science industries fail because of the sudden rise in the price of Gold where Gold is a raw material in their products. Shit the company I work for has a division in the negative because the cassettes they make for a certain product requires platinum.

I'm not sure if you are talking about liberals in general or me. Because I don't really see anything that I have posted that makes me a liberal. Shit, I believe in exploitation. I hope this economic slump continues because the American dollar stays relatively at the same value while others are dropping. I hope we exploit the opportunity until the US dollar is on top. But you are quick to call me a liberal because all you know is what you are told by people who like to preach the same exact shit over and over again calling themselves conservatives.

You believe their shit and think "Oh trickle down does fucking work." I'm sorry but you are idiotic for believing that. Thats how we got into this mess in the first place. The 1% can only do so much for the economy. They actually do very little in comparison to the other 99%. During the Great Depression the 1% tried to save the market by pouring their money into it. But they only made up 1% and, thus, could not prevent shit since the other 99% is like tidal wave ready to flatten out the whole nation.

I've seen in my career of work science industries fail because of the sudden rise in the price of Gold where Gold is a raw material in their products. Shit the company I work for has a division in the negative because the cassettes they make for a certain product requires platinum.

It's only going to get worse. Did you know there is only about 3000 tons of platinum in the entire earth? Natural resources are getting more scarce and thus more expensive. Demand continues to increase. The world continues to have a positive rate population growth. How do you kill 5 billion people? This will be an important question if mysteries are not resolved within the next couple of decades.

Can you even give me an example to where a corporation failed due to taxes? I hear this shit all the time and I have never seen an example of it.

I never said anything about companies failing. I was talking about what companies do to offset their losses when they have to pay a lot of taxes. They layoff workers and raise prices. They shrink, instead of grow. Again, nothing was said about companies failing.

I'm not sure if you are talking about liberals in general or me. Because I don't really see anything that I have posted that makes me a liberal. Shit, I believe in exploitation. I hope this economic slump continues because the American dollar stays relatively at the same value while others are dropping. I hope we exploit the opportunity until the US dollar is on top. But you are quick to call me a liberal because all you know is what you are told by people who like to preach the same exact shit over and over again calling themselves conservatives.

I wasn't talking about you in specifically. I was talking about mainstream liberalism. Yes, that's right. I preach what other have told me. I am brainwashed by the right. It doesn't matter that I have extensive knowledge on the subject of economics. It doesn't matter that I've spent thousands of my own dollars to educate myself. It doesn't matter that I do my own independent research and scrutinize everything and take nothing on face value. My observation are based on facts.

You believe their shit and think "Oh trickle down does fucking work." I'm sorry but you are idiotic for believing that. Thats how we got into this mess in the first place. The 1% can only do so much for the economy. They actually do very little in comparison to the other 99%. During the Great Depression the 1% tried to save the market by pouring their money into it. But they only made up 1% and, thus, could not prevent shit since the other 99% is like tidal wave ready to flatten out the whole nation.Trickle down economics does work. You are idiotic for no believing that. The 1% do a lot for this economy. If the 1% decided fuck everybody else, I'm keeping my money, we'd be in a lot of shit. No new businesses would be created. Banks wouldn't have any money to loan out to individuals and companies. People wouldn't be able to buy homes and companies wouldn't be able to buy new equipment or expand. People would lose their jobs. It's funny that you bash this mythical 1% so much. It's because of them that you even have a job in the first place. Have you heard of the old adage, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."?

Trickle down economics does work.

since you are so assured of this, how exactly does it work in the real world?

People are still arguing about 'What caused' this econ mess? Clearly it was the econ policies that have been implemented under (and since) Reagan and continued largely by the Bush admin. No regulations on Wall st. for lending, the oil prices in the summer, privatizing high gains on risk and socializing the losses, recklessness with OUR money (the people who aren't in the top 1%). To say it's all predatory lending or the fault of those who took out mortgages is simplistic and irresponsible.

Deregulation is a good thing. The government shouldn't intervene with the economy or the money supply anyway. That's why we have this mess right now. Reagen and Bush deregualized the banking industry so banks would have more money to loan out. That means people can borrow more money. Which means they can buy things. Like cars, houses, etc. It also means middle class people can start new companies, which provides people with income, which they use to buy things or invest, which leads to growth in the economy. It also means companies can borrow more money to expand, which provides more jobs, which provides more income for people, which they can spend or invest. It also meant more profit for the company, which they could reinvest, which would allow them to expand, which provides more jobs, etc. More profits mean they can pay back the loan, which means the banks can loan it out again, which starts the whole cycle over again. It leads to growth. Economic growth. It's fairly simply economics. I still don't understand why you guys don't get this. Reagan was a genius with his supply side economics and trickle down philosophy. He brought us out the mess Carter put us in. Reagan managed to control inflation and unemployment even though the country grew. Real income (income adjusted for inflation) rose in all classes of society. Upper, middle, and lower. While taxes were cut across the board. Upper, middle, and lower. Under Reagan, even though they had tax cuts too, that top 1% you guys are always complaining about, paid the majority of taxes. How is that? Because, they have 80% of the money. So that means they paid 80% of the taxes. They paid more taxes then the middle and lower classes combined under Reagan. And guess what? Everybody prospered under Reagan. That means the upper class, too. See, liberals don't want that. They want the middle and lower classes to be prosperous but not if it means the upper class benfits, too. That isn't realisitic. If you want the middle and lower classes to benefirt, the upper class has to, too. That's just how it works.


So to attack people on this board who so clearly have shown that they know what their talking about with regards to the current economic situation is fucking ridiculous. It strikes me that anybody who can still support the type of wild-west free market that Regan and Bush allowed for must be fucking retarded...This shit pisses me off..Goddamnit.

I don't believe anybody is attacking anybody. I'm just trying to have a intellingent debate of economic policies. It seems to me like you are the one attacking people. Free-market economics does work. The government shouldn't be involved in the ecnomony. Why, because the don't care about profit. They don't care what happens as long as the government looks good. Not being profit driven is bad for the ecnomony. I can't believe that you guys don't understand common sense economics. And for the record Reagan did a damn good job. I hate Bush, he gives a bad name to Republicans and conservatives alike.

I never said anything about companies failing. I was talking about what companies do to offset their losses when they have to pay a lot of taxes. They layoff workers and raise prices. They shrink, instead of grow. Again, nothing was said about companies failing.


If they aren't growing they are failing. So give me an example of when a company actually started laying off workers due to taxes. I see prices being raised for transportation via oil and raw materials via my example of gold. I want to see an example of a tax being directed straight to the consumer too. The closest thing I have ever seen to that being done is the mandatory health care implemented in San Francisco for the service industry. They added a tax to the customer's checks to pay for their wait staff's health care. Other than that example, I want another. Because that example only happened this year and I've heard the passing the tax unto the customer argument for at least half a decade now. So this argument existed way before San Francisco start implementing its first stages of universal health care.

If they aren't growing they are failing. So give me an example of when a company actually started laying off workers due to taxes. I see prices being raised for transportation via oil and raw materials via my example of gold. I want to see an example of a tax being directed straight to the consumer too. The closest thing I have ever seen to that being done is the mandatory health care implemented in San Francisco for the service industry. They added a tax to the customer's checks to pay for their wait staff's health care. Other than that example, I want another. Because that example only happened this year and I've heard the passing the tax unto the customer argument for at least half a decade now. So this argument existed way before San Francisco start implementing its first stages of universal health care.

Apparently, you didn't understand a word I said. If a company is not growing it's shrinking, not necessary failing. The tax isn't passed straight to the consumer. Let me give you an example. Let's say I have a company. We'll call it Company A. Let's say Company A makes a pretty all right profit. Let's say after they pay all their expenses, which includes wages. They make a thousand dollars a year in profit. Now of that profit they pay 200 in dividends and invest the other 800 back into the company. Over the years they've maintained this profit. They've grown substantially, hired more workers, and have taken out more loans to expand their business. Let's say they still make the same profit because they're paying more wages and trying to pay back their loans. Let's say President A comes along and says, "We'll let's tax the corporations 50%." So, of their 1,000 dollar profit they have pay 500 in taxes, then they pay 200 in dividends. So that leaves them 200 dollars. They can't reinvest in the company, they have to much debt. They have to pay their loans back. As a result, the company stagnates. Their stock drops. People stop investing in them. As a result, the first thing they're going to do is raise prices. They need to make more profit to pay their loans off and grow they company so more people can invest in them. Who do prices affect? That's right the consumer. As we all know, when prices rise, demand falls. As a result, I have to layoff workers to make up for the decreased demand. In the end, it always hurts the consumer, and the hard working middle class. So, in essence, that tax does pass to the consumer. Just not directly.

This is a very simple and over dramatized example, but it gets the point across.

This is a very simple and over dramatized example, but it gets the point across.


Not really because I'm asking for a specific example. Maybe something from the wall street journal? Business week? Anything? A real life example of this. Its been said over and over again and I have yet to see it happen or even hear about it happening. The only time I hear about it happening is someone right wing pundit talking about it hypothetically happening. Never a "See look at the news out yesterday! It happened!!" The liberals at least can say "Look at what happens when you deregulate the market" by current events.

... and yes if a company is not growing it is failing. The moment a company stop growing or even shrinking, its competition is already making it offers to buy it out. You don't see this in the news everyday because it doesn't happen that ofter with large established companies, since they have the lobbying and purchasing power. However, it happens every single day with moderately sized and small companies.

Example: The company known for Tamiflu, Accutane, and Valium is currently offering to buy a company they have contracted to manufacture one of their pharmaceuticals. A year ago, this company they are trying to buy was called the most worker friendly company in Northern California. It actually held that title for, I think, 4 years. It was given that title because of all the perks it offered every single one of its workers. But within the last year it failed in one of its pharma lines mid FDA trials. They pretty much lost millions if not a billion or two because of this. This one thing made the most worker friendly company to work for in Northern California (also the company that basically invented the Biotech industry) up for sale. The offer and rejection negotiations have been going on for sometime now. I will not say why because of insider trading issues.

I can produce real world examples for everything I've said. So... come on... give me two. One for a company laying people off because of taxes and one where the price of product actually goes up from taxes.

As we all know, when prices rise, demand falls. As a result, I have to layoff workers to make up for the decreased demand.

Also oil and petrol prices have been constantly rising. Demand has never dropped. Demand has actually increased exponentially. And I assure you, no workers in the crude oil or oil refinery industries are being laid off. Even with the threat of alternative fuels as a Federal Mandate being offered this presidential election or the current sudden decrease in future stocks, people in the oil industry are still doing quite well.

I can produce real world examples for everything I've said. So... come on... give me two. One for a company laying people off because of taxes and one where the price of product actually goes up from taxes.

Here's an example of a company laying off workers because of higher taxes:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0DB1430F933A25754C0A9649C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

And just for fun:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/workers-pay-burden-of-higher-corporate.html

Here's an example of a company laying off workers because of higher taxes:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0DB1430F933A25754C0A9649C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Not proof.

......the corporate parent of Macy's and Bloomingdale's department stores announced today that it planned to scale back its operations in the state and lay off at least 50 workers.......

Bush planned that troops would be greeted as liberators. And he also planned that Iraqi oil would pay for a war. I bet you agreed with Bush on those plans. Eh?
Plans and what actually happen are not the same, are they? No they are not.

That little gambit by Federated Department stores is not even believable.

As I get older and more educated I realize that most people on totse have little or no idea what they're talking about. How sad, as this was a mainstay of my adolescent years..

As I get older and more educated I realize that most people on totse have little or no idea what they're talking about. How sad, as this was a mainstay of my adolescent years..

Please, old wise one, let us here your wisdom on the subject.

Fucking credit card companies fuck everybody, I never asked for a credit card but when I got a Bank of America account they sent me one. I was only 18 so I figured fuck it, why not buy a bunch of shit. Now I owe them over 1000 and I gotta pay 765 for rent, 125 for cable, 100 for cell phones, and more credit card bills. I am left with barely any money to stimulate the economy. Most of my leftovers goes to food, beer, and weed.... >.<


I'll never get a credit card again

Liberals

in mah PLRC?!!:mad:

When did this happen?:confused:

Radical libertarians are such whiny twats. It's hard to have a proper discussion with someone so emotional("It's not FAIR!! It's MY money. Waaah waah waaah"). They think they're being completely objective and that there's no other side of the coin.

The way I see it, the wealthy pay the most taxes because they reap the most benefits from society. You could not live with multiple houses and ferraris if those under you were restless or disappeared or didn't exist, or whatever. Like if you had to hunt your own food. Yes, even if a small percentage of the population just mooches and don't pay income taxes, they are still getting less benefits, even if they got free healthcare.

Say I'm a CEO of a tech startup with 50 employees. I benefit from 50 employees educated in America. I benefit from a legal system that's very strict in defending copyright law, as opposed to Sweden or any Latin American country where they sell bootlegs openly on the street(latin america, asia. Friends I've talked to say it's very hard to find genuine content among so many bootlegs!). Sure I pay my legal dues, but I still clog up the system more with disputes and suits and settling and crap. I benefit from a very stable society, enforced by a very strict police system and again, an educated public. Life his harder in a lot of countries where you have to worry about car-bombings and kidnappings.

I do not think of aid to the poor as "wealth-stealing" at all. You call these people PARASITES, but you can't function without them. They sustain you. If they get no benefits, you lose the market that buys your products, you lose your employees, you make less money, and you have an angry population. As long as people feel that class mobility is realistically feasible, they will not hate you. They will aspire to join your ranks and be successful.

When the people see these firms making billions meanwhile bankrupting the economy, while everything gets more expensive but their salaries remain stagnant, of course they are going to resent you.

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY makes money by themselves, looking at things objectively. EVERYONE depends on the system.

The ideal system keeps entities in check and yes, keeps some people from getting too successful, because when you subscribe to free capitalism you're merely taking power from elected officials and giving it to corporations that you don't elect or control. One has to have at least some semblance of loyalty to constituents. The other to shareholders. Choose your pimp wisely ;)

The ex ceo of goldman sachs is already sucking more money out of you than Obama plans to.

Uh, yes he is.



No, Henry Ford's company was so successful because of his hard work and innovation. As a result of his success, his employees benefited.

If he had exploited his workers, they would have gone on strike, his production would have dropped as he scrambled to get scabs, and shareholders would be weary. Also, if his employees couldn't afford his cars, it would be less profit.

Why stop there?

Why doesn't the government just take all the money and then redistribute it to everyone. Fair is fair, right?

Slippery slope :rolleyes:

Want to blame someone? Blame the millions of people who took out loans for houses they couldn't afford. Blame the people who bought that fancy car that they shouldn't have. They're the reason you can't pay for anything. But don't blame the free market and the people who worked their asses off to get where they are.

Oh and here is a good read, educate yourself-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503166.html

There is no free market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking_system

We live in a system that DEPENDS on debt for growth. by the very nature of our money, it is impossible to pay all debt back because every dollar printed is owed back to the federal reserve with interest. Again, choose your pimp... I don't care about what works in theory. Everything works in theory. I want fixes to real-world problems. The invisible hand is busy jacking off god and giving the easter bunny a reach-around.

I'm never able to pay off my debt? that's bullshit. before I entered college I was debt free.

The invisible hand is busy jacking off god and giving the easter bunny a reach-around.

Don't forget laying the smackdown on single mothers and children from low income brackets

Here's an example of a company laying off workers because of higher taxes:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E0DB1430F933A25754C0A9649C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Some administration officials said Federated executives were upset because the state had denied the company's request to transfer some of their New Jersey profits to a bankrupt subsidiary, precisely the kind of loophole that the new tax code was intended to close.

State Treasurer John E. McCormac wrote a letter to the company saying that he could review Federated's tax status only if the company released a wide array of financial data, including its tax returns and the salaries and bonuses for top company executives.

''The corporate business tax changes that were implemented were fair and equitable and were fiscally responsible,'' Mr. McCormac wrote.

...

The governor said the changes were necessary because an array of tax loopholes had brought a steep drop in business-tax collections in the state and allowed 30 of the top 50 employers in the company to pay the minimum corporate tax of $200.

From that article it sounds like wealth being accumulated and prevented from being Trickled Down as you would have thought would have occurred naturally. Anyway that article says they were considering laying off 50 workers. Okay, so this article was written on July 10, 2002. I have found other articles written on February 9 & 12, 2001. More than a year before a Governor tried to close tax loop holes the wealthy use to stop your trickle down effect:

http://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2001/02/12/daily2.html

Federated Department Stores, Inc., the parent company of Goldsmith's, has announced plans to close its New Jersey-based Stern's department store division. The company will convert 19 of Stern's 24 locations in New York and New Jersey to Macy's and Bloomingdale's.

Exactly how many jobs were lost from this?

http://tinyurl.com/5zq8cg

Most of the 7,400 Stern's employees will simply transfer to the Macy's payroll, the company said. However, approximately 2,600 employees who work in either Stern's headquarters, the locations being closed or the two stores converting to Bloomingdale's are not being assured positions. These employees will be given priority consideration for positions in Federated's other divisions, the company said, but some may be laid off.

So lets compare. One year they lay off 2600 workers because of the beginning of an economic downturn that occurred at the turn of the millennium. Then the next year they are saying they will lay of 50... 50!... people because a Governor wants to close tax loopholes. To me it sounds like excuses.

And just for fun:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/workers-pay-burden-of-higher-corporate.html


Okay, so that guy is just saying why tax would be passed to the customer. He doesn't cite a specific example. He is pretty much saying the same exact shit I've said I've been hearing for the passed 5 years. He also calls Milton Friedman a liberal. I'm not sure if you are a Libertarian or just another Republican, but calling Friedman a liberal is pretty wacky.

If money truly trickled down from the top...1% would not control 80% of the wealth, and the gap between rich and poor would be shrinking, not increasing over 8 years of Bush's wealthy tax cuts.

The wealthy should pay more in taxes for this simple reason. They use up more resources, put more wear and tear on the roads, leave a bigger carbon footprint. Why should I have to pay as much in interstate tax, as a multi-national trucking company CEO? Why should I have to pay more taxes so the city can hire new sanitation workers needed to build the infrastructure to support someone's privately owned stadium? Why should I have to pay as much in tax, fixing our environment as a nuclear plant owner, trucking company mogel, airline CEO, international shipping company, etc. does?

Why should I pay so much for military, when Lockheed Martin, Haliburton, GE, Beoing, etc. benefit so much more from the expensive use of our military? Our military has not been used in actual defense of this country since WWII. Every single military action has been for economic purpose. Our military is an enforcer of corporate desire now.

If money truly trickled down from the top...1% would not control 80% of the wealth, and the gap between rich and poor would be shrinking, not increasing over 8 years of Bush's wealthy tax cuts.

The wealthy should pay more in taxes for this simple reason. They use up more resources, put more wear and tear on the roads, leave a bigger carbon footprint. Why should I have to pay as much in interstate tax, as a multi-national trucking company CEO? Why should I have to pay more taxes so the city can hire new sanitation workers needed to build the infrastructure to support someone's privately owned stadium? Why should I have to pay as much in tax fixing our environment as a privately owned nuclear plant owner, trucking company mogel, airline CEO, international shipping company, etc. does?

Why should I pay so much for military, when Lockheed Martin, Haliburton, GE, Beoing, etc. benefit so much more from the expensive use of our military? Our military has not been used in actual defense of this country since WWII. Every single military action has been for economic purpose. Our military is an enforcer of corporate desire now.

Here here! I'm glad someone gets it. It's not as simple as "THEIR MONEY THEY EARNED IT" as if it's an axiom.

Trickle down economics does work. You are idiotic for no believing that. The 1% do a lot for this economy. If the 1% decided fuck everybody else, I'm keeping my money, we'd be in a lot of shit. No new businesses would be created. Banks wouldn't have any money to loan out to individuals and companies. People wouldn't be able to buy homes and companies wouldn't be able to buy new equipment or expand. People would lose their jobs. It's funny that you bash this mythical 1% so much. It's because of them that you even have a job in the first place. Have you heard of the old adage, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."?

That is the biggest load of bullshit ever. If the 1% said fuck it they'd end up dirt poor. The market would still be there. People would still need products and services. There's always someone willing to fill the void. In fact, I welcome your idea. Out with the old dynasties. The rothschilds and the rockefellers. I guarantee you the world would be fine without them. That last line makes you such a shill it's ridiculous.

It's only going to get worse. Did you know there is only about 3000 tons of platinum in the entire earth? Natural resources are getting more scarce and thus more expensive. Demand continues to increase. The world continues to have a positive rate population growth. How do you kill 5 billion people? This will be an important question if mysteries are not resolved within the next couple of decades.

Our system is programmed for infinite growth in a finite system. Right now oil companies are all buying each other up left and right as resources dwindle and only the largest can sustain themselves. It's a race to see who finishes last. A last man standing type of thing. Why aren't new oil companies popping up and drilling more oil with these record-high prices and demand increasing every year as more of the world joins the middle class? Why aren't oil companies open about the fact that the earth has reached peak oil? Because their stocks would become worthless the same day. That's an inherent flaw in our system. The good of everyone is a lesser priority than the legal obligation to profit as much as possible. Again, choose your pimp.

I'm never able to pay off my debt? that's bullshit. before I entered college I was debt free.

Society overall will never be able to pay its debt, thus somebody will always get the short end of the stick as long as this system is in place. Go watch Zeitgeist 2.

Our system is programmed for infinite growth in a finite system. Right now oil companies are all buying each other up left and right as resources dwindle and only the largest can sustain themselves. It's a race to see who finishes last. A last man standing type of thing. Why aren't new oil companies popping up and drilling more oil with these record-high prices and demand increasing every year as more of the world joins the middle class? Why aren't oil companies open about the fact that the earth has reached peak oil? Because their stocks would become worthless the same day. That's an inherent flaw in our system. The good of everyone is a lesser priority than the legal obligation to profit as much as possible. Again, choose your pimp.

Which is why capitalism makes sense for only so long. Capitalism worked quite well for us when resources were cheap and plentiful. Now we face a problem never before faced in all of Earth's history -- complete consumption of elements. It's pretty wild to think that a basic building block of everything might as well not even exist, but it will come to pass within a decade when we have exhausted tantalum and hafnium resources. Rare earth metals will be next, even sooner if people throw more money into fuel cell technology.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Ballpoint_of_common_ballpoint_pen.jpg

The ball of a pen is coated with an alloy of two of the most rare elements known to man: osmium and iridium. Iridium production per year is only about 3 metric tons. And to think that we simply throw them away when they stop working.

Society overall will never be able to pay its debt, thus somebody will always get the short end of the stick as long as this system is in place. Go watch Zeitgeist 2.

and why the hell should I give a fuck about society never being able to pay off its debt? and I did watch that movie, it sucked as much as the first one

and why the hell should I give a fuck about society never being able to pay off its debt?

hyperinflation, rising energy costs, the cost of your mortgage/rent, all due to unprecedented amounts of spending caused by our "elected" leaders. Shit HAS to hit the fan. Either the US says "fuck it, we're not paying back" and our creditability and dollars get owned , or some war over resources, or some economic warfare goes down. I'm sorry, but we don't live in the anarchy fantasyland where everyone can keep to themselves. When China or the middle east decides to cash it's T-bond, it affects you. When OPEC decides that it wont keep the fantasy dollar anymore, it will affect you.

and why the hell should I give a fuck about society never being able to pay off its debt? and I did watch that movie, it sucked as much as the first one

Because one day it may be you, who in this democracy by the people, is sytematically and unfairly fucked out of everything.

I hope on that day, you are as pretentious and 'hardcore' as you are now.

Because one day it may be you, who in this democracy by the people, is sytematically and unfairly fucked out of everything.

I hope on that day, you are as pretentious and 'hardcore' as you are now.

Actually all it takes is for somebody to rear-end him and permanently injure him, or for him to get cancer or some shit like that. Then he'll wish he lived in England or Norway.

You know what? I'm an American and I support socialist policies. I'm in college right now and when I get out I'm going to grad school for my doctorate. I'll have a mountain of debt to pay off but I'm alright with that because I'm going to have opportunity to get a great job making good pay and I'll be living very comfortably. To be perfectly honest, I would be 100% okay with having extra money taken out of my paycheck for taxes because it would make me fucking proud to be a citizen of a country where my money is used to help my fellow citizens. If (and I firmly believe when) that day comes, I know I would be able to stand before any citizen of another nation and proudly tell them "Yes, I am an American. I make a lot of money and I give the extra that I don't need to help my fellow countrymen who are less fortunate than I." The America I believe isn't one where concerned with "Me me me". Its the one where citizens reach out a helping hand to help others back on their feet again when they've fallen down. Its the one where we suffer together in times of hardship and thrive together in times of prosperity. I could write more but I just wanted to throw it out there because I felt a little inspired reading this and needed to get this out before I lost it.

You know what? I'm an American and I support socialist policies. I'm in college right now and when I get out I'm going to grad school for my doctorate. I'll have a mountain of debt to pay off but I'm alright with that because I'm going to have opportunity to get a great job making good pay and I'll be living very comfortably. To be perfectly honest, I would be 100% okay with having extra money taken out of my paycheck for taxes because it would make me fucking proud to be a citizen of a country where my money is used to help my fellow citizens. If (and I firmly believe when) that day comes, I know I would be able to stand before any citizen of another nation and proudly tell them "Yes, I am an American. I make a lot of money and I give the extra that I don't need to help my fellow countrymen who are less fortunate than I." The America I believe isn't one where concerned with "Me me me". Its the one where citizens reach out a helping hand to help others back on their feet again when they've fallen down. Its the one where we suffer together in times of hardship and thrive together in times of prosperity. I could write more but I just wanted to throw it out there because I felt a little inspired reading this and needed to get this out before I lost it.

Nobody is stopping you from giving away your extra money to those less fortunate if you so choose. Why should the government force us to do it?

Because I'm only one man. I couldn't do it on my own. But if all of those who well off all contribute just a little, then it really makes a difference.

Because I'm only one man. I couldn't do it on my own. But if all of those who well off all contribute just a little, then it really makes a difference.

So you want to force your beliefs on other people. You like giving to the less fortunate, that doesn't mean everyone has to.

So you want to force your beliefs on other people. You like giving to the less fortunate, that doesn't mean everyone has to.

Exactly, that's what charity is for. Lots of people give money to charities. It doesn't help that most of that money gets eaten up by overhead and administrative costs, with only a small percentage actually going to help someone. The point is choice. People should be able to choose to give, not be forced to. That's one of the main principle of freedom, isn't it? And, last time I checked, that's what America was founded on, wasn't it.

For all those people who say that the wealthy should be made to give to the less fortunate, let me give you two hypothetical situations;

Situation 1:

Let's pretend that somebody, let's call him Person A, can't pay his bills this month. So he decided to go over to his neighbor's house, break in, and steal money from him. We would all agree that that isn't right. More so, it's a crime, punishable by law.

Situation 2:

Now, let's pretend Person A is in the same situation next month. But this time he doesn't have to still the money. This time we happen to have a government that believes in transfer payment. A socialist government with the "rob from the rich and give to the poor mentality". So, instead of walking over to his neighbor's house, breaking in, and stealing the money himself, the government does it for him. They take money out of his paycheck and transfer it to him in the form of welfare.

Now, what's the difference between the two. Fundamentally, there isn't. Legally, there is. The fact of the matter remains, it's petty theft. Whether he steals it directly, or the government does it for him, he is taking money from somebody who earned it. It's bullshit. It's downright fucking socialism. And it's not right. There is help out there for people who need it. It's called charity. We shouldn't have to resort to stealing money from hard-working people who earned it. Whether it's government sanctioned or not.

Exactly, that's what charity is for. Lots of people give money to charities. It doesn't help that most of that money gets eaten up by overhead and administrative costs, with only a small percentage actually going to help someone. The point is choice. People should be able to choose to give, not be forced to. That's one of the main principle of freedom, isn't it? And, last time I checked, that's what America was founded on, wasn't it.

For all those people who say that the wealthy should be made to give to the less fortunate, let me give you two hypothetical situations;

Situation 1:

Let's pretend that somebody, let's call him Person A, can't pay his bills this month. So he decided to go over to his neighbor's house, break in, and steal money from him. We would all agree that that isn't right. More so, it's a crime, punishable by law.

Situation 2:

Now, let's pretend Person A is in the same situation next month. But this time he doesn't have to still the money. This time we happen to have a government that believes in transfer payment. A socialist government with the "rob from the rich and give to the poor mentality". So, instead of walking over to his neighbor's house, breaking in, and stealing the money himself, the government does it for him. They take money out of his paycheck and transfer it to him in the form of welfare.

Now, what's the difference between the two. Fundamentally, there isn't. Legally, there is. The fact of the matter remains, it's petty theft. Whether he steals it directly, or the government does it for him, he is taking money from somebody who earned it. It's bullshit. It's downright fucking socialism. And it's not right. There is help out there for people who need it. It's called charity. We shouldn't have to resort to stealing money from hard-working people who earned it. Whether it's government sanctioned or not.

A Socialist government doesn't "rob from the rich" it operates according to a Labour Theory of Value in which each man is paid the amount he actually produces - if you are earning exactly what you deserve then how can there be theft?

The rich don't earn their wealth, they obtain it by paying those who work for them less than the value of that which they produce, therefore if anyone is stealing it is the capitalist.
In all likelihood the reason Person A couldn't pay his bills is because his employer has accumulated the mans labour power for himself to such an extent that Person A is now living below his means of subsistence.
If the government redistributed money in your hypothetical situation it wouldn't be stealing, for the wealth the capitalist had was stolen in the first place, it would merely be returning a fraction of the amount he stole from his workers.

Blather, Blather, Blather

Than why pay any taxes at all? As a strapping 21 year old male who eats a balanced diet and follows a strictly regimented fitness routine, shouldn't I be able to opt out of taxes for healthcare, police protection, and etc? I've never had to get the police to resolve one of my problems, and I've never really needed serious healthcare. If I never use the public Library why should I pay for it's upkeep? Are you suggesting that people ought to be able to opt out of these things as well? Because I suggest that this would be the end of the America that everybody knows and loves (or maybe not you folks who hate taxes so much they wish for a return to the 'good old days' of the...well...never, taxes have been around since the beginning of your country.

'Spreading the wealth around' isn't some crazy socialist idea. Thats the idea behind every tax you pay. Unless you want to get rid of taxes altogether than you can't be against 'spreading the wealth'

Than why pay any taxes at all? As a strapping 21 year old male who eats a balanced diet and follows a strictly regimented fitness routine, shouldn't I be able to opt out of taxes for healthcare, police protection, and etc? I've never had to get the police to resolve one of my problems, and I've never really needed serious healthcare. If I never use the public Library why should I pay for it's upkeep? Are you suggesting that people ought to be able to opt out of these things as well?

Sounds like the perfect world to me.

Sounds like the perfect world to me.

And what about the roads you use to drive to work? The bridges we need to upkeep in order to traverse rivers? What happens something like Katrina happens in your city? You sir, are ridiculous.

Now, what's the difference between the two. Fundamentally, there isn't.


Yes there is. Not only did you get what a socialist society would do wrong (see Rawk's post) but in your scenario the thief didn't contribute a single cent to the things he was robbing from the other guy. He would have contributed, on the other hand, to the welfare he ended up recieving in the other scenario. You're assuming that those who get welfare haven't contributed any of the money they are getting. That's wrong.

Yes there is. Not only did you get what a socialist society would do wrong (see Rawk's post) but in your scenario the thief didn't contribute a single cent to the things he was robbing from the other guy. He would have contributed, on the other hand, to the welfare he ended up recieving in the other scenario. You're assuming that those who get welfare haven't contributed any of the money they are getting. That's wrong.

Most people that receive welfare aren't earning an income, and if they are, it using isn't enough for the government to tax. So, if they are not working or earning an income, then they aren't contributing to society. They are living off the hard work of others. Like I said, there is help for people like this out there. It's called charity. People shouldn't be forced to give money if they don't want to.

And to all those in this thread bashing the wealthy, they're the reason you have a job, believe it or not. America is a capitalistic society. If you don't like it, the door's over there. We wouldn't have the technological advancement we have, if it wasn't for capitalism. We wouldn't have the medical advancements if it wasn't for capitalism. The standard of living in this country and the luxuries we enjoy are the best in the world. And, guess what, it's thanks to capitalism. Capitalism spurs competition, innovation, and hard work. Socialism stagnates all of this. Why should companies compete if they can't ever hope to earn more money? Why should people invent and innovate if they can't earn more money? Why should I work hard if I'm getting paid the same amount as the guy who shows up to work half the time?

A great of example of blind faith in a system.

Reality check:
"Socialist" countries like many European countries have a higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and stronger currencies.

"Socialist" countries are kicking our ass in science and technology. LHC anyone? What about the fact that NASA plans to bum rides off of the russians? That's a slap in the face to the deregulated states of america.

" socialist" countries like those in europe have a higher number of personal freedoms. Decriminalized pot for example, legalized abortion, gay rights, etc.

I also challenge you to cite a healthy number of psychologists and sociologists that say money is the only incentive for anything.

Most military technologies and agencies like NASA would never have appeared in the way they did without large government funding. You owe gps, the internet, weather sattelites, etc. to "socialist" policies.

Most people that receive welfare aren't earning an income, and if they are, it using isn't enough for the government to tax.

So, if they are not working or earning an income, then they aren't contributing to society. They are living off the hard work of others. Like I said, there is help for people like this out there. It's called charity. People shouldn't be forced to give money if they don't want to.


1. I call bullshit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)


2. Most people who aren't earning an income can't afford to pay the rent in the first place, yet you proposed an example where the person was able to before getting on welfare. I'm working within your own example.

3. Even if we accept what you claim as true, that's an argument against a particular form of welfare, not against welfare all together.

One doesn't have to be in favor of shitty forms of welfare. I'm a socialist and I have absolutely no problem with denying benefits to people that provide nothing to society when they are able to (that form of "welfare" would guarantee they have provided or will provide something in return).



Pretty much anyway you cut it, your analogy failed.

A great of example of blind faith in a system.

Reality check:
"Socialist" countries like many European countries have a higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and stronger currencies.

"Socialist" countries are kicking our ass in science and technology. LHC anyone? What about the fact that NASA plans to bum rides off of the russians? That's a slap in the face to the deregulated states of america.

" socialist" countries like those in europe have a higher number of personal freedoms. Decriminalized pot for example, legalized abortion, gay rights, etc.

I also challenge you to cite a healthy number of psychologists and sociologists that say money is the only incentive for anything.

Most military technologies and agencies like NASA would never have appeared in the way they did without large government funding. You owe gps, the internet, weather sattelites, etc. to "socialist" policies.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider) would have shit all over LHC. Too bad we didn't get international funding like LHC did.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider) would have shit all over LHC. Too bad we didn't get international funding like LHC did.

Awesome. So it'd be worth just a little more than what it would take to develop fedora core 9.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10072567-16.html

You can't just wait for something science to be profitable. I love how this guy is saying that science thrived under capitalism, but it really thrived under "capitalism" for the same reasons it thrived under hitler's rule or communist russia. State funding. Would a bunch of corporations pitch in venture capital for the manhattan project just for the sake of science and not to sell the technology to countries? That would piss off quite a few stockholders.

A great of example of blind faith in a system.

Reality check:
"Socialist" countries like many European countries have a higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and stronger currencies.

"Socialist" countries are kicking our ass in science and technology. LHC anyone? What about the fact that NASA plans to bum rides off of the russians? That's a slap in the face to the deregulated states of america.

" socialist" countries like those in europe have a higher number of personal freedoms. Decriminalized pot for example, legalized abortion, gay rights, etc.

I also challenge you to cite a healthy number of psychologists and sociologists that say money is the only incentive for anything.

Most military technologies and agencies like NASA would never have appeared in the way they did without large government funding. You owe gps, the internet, weather sattelites, etc. to "socialist" policies.

State-socialism doesn't work and it never will. But let’s prove it by following this theory through. The government (representing the poor masses) sets about to run the economy. This is the only way the "factors of production", which the government took off the rich, can be made public. You can leave them to the market and private hands, or you can have the government do it. There is no third option. Now let’s see how the government does trying to run the economy.

Such an approach is doomed to failure for a number of reasons:

Complexity – A national economy is overwhelmingly complex. For example, America has over 20,000 different job categories. To co-ordinate these by central dictat is probably impossible and certainly so within a reasonable time-frame.

Imperfect information – Any plan requires abundant and accurate information. So if we consider the production possibilities of an economy, these are best known by non-planners, e.g. factory bosses. Factory bosses, because there is no personal profit motive or personal ownership in this new system, have no reason to be accurate. They will state targets easily achieved rather than real possibilities. That way the risk of failure is removed. This information problem then carries over to the produced product. Planners can only check a minority of the produce. They can't know if it is the quality or quantity ordered. Factory bosses are thus encouraged to evade both these targets to make their workload easier. In a market, customers by nature of consumption check every product for quality. However, the feedback from customers to producers disappears in a planned economy. And here lies the final crushing problem of information: the central planner can never actually know what the public wants and how much of it. He can only guess and produce.

Contrast this with a free-market. Here all transactions are, by definition, free, rather than forced and directed, so accurate information about desires and intentions are passed at every stage. Similarly, because producers are financially rewarded for successful production, and especially the bosses who oversee and own said production, then there are strong incentives to perform at full capacity. Profit is not an inefficiency, it is an incentive. Profit helps, it doesn't hinder.

Pricing – Prices in a free-market are jointly determined between the ability of a producer to supply and the demand of the consumer. However, in a command economy, both these processes are removed from the individual players. Consequently, prices cease to relate to costs or value because they are centrally determined rather than epiphenomena of this market mechanism. In a free market, as a product becomes scarcer or more popular, then its price increases; if it becomes more available or less popular, its price decreases. If the market goes, so does this unconscious but crucial information as to a products' worth. Changes in prices tell both consumers and producers about changes in circumstances. Without market-driven prices, governments will struggle to know if circumstances have changed. When this lack of price applies at all stages in the economic chain, from raw material to finished product, we can easily see that even if a production plan was implemented, there is no way of knowing if it is increasing wealth or consuming it.

War effort – Socialism was born in the crucible of Imperialism, arms races and global conflict. Countries were seen as vast companies where the populace worked together for success against others. This wartime economy cannot and should not be carried over into peacetime because once the need to protect the whole is gone, the desire to satisfy the individual returns. Because the latter is impossible in a command economy where production patterns are determined top-down rather than consumer-upwards, governments will seek the former. Socialist states are thus likely to be permanently belligerent.

Isolationism – Centrally-planned economies will attempt to be self-sufficient because foreign trade, by being produced by those outside their influence, will prove impossible to plan for. This, of course, means a massive reduction in all the thousands of ties that help hold the world in peace (it’s bad business policy to beat up clients and suppliers). It also means huge inefficiencies because some things are best produced elsewhere. However, total self-sufficiency is impossible regardless of commitment. When trade begrudgingly occurs, there is no way for the government to know what is most profitable to trade because it did away with the price structure and cost information that free-markets offer.

Innovation – The single greatest provider for human welfare has been man’s imagination. New inventions have allowed us to conquer disease, prevent food spoilage, travel the world and communicate to almost anyone anywhere. Inventions, like all aspects of human behaviour, require encouragement to appear. Competition between companies encourages innovation to capture larger market shares and increase profit. Competition is anathema to the socialist model because the winner is impossible to plan for. Innovation, being a new and unpredicted production possibility, is also impossible to plan for and thus is suppressed. The costs to human welfare would be astronomical if not for the fact that modern day Socialist states, e.g. Cuba, or pseudo-Communist states, e.g. China, can get by stealing the innovations of capitalist states.

Socialism doesn’t work. Its structure denies incentive, innovation and information, which in turn leads to dissatisfaction, waste, inefficiency and possible war. Free markets aren't perfect, but they are better. This conclusion should have been obvious to anyone before it was argued through. That it isn’t to so many is because of the incredible superficial appeal that state-socialism has (“it’s so much fairer” and “wouldn’t the world be better…”) coupled with the way in which its proponents, such as its founder Marx, almost like religious fanatics choose to ignore the facts. In the choice between Marxism and the market, how could one man possibly design an economic system that was superior to the silent intentions and commitments of countless people? A democracy isn’t only fairer than a dictatorship, it is more effective. The same holds for an economy.

The post you're referring to can be backed by statistics, not theory. I didn't bother linking because I thought it was common knowledge that Europeans enjoy a high standard of living. If you aren't aware of reality though....

"Socialist" countries like many European countries have a higher standard of living, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and stronger currencies.
.

Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.

Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income. In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.

America grew to it's dominant status on the backs of small business,

What makes you think this? Any chance you can prove it?


To say that small business is what drives America is to say we have given up on becoming better. Our economy has evolved beyond what the average potential can sustain.

Do you mind explaining what you meant by plain language (as in, non-metaphors) please?


The American dream ended long ago.

How did you reach this conclusion?

No, that's fucking socialism, bordering on fascism. So, wealthy people should be forced to give poor people money, that they earned through their hard work and innovation.

You have to prove that people get rich through hard work and innovation. You can't. Some people get rich by speculating, such as interest rate arbitrage (what this is, is they borrow at a bank that lends with an interest rate of say 3% then take this money and lend to someone that pays an interest rate of say 5%). This is just one example. My point is, people CAN get rich by not doing any work at all/not producing any goods/services/things of value. Also, just because businesses do get rich by actually putting in work/producing goods, it still doesn't mean they should be allowed to have so much money. I will give you one example. Large corporations like Wal-mart make money by producing and selling things, however, they do so by out-competing the small businesses. So, you can say that they get rich at the expenses of others. While their profit is honestly gained, it in itself does not come from work that actually contributes to growth of the nation's economy, but rather, through increased "hoarding" of the wealth pie. I hope this makes sense.

Simple, don't overdraw. In other words, don't spend money you don't have.

Kindly shut your cunt hole about telling people what kind of expenses they can or cannot have.

He has a point. YOu do not. A lot of people cannot afford to live lives of reasonably satisfactory quality based on today's wages. If you can, good for you. However, don't be telling people that they should be content with what they have.

You are totally oblivious to the situation that is at hand. Fuck you for blaming capitalism.

Why is the market so messed up right now? Not because 1% is controlling 80% of the wealth, but because people are living beyond their means and the current economic policies are doing nothing but reinforcing it.


How doyou know the economy is fucked because people are living beyond their means?

Care to prove it?

Radical libertarians are such whiny twats. It's hard to have a proper discussion with someone so emotional("It's not FAIR!! It's MY money. Waaah waah waaah"). They think they're being completely objective and that there's no other side of the coin.

The way I see it, the wealthy pay the most taxes because they reap the most benefits from society. You could not live with multiple houses and ferraris if those under you were restless or disappeared or didn't exist, or whatever. Like if you had to hunt your own food. Yes, even if a small percentage of the population just mooches and don't pay income taxes, they are still getting less benefits, even if they got free healthcare.

Say I'm a CEO of a tech startup with 50 employees. I benefit from 50 employees educated in America. I benefit from a legal system that's very strict in defending copyright law, as opposed to Sweden or any Latin American country where they sell bootlegs openly on the street(latin america, asia. Friends I've talked to say it's very hard to find genuine content among so many bootlegs!). Sure I pay my legal dues, but I still clog up the system more with disputes and suits and settling and crap. I benefit from a very stable society, enforced by a very strict police system and again, an educated public. Life his harder in a lot of countries where you have to worry about car-bombings and kidnappings.

I do not think of aid to the poor as "wealth-stealing" at all. You call these people PARASITES, but you can't function without them. They sustain you. If they get no benefits, you lose the market that buys your products, you lose your employees, you make less money, and you have an angry population. As long as people feel that class mobility is realistically feasible, they will not hate you. They will aspire to join your ranks and be successful.

When the people see these firms making billions meanwhile bankrupting the economy, while everything gets more expensive but their salaries remain stagnant, of course they are going to resent you.

NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY makes money by themselves, looking at things objectively. EVERYONE depends on the system.

The ideal system keeps entities in check and yes, keeps some people from getting too successful, because when you subscribe to free capitalism you're merely taking power from elected officials and giving it to corporations that you don't elect or control. One has to have at least some semblance of loyalty to constituents. The other to shareholders. Choose your pimp wisely ;)

The ex ceo of goldman sachs is already sucking more money out of you than Obama plans to.

Holy shit I think you make a lot of sense.

What makes you think this? Any chance you can prove it?

Well, it is a rather redundant statement, really, since all economies started out as small businesses.

Do you mind explaining what you meant by plain language (as in, non-metaphors) please?

What I mean by that is small businesses aren't what drives the economy anymore. Semiconductor manufacturing, automotive manufacturing, etc, etc are NOT small businesses. Small businesses just buy their crap. In that sense, they prop up the economy because they are consumers, but they do not produce the same amount of product.

How did you reach this conclusion?

The American dream was to start from the ground and work your way to the top. The way you did that was either to get in the game early (Standard Oil, semiconductor technologies, etc) when you didn't need billions of dollars in capital to get started. Either that or work your ass off to make a viable product that people want to buy. The most the average person is capable of is either working for someone else, or making a small business that will almost never reach the status of major corporations.

In that sense, the American dream has a limit now. Hard work, seat, and blood will only get you so far.

by the very nature of our money, it is impossible to pay all debt back because every dollar printed is owed back to the federal reserve with interest.

Hi Zay.

Could you please explain to me why this is so? Thanks.

Which is why capitalism makes sense for only so long. Capitalism worked quite well for us when resources were cheap and plentiful.

I believe that you (probably) believe the same thing as me: laissez faire capitalism does not work.

I believe that companies need to be kept in check and that their behaviours regulated. Otherwise, they will just keep mindlessly accumulating wealth, a goal which sometimes can conflict with the greater good.

Right now I am also reminded of this saying by some wise man: "in order to live in the society we have to abdicate some of our freedoms" or some such, I am pretty sure this is not what it says but I can't remember the original saying for the life of me. ANyways, my point is, I do not believe in total, complete freedoms, and this is true for both individual humans, as well as business/corporations. In order to have a properly functioning society, where EVERYONE IS DOING WELL, we need to give up certain behavourial freedoms. And this should apply to coprorations too.



The ball of a pen is coated with an alloy of two of the most rare elements known to man: osmium and iridium. Iridium production per year is only about 3 metric tons. And to think that we simply throw them away when they stop working.

Omg from now on Imma hoarding pens.

A Socialist government doesn't "rob from the rich" it operates according to a Labour Theory of Value in which each man is paid the amount he actually produces - if you are earning exactly what you deserve then how can there be theft?

The rich don't earn their wealth, they obtain it by paying those who work for them less than the value of that which they produce, therefore if anyone is stealing it is the capitalist.
In all likelihood the reason Person A couldn't pay his bills is because his employer has accumulated the mans labour power for himself to such an extent that Person A is now living below his means of subsistence.
If the government redistributed money in your hypothetical situation it wouldn't be stealing, for the wealth the capitalist had was stolen in the first place, it would merely be returning a fraction of the amount he stole from his workers.

Somebody make this man the president of US. Please.

He will save the nation.

I believe that you (probably) believe the same thing as me: laissez faire capitalism does not work.

I believe that companies need to be kept in check and that their behaviours regulated. Otherwise, they will just keep mindlessly accumulating wealth, a goal which sometimes can conflict with the greater good.

Right now I am also reminded of this saying by some wise man: "in order to live in the society we have to abdicate some of our freedoms" or some such, I am pretty sure this is not what it says but I can't remember the original saying for the life of me. ANyways, my point is, I do not believe in total, complete freedoms, and this is true for both individual humans, as well as business/corporations. In order to have a properly functioning society, where EVERYONE IS DOING WELL, we need to give up certain behavourial freedoms. And this should apply to coprorations too.


I think that by today's standards laissez faire capitalism will not work indefinitely. I think at a most fundamental level any capitalistic market, regardless of government influence, will perpetuate itself as long as it has a significantly large of informed and determined population and the means by which to perpetuate said population and market. Government regulation will determine how efficient the markets will work.

In our case, we don't have an informed public, but most importantly, we don't have resources by which we can keep the market afloat. We are rapidly approaching a critical point in human history that will determine whether we continue living as normal or we have an unimaginable die-off event, possibly leading to complete extinction. I think that given infinite time with the current energy prices, the free market will turn itself around. However, we don't have time for it to correct itself.

So, I would disagree that free-market capitalism can't work without government influence for an indefinite amount of time, however, I think that some level of regulation must take place because we live in a world where energy is not cheap nor plentiful, and the people are stupid.

As for your quotation, I think that your freedoms as a person must be held in check at some level. That is one of the purposes of government. Where you draw the line between what someone considers the greater good and for the maximum freedom for everyone is another topic entirely. ;)

BTW Zay. I'm not a radical libertarian. I'm a conservative, there's difference. IMHO libertarians are crazy.

Also, GTFO of this thread WAN. I'm really starting to think someone stole your account.

http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html

Check out corporate welfare, a way that spreads the wealth around.

Europe vs. America
Germany edges out Arkansas in per capita GDP.

Sunday, June 20, 2004 12:01 A.M. EDT
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income. In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.

If any further proof were needed that you were a complete idiot here it is.
What a wonderful study, Arkansas with a population of less than 3 million has a higher GDP per capita than a country of 80 million. No shit Sherlock.
Qatar has the highest GDP per capita in the world, now what ?

As for that garbage about the U.S having a standard of living and lower poverty rates, the specifically cited examples of Social Democratic E.U countries (you know, those shitty ones that spread the wealth around) are the Scandinavian ones. Interestingly Norway and Iceland take the top 2 spots in the UN's HDI world list(Norway was Number 1 for several years running)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Unfortunately you're capitalistic paradise isn't even in the top 10 anymore. Pwned.

and why the hell should I give a fuck about society never being able to pay off its debt? and I did watch that movie, it sucked as much as the first one

There's this abstract thing called "humanity". It's a very irrational idea that compassionate people tend to believe in. ...and that wasn't sarcasm; it's pretty hard to justify humanity. No, nothing is in it for you, but there is something in it for everyone else and if a mutualistic relationship between you and society occurs, there will be something in it for you to cooperate as well.

There's this abstract thing called "humanity". It's a very irrational idea that compassionate people tend to believe in. ...and that wasn't sarcasm; it's pretty hard to justify humanity. No, nothing is in it for you, but there is something in it for everyone else and if a mutualistic relationship between you and society occurs, there will be something in it for you to cooperate as well.

If we had to explain, he wouldn't understand it anyway.

To the valisation, however your name is spelled: it's called concern for your fellow citizens.

Are you white?

If I did it alone...


That leaves me roughly 250 a month for food, and gas. Thats about 63 bucks a week. I spend about 30 on gas, and 30 on food.



I can eat well for less than $10 a week easily. Just stop eating out all the time and learn to cook. Buy food that is cheap. Drive to work and back and when you get groceries get at least 2 weeks worth at a time. You can save a lot more than you are. Not my problem you waste money.

There's this abstract thing called "humanity". It's a very irrational idea that compassionate people tend to believe in. ...and that wasn't sarcasm; it's pretty hard to justify humanity. No, nothing is in it for you, but there is something in it for everyone else and if a mutualistic relationship between you and society occurs, there will be something in it for you to cooperate as well.

There's also this abstract thing called "responsibility". It's a very rational idea that hard-working people tend to believe in... and that wasn't sarcasm; it's not hard to justify responsibility. Yes, there's a lot in it for you, if you work hard and take care of your little plot in the world—you do not harm others or live beyond your means. Just have to manage your little life and if everyone did that, we would all be equal.

There's also this abstract thing called "responsibility". It's a very rational idea that hard-working people tend to believe in... and that wasn't sarcasm; it's not hard to justify responsibility. Yes, there's a lot in it for you, if you work hard and take care of your little plot in the world—you do not harm others or live beyond your means. Just have to manage your little life and if everyone did that, we would all be equal.

Lolz. You actually buy this shit?

There's also this abstract thing called &quot;responsibility&quot;. It's a very rational idea that hard-working people tend to believe in... and that wasn't sarcasm; it's not hard to justify responsibility. Yes, there's a lot in it for you, if you work hard and take care of your little plot in the world—you do not harm others or live beyond your means. Just have to manage your little life and if everyone did that, we would all be equal.

Well here on planet earth there is a thing called an imbalance of power. Hard working and ambitious people will always exist no matter what, but saying that it always results in success is just fantasy.

I see decent arguments on both sides.

To me, the reality is this: The rich live in absurd luxury in this country, while the poor have a quality of life lower than practically any other "first world" country. No one is talking about taking everyone's money and redistributing it equally.

The rich will have higher taxes to pay that they can easily afford, and they'll still be insanely rich when everything is said and done.

The benefit? America has better social programs and poor people don't have such shitty lives. It's not just rich business owners that are causing problems...people DO live beyond their means, and that needs to stop as well.

Anyways, none of you complaining about the proposed tax increases are rich, and even if you were, it wouldn't really make you much less rich. Stop complaining about stupid shit, and stop exaggerating this into something it's not.

I see decent arguments on both sides.
Awesome, a lot of people on this board do not have that ability.

To me, the reality is this: The rich live in absurd luxury in this country, while the poor have a quality of life lower than practically any other "first world" country. No one is talking about taking everyone's money and redistributing it equally.
I remember my mom told me she grew up and most of what they ate was cottage cheese mixed with noodles and mustard sandwiches. Her family was all but poor, yet they did have food. They had a bathroom... outside. I guess what I'm trying to say is, even our poor live in luxury. "Poor" people today are no worse off than my mother was, in fact, I'll bet you their quality of life is several times better than my mother's was.

People and their attitudes changed in this country more than any qualities of life. People want "end-life" things when they are in their 20's, 30's and 40's. At 30 years old, if you can't afford a $50,000 car and/or a $600,000 home, you don't deserve it. People can't seem to understand that. Stop blaming the banks.

The rich will have higher taxes to pay that they can easily afford, and they'll still be insanely rich when everything is said and done.
The rich are rich, it didn't happen overnight. They or their families built empires or reputations. They deserve what they acquired. Someone, at some time, in their family worked really, really fucking hard and started rolling a snowball downhill.

The benefit? America has better social programs and poor people don't have such shitty lives. It's not just rich business owners that are causing problems...people DO live beyond their means, and that needs to stop as well.
The benefit? There's a lot of them. The wealthiest, most industrious first world nation on the planet comes to mind. A close second is the fact that I can walk out my door, get in my car, drive a little while. Get to a quaint little town, get a fantastic lunch at a little mom & pop Italian cafe and then a walk a short way to an awesome Asian holistic medicine and health shop. Get back in my car, go back to my pad and clean my guns. Not many places you can do that in the world. Also, I agree with you on the latter part of your opinion.

Anyways, none of you complaining about the proposed tax increases are rich, and even if you were, it wouldn't really make you much less rich. Stop complaining about stupid shit, and stop exaggerating this into something it's not.
Actually, far from it, that doesn't mean I'm going to join an angry mob demanding money from the "wealthy charlatans". I know a lot of wealthy people, they have the same problems as the poorer people, just on a bigger scale. They work harder than you could possibly imagine and have stresses you couldn't even comprehend. I respect that. They deserve what they have.

Yup, that statement all but guarantees a 3rd party vote from me.

No Obama, it is not your place to tell me that I make a bit too much money, so I should give it to you and let you share it with everyone. I earned my piece of the pie and I'll be dammed if you are going to take it. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is just what we need in a capitalist society:rolleyes:

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, etc. Basic fundamentals of a capitalist society, which made us the super power that we are today. Everyday the government gets more involved, national debt goes up and foreign policy stays the same. This is not going to change with either Mccain or Obama.

American fundamentals are going down the shitter. The constitution is all but a pipe dream. America is no longer America.

Ehh, basically we are fucked no matter who we chose.

This is true.

I can eat well for less than $10 a week easily. Just stop eating out all the time and learn to cook. Buy food that is cheap. Drive to work and back and when you get groceries get at least 2 weeks worth at a time. You can save a lot more than you are. Not my problem you waste money.

Damn, you got me.

I can eat Top Ramen for the rest of my life, and that 20 bucks a week will be my salvation.

Think I am going to finish college on that money, send my kids, save up for retirement, see a doctor about the lump on my stomach, completely winterize my car, save up to bury my aging relatives, and have enough left over to put in an account for emergency spending.

Thanks.

----

It is not my problem you are arrogant enough to presume to know the nuances of my situation enough to assume I am just a reckless spender living beyond my means. I know this is the type of profile I must fit for you in order for you to cling to your belief that the poor folk in this country are just lazy, irresponsible, spenders.

Not only that, but your little 20 dollar a week savings deal, eating canned beans like a hobo, does not even begin to touch any argument or point I made in that post, or the following ones in which cunts such as yourself presumed to tell me how I must fit into their profile so they can cling to an incorrect stereotyped belief.

You fail, fucknuts.

Yeah^

The $10/week figure is bullshit. You could probably survive with that much money's worth of food, but you wouldn't have a healthy diet.

Obama will likely be the next president.

I would like someone to explain to me how it is unfair that in this democratic society, the majority elects someone who promises to increase the tax on the rich.

Damn, you got me.

I can eat Top Ramen for the rest of my life, and that 20 bucks a week will be my salvation.

Think I am going to finish college on that money, send my kids, save up for retirement, see a doctor about the lump on my stomach, completely winterize my car, save up to bury my aging relatives, and have enough left over to put in an account for emergency spending.

Thanks.

----

It is not my problem you are arrogant enough to presume to know the nuances of my situation enough to assume I am just a reckless spender living beyond my means. I know this is the type of profile I must fit for you in order for you to cling to your belief that the poor folk in this country are just lazy, irresponsible, spenders.

Not only that, but your little 20 dollar a week savings deal, eating canned beans like a hobo, does not even begin to touch any argument or point I made in that post, or the following ones in which cunts such as yourself presumed to tell me how I must fit into their profile so they can cling to an incorrect stereotyped belief.

You fail, fucknuts.

Lose the cable and internet access. That's $100 a month right there. Get rid of your car and get a bike or use pub transport. Won't have to winterize anything but your wardrobe.

American's are jaded to what it is like to actually have hardship. "Ah fuck, they shut off the cable and I have to eat generic Lucky Charms again, fuck Bush."

Lose the cable and internet access. That's $100 a month right there. Get rid of your car and get a bike or use pub transport. Won't have to winterize anything but your wardrobe.

American's are jaded to what it is like to actually have hardship. "Ah fuck, they shut off the cable and I have to eat generic Lucky Charms again, fuck Bush."

That's right, cut one's expenses and live a shitty life so that one doesn't have to confront one's employer about the fact one's being paid not enough to live a life of satisfactory quality.

That's right, cut one's expenses and live a shitty life so that one doesn't have to confront one's employer about the fact one's being paid not enough to live a life of satisfactory quality.

Anyone that lives a shitty life is too proud to start at the bottom. Everyone wants instant gratification. That is only available in drugs, the lottery and orgasm. If you can make a living with those things, more power to you. I chose the difficult but more rewarding and definite route of attending college and working hard.

Also, what's with all the whining people in this thread? If you spent all that time improving your skill set instead of whining like a bitch with a skinned knee, you wouldn't even have to worry about the big things as much.

Lose the cable and internet access. That's $100 a month right there. Get rid of your car and get a bike or use pub transport. Won't have to winterize anything but your wardrobe.

American's are jaded to what it is like to actually have hardship. "Ah fuck, they shut off the cable and I have to eat generic Lucky Charms again, fuck Bush."

You know, if I wanted to live like I was in a Soviet bloc country, guess what, I'd go and fucking live in a damn Soviet bloc country. It's a standard of living that says this is, presumably, a first-world nation. What does it say about us as a country when we went from two cars in every garage to people not even being able to have one and barely scraping by? Are we even in a first-world country anymore? Median income hasn't changed much at all in the last 40 years, and actually decreased during Bush the Lesser's tenure.. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf page 11) Stack those very small increases in income next to the high inflation rate (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/US_Historical_Inflation.svg).

Lose the cable and internet access. That's $100 a month right there. Get rid of your car and get a bike or use pub transport. Won't have to winterize anything but your wardrobe.

American's are jaded to what it is like to actually have hardship. "Ah fuck, they shut off the cable and I have to eat generic Lucky Charms again, fuck Bush."

I dont have cable and internet. I get on totse at work. Way to make an ASSumption though.

Get rid of the car, get a bike so I can bike for an hour and a half to work at night, ten times a week? Should I bike three hours a day and still eat only Top Ramen?

No, no that is realistic. I am sure all the people in my situation can just bike their way out of it as I clearly and realistically can. That doesn't reek of the desperate attempt on your part to force me into a palpable mold for you that entails a poor person being lazy, irresponsible and looking for a hand out, at all.

Excellent, once again I will have enough money left over to give to the Funeral Homes, Colleges, Hospitals, Dental and Vision industries.

What is left out of that is what I shall retire on, right?

---

No, you seem to have a firm grasp on the realities of living and dying in America. You don't strike me as a kidiot who hasn't the slightest what he is shitting in a diaper and posting, at all.

---

And for the love of God can you please explain to me how it is unfair that in a democracy, a majority of the people elect a guy who promises to raise tax on the rich?

First look up democracy before you say some more completely douchbaggish things. Educate yourself and you will look less stupid from time to time.

Anyone that lives a shitty life is too proud to start at the bottom. Everyone wants instant gratification. That is only available in drugs, the lottery and orgasm. If you can make a living with those things, more power to you. I chose the difficult but more rewarding and definite route of attending college and working hard.

What are you even on about? Too proud to start at the bottom? Everybody wants instant gratification?

We are talking about the wages we are being paid are not enough to cover basic living expenses as to maintain a life of satisfactory quality, as someone who lives in a first-world country should.


Also, what's with all the whining people in this thread? If you spent all that time improving your skill set instead of whining like a bitch with a skinned knee, you wouldn't even have to worry about the big things as much.

It's not called whining. It's about realising that it's not fair to be paid a substantially lower wage than what is required to have a first-world standard of living.

If anything, people like you who don't complain and just take things up their anuses don't get things changed for the better. You will just be glad with whatever meager amount your employer is willing to throw at you.

Anyone that lives a shitty life is too proud to start at the bottom. Everyone wants instant gratification. That is only available in drugs, the lottery and orgasm. If you can make a living with those things, more power to you. I chose the difficult but more rewarding and definite route of attending college and working hard.

Also, what's with all the whining people in this thread? If you spent all that time improving your skill set instead of whining like a bitch with a skinned knee, you wouldn't even have to worry about the big things as much.

This is why you're an idiot:

You assume that right-wing ideology has a monopoly on the morals of hard work. Voting left does not make you lazy and that is a huge fallacy.

You are obviously someone out of touch with how uneven the playing field is. You assume every poor person deserves to be where they are and every wealthy person has earned it. You are putting your self-interests aside to defend the morals of manipulators and corrupt people. When you admit that people have not had the same opportunities as you, but at the same time blame them for not making the same decisions as you, you are committing double-think.

Oh, and there are a lot of places where you can survive on $10 a week in food. The United States is not one of them. Food prices have inflated 11% over 30 years, meaning the price of food has doubled about 5 or 6 times.

T
Oh, and there are a lot of places where you can survive on $10 a week in food. The United States is not one of them. Food prices have inflated 11% over 30 years, meaning the price of food has doubled about 5 or 6 times.

I beg to differ, as I do that all the time. If I really try I can even eat for less than $1 a day, but I splurge and spend a bit more. 2# of pasta=$2, 2# ground turkey=$4, and lastly 2 jars or spaghetti sauce=$4. And I actually usually pay less for my sauce since I get it on sale or buy generic. That will last me over a week actually and I eat quite a bit of food, but since I eat cheap cereal for breakfast with milk I still end up at about $10 a week. If you want I can show you how to eat even cheaper...... Plus if you have a discount store near you like I do you can get even cheaper than what I listed.

Now if you live in a sucky liberal state like California or Oregon or something then it might be more than 10 but all of the places I have lived at have been this cheap.

Damn, you got me.

I can eat Top Ramen for the rest of my life, and that 20 bucks a week will be my salvation.

Think I am going to finish college on that money, send my kids, save up for retirement, see a doctor about the lump on my stomach, completely winterize my car, save up to bury my aging relatives, and have enough left over to put in an account for emergency spending.

Thanks.


See what I said above, not only is what I just made nutritious, it is also a lot better tasting than most shit any fast food or even most family restaurants make. That was just one of my many recipes that are that cheap or less. All equally good. I also grew a small garden in my backyard that give me almost free food, and since I planted heirlooms I can save the seed and get totally free food next season. I am not rich, so don't lump me with them.

As far as Europe having a higher average standard of living, that will be ending soon. The Scandinavian countries are starting to feel it, wouldn't be surprised if their system didn't collapse in the next 10 years. They can't maintain it with the ever larger numbers of moochers arriving there. Germany will probably be next. Ever wonder why Europe's birthrate has gone down so much in the last few decades to the point where if it wasn't for immigrants their population would be decreasing? THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT!!! At least in America most people can afford to have 2 kids if they really want to.

I beg to differ, as I do that all the time. If I really try I can even eat for less than $1 a day, but I splurge and spend a bit more. 2# of pasta=$2, 2# ground turkey=$4, and lastly 2 jars or spaghetti sauce=$4. And I actually usually pay less for my sauce since I get it on sale or buy generic. That will last me over a week actually and I eat quite a bit of food, but since I eat cheap cereal for breakfast with milk I still end up at about $10 a week. If you want I can show you how to eat even cheaper...... Plus if you have a discount store near you like I do you can get even cheaper than what I listed.

Now if you live in a sucky liberal state like California or Oregon or something then it might be more than 10 but all of the places I have lived at have been this cheap.


Eat much in the way of fresh fruit and vegetables there?

When I lived self catered on campus I did something similar, but ended up getting sick all the time.
(Though being surrounded by hundreds of exchange students from south east asia probably didn't help.)

The other big thing is though that you have a LOT less time to do other stuff if you cook more. Ditto for not having a car.
In the case of a car it depends where you live I guess, but where I am it means pissing away *hours* of time on buses each week. Time that could be better spent studying or working. (or on the internet)

I beg to differ, as I do that all the time. If I really try I can even eat for less than $1 a day, but I splurge and spend a bit more. 2# of pasta=$2, 2# ground turkey=$4, and lastly 2 jars or spaghetti sauce=$4. And I actually usually pay less for my sauce since I get it on sale or buy generic. That will last me over a week actually and I eat quite a bit of food, but since I eat cheap cereal for breakfast with milk I still end up at about $10 a week. If you want I can show you how to eat even cheaper...... Plus if you have a discount store near you like I do you can get even cheaper than what I listed.

Now if you live in a sucky liberal state like California or Oregon or something then it might be more than 10 but all of the places I have lived at have been this cheap.



See what I said above, not only is what I just made nutritious, it is also a lot better tasting than most shit any fast food or even most family restaurants make. That was just one of my many recipes that are that cheap or less. All equally good. I also grew a small garden in my backyard that give me almost free food, and since I planted heirlooms I can save the seed and get totally free food next season. I am not rich, so don't lump me with them.



Have you ever even seen a food pyramid?

http://www.diabetesdiabeticdiet.com/images/food_pyramid.JPG

You've got 1 serving of grains, 1-2 servings of vegetables, and 1 serving of meat per day. You're either skinny as hell and on your way to dying from malnutrition (or being seriously ill), or you're full of shit (ie. living with your parents and eating their food in addition to your crap).

Double or triple the quantity of grains/vegetables/protein you have, add some fruit and dairy, and then you can talk about "$10 a week". The best I've heard is $15/week, and the guy was scrounging.

Eat much in the way of fresh fruit and vegetables there?

When I lived self catered on campus I did something similar, but ended up getting sick all the time.
(Though being surrounded by hundreds of exchange students from south east asia probably didn't help.)

The other big thing is though that you have a LOT less time to do other stuff if you cook more. Ditto for not having a car.
In the case of a car it depends where you live I guess, but where I am it means pissing away *hours* of time on buses each week. Time that could be better spent studying or working. (or on the internet)

I mentioned I grew my own garden, which was mostly vegetables but I also planted some blackberries and strawberries for next year.

But spaghetti has several servings of veggies, meat, and pasta when you eat as much as I do. I only cook once a week, takes about an hour, and it lasts all week so less time wasted total than waiting for fast food. I also mentioned only one recipe. I also make a bean rich dish a lot for even less money.
I buy fruit when it is really cheap. Got some cherries at the farmers market for $1.50 a lb a few times this year for example of which I bought 20 lbs and froze a bunch to last most of the year. So yea it is quite doable.

I am 6 ft and weigh 190lbs and I get sick once, maybe twice a year for a few days each time. I have about 18% body fat so only a little over weight.

I own my own house so no mooching off of my parents. Couldn't do that even if I wanted too since my dad has barely had work for the past 4 years. I have been sending THEM some money.

I mentioned I grew my own garden, which was mostly vegetables but I also planted some blackberries and strawberries for next year.

But spaghetti has several servings of veggies, meat, and pasta when you eat as much as I do. I only cook once a week, takes about an hour, and it lasts all week so less time wasted total than waiting for fast food. I also mentioned only one recipe. I also make a bean rich dish a lot for even less money.

But wouldn't you get sick of eating the same food for a week? Also, I heard that if you leave food out for too long it will lose it's nutrients.


I own my own house so no mooching off of my parents. Couldn't do that even if I wanted too since my dad has barely had work for the past 4 years. I have been sending THEM some money.

How can you afford a house, you are so young (I am assuming you are young)

I mentioned I grew my own garden, which was mostly vegetables but I also planted some blackberries and strawberries for next year.

But spaghetti has several servings of veggies, meat, and pasta when you eat as much as I do. I only cook once a week, takes about an hour, and it lasts all week so less time wasted total than waiting for fast food. I also mentioned only one recipe. I also make a bean rich dish a lot for even less money.
I buy fruit when it is really cheap. Got some cherries at the farmers market for $1.50 a lb a few times this year for example of which I bought 20 lbs and froze a bunch to last most of the year. So yea it is quite doable.

I am 6 ft and weigh 190lbs and I get sick once, maybe twice a year for a few days each time. I have about 18% body fat so only a little over weight.

I own my own house so no mooching off of my parents. Couldn't do that even if I wanted too since my dad has barely had work for the past 4 years. I have been sending THEM some money.

10 dollars worth of pasta, turkey, and tomato sauce does not have enough daily servings of vegetables, protein, and grains. And regardless, you're still missing two major food groups. This is a fucking FACT, so stop trying to argue about it.

10 dollars a week is not enough for a healthy, balanced diet. End of story.

10 dollars worth of pasta, turkey, and tomato sauce does not have enough daily servings of vegetables, protein, and grains. And regardless, you're still missing two major food groups. This is a fucking FACT, so stop trying to argue about it.

10 dollars a week is not enough for a healthy, balanced diet. End of story.



Like eating at McDonalds or other fast food every day like most poor people do is? Nigga please. I also bet that I am healthier overall than you are. Do you take a shit every day? How often do you get sick? I have had 2 cavities in my teeth and they only occurred last year. Need I go on?

I am 25 WAN and have 1 full time and 1 part time job.

Lose the cable and internet access. That's $100 a month right there. Get rid of your car and get a bike or use pub transport. Won't have to winterize anything but your wardrobe.

American's are jaded to what it is like to actually have hardship. "Ah fuck, they shut off the cable and I have to eat generic Lucky Charms again, fuck Bush."

I think we have gravely overlooked this. On the face of it, if we had cheap food, cheap time, and a roadway infrastructure that catered to bicycling this wouldn't be a bad idea. However, food harvests hurt the environment more than petroleum-fueled transportation, time is in no way cheap in America, and our roads are built for cars, not people on bikes going 8-15 mph. Moreso, public transportation in America is pretty much nonexistent everywhere except large cities. I seem to recall Nuclear Rape was well to do, so I suppose I can forgive him for not knowing anything about public transit.

However, if one is to go the way of the bicycle, what happens if you break a leg or fuck up your knee? I woke up Saturday and for no reason at all my knee would hurt when I put pressure on it. By the end of the day I had to stand on it so much that it got to where it hurt to even move it. Standing and walking around is something I have to do at my job. How am I going to even get to work, let alone do work?

It's kinda funny, really. Accidents and general wear-and-tear are much more likely to happen to people having to push themselves to exhaustion on a daily basis, and you are decidedly against Obama's health care plan. The funny thing is that you are against his health care plan, but tell people who already can't afford health insurance to put themselves in a position where they are more likely to injure themselves in a way that they cannot work or get to work, the store, etc.

It's funny that people lay into Obama for "socialist tendencies," when $700 bn was just spent buying out privately owned companies by the government, federalizing banking.

I believe that the reason that the current system is not working is because we say we have a free market society, yet the government is still there to bail out privately owned companies, thereby eliminating all but the most minor risks.

True Laissez-faire economic systems have times of great prosperity and times of great despair. It's essentially a rollercoaster ride. Socialist societies keep a fairly steady economic system, but quality of life is lower and there are higher rates of unemployment.

I believe that it's best to use qualities of both societies, but definitely not in the way that the economy is currently run. Laissez-faire societies are balanced by the high-risk/high-reward decisions of the companies. However, the system is unbalanced when the companies are bought out by the government when they threaten to fail.
Socialist societies work when companies are not allowed to take such large risks, because the government regulates them. If the companies fail, then the government must save the companies, so the government has a good reason to keep the companies from failing. However, in the current system the government does not regulate enough for this to work. It's essentially a ticket saying that if the company does well due to private decisions, they keep the profit but if they are on the verge of collapse due to private decisions, they'll be bailed out. Low-risk economics doesn't work in a free market society.

It's funny that people lay into Obama for "socialist tendencies," when $700 bn was just spent buying out privately owned companies by the government, federalizing banking.


Well, the average Republican apparently only needs to see "spread the wealth around" before he decides Obama wants to take everyone's money and redistribute it equally. Expecting then to see socialist tendencies in the current government? Heh...you've got a bit too much faith in these dumbasses. :p

Also Gerald Ford instituted the Earned Income Credit. This is a program whereby, if you're a working person, a working couple and you're below the poverty line, the government will actually give you money. That's a redistributive program. It's a program which takes money from the upper classes and gives it to the lower -- to the working poor. This was expanded by Ronald Reagan. :eek: This is a direct redistrubutive tool enacted by the republicans.

Ford = Socialist Marxist

Reagan (the great Conservative to emulate) = Another Socialist Marxist

:eek:

Well, the average Republican apparently only needs to see "spread the wealth around" before he decides Obama wants to take everyone's money and redistribute it equally. Expecting then to see socialist tendencies in the current government? Heh...you've got a bit too much faith in these dumbasses. :p

Dude that's only the beginning of things. The middle and upper middle class subsidize the wealthy. If you are in a high-income tax bracket and make money the traditional way, through hard work and job advancement and aren't insanely rich enough to hire shady accountants and work tax schemes, you're paying more in taxes than the wealthiest 28,000 American do.

http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Rich-CheatEverybody/dp/B000CDG8N8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225316573&sr=8-1

Read this book. It will make your blood boil.

I don't have much hope in Obama's cliché of "ending corporate loopholes" because the people operating them have vast legal resources in place to defend their money. Clearly if you make a few billion dollars and set up your own charity and let it flop in a way that you only pay 6% of the original 39% taxes you were supposed to, you're cheating the system. If you have a mailbox in the middle of the pacific or a swiss bank account, chances are you're cheating the system. Oh, and the poor get audited more than the rich do. The system is insanely stacked.

At least in America most people can afford to have 2 kids if they really want to.

And you can feed them week old spaghetti, right?

I mentioned I grew my own garden, which was mostly vegetables but I also planted some blackberries and strawberries for next year.

Sweet, I live in a shitty apartment, do you think the lawn guys will mow over my 18 stalks of corn I have on the 3 square foot patch of grass in my backyard.

I own my own house so no mooching off of my parents. Couldn't do that even if I wanted too since my dad has barely had work for the past 4 years. I have been sending THEM some money.

Your own house, spaghetti and home grown veggies galore. You seem to be doing well in the game of life...

Uh oh, you get cancer, move back three spaces.

-----

You honestly seem blissfully unaware of certain things, as my three smart ass responses to your "Well gee guys it is this simple" way of looking at things illustrates.

-----

I listed a whole host of bills I have, how I can not do it on my own, and you telling me saving 20 extra bucks a week means what exactly? That I have scurvy from eating nothing but tomato paste, ground turkey, and pasta? That 20 bucks does not lift me up out of poverty?

You have to pigeonhole me into a more palpable role, in order for your "Poor people are poor b/c they are lazy and irresponsible with money" philosophy.

----- I have a bit of news for you...

The dirt poor in the world are a product of the filthy rich.

Understand monetary policies, a little global economics, and come back to me.

The dirt poor in the world are a product of the filthy rich.

Understand monetary policies, a little global economics, and come back to me.

I never disagreed with any of that. I just made a case for eating cheaper than fast food, which is what most poor people eat, that will be cheaper and better for them. Don't read into it any more than that.

Yup, that statement all but guarantees a 3rd party vote from me.




No Obama, it is not your place to tell me that I make a bit too much money, so I should give it to you and let you share it with everyone. well the problem is that income tax is constitutionally legal.
secondly if you are making such a large sum of money shouldn't it be taxed in a way that will not put a huge dent in your wallet, while helping someone who does not have the fiscal advantages that you have? taxing someone who makes $200,00-100,00 less than you do in the same way is not socially responsible.


Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is just what we need in a capitalist society:rolleyes:
way to look at things in such a black and white way. You could be the next GOP political speech writer. stealing from the rich, really? If you had one ounce "compassion" I know George Junior loved to call himself as a compassionate conservative, then you would know some times compassion takes sacrifice, in this economic crisis, all of us will feel the problems but to say that this is some type of Robin hood scheme is ludicrous.

There is a serious problem with taxes, why should the middle class bear the brunt of taxation when they make infinitesimal amounts compared to the wealthiest people in America?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the American Dream, etc. according to your logic only the rich are eligible for these "basic rights"? Come on


Basic fundamentals of a capitalist society, which made us the super power that we are today. Everyday the government gets more involved, national debt goes up and foreign policy stays the same. This is not going to change with either Mccain or Obama.

Well this is a problem that has faced America since the creation of the federal reserve, it's a beast that we now have to deal with. The national debt goes up because of GOP funded wars, and the foreign policy stays the same? Well thats news to me, before 2000 I never knew we had a pre-emptive policy. But you know, McCain and Obama are the same....

I would like someone to explain to me how it is unfair that in this democratic society, the majority elects someone who promises to increase the tax on the rich.

Democracy is inherently unfair. Somebody will always lose, the only response is to let everyone choose for themselves and not impose their decisions upon others, which is the basis of democracy.

Democracy is inherently unfair. Somebody will always lose, the only response is to let everyone choose for themselves and not impose their decisions upon others, which is the basis of democracy.

Unfair does not equal somebody losing.

Not saying democracy is perfect, but majority rules is pretty fair. Even if you are the minority, it is still fair. It would be more unfair if the minority dictated the majority.

So if the majority elect a guy who promises to raise taxes on the elite few, and the majority do this b/c they believe it will better their lives, and the elite few are not hurt by this (can't buy a second yacht does not equal, hurt)....

How is it unfair?

I never disagreed with any of that. I just made a case for eating cheaper than fast food, which is what most poor people eat, that will be cheaper and better for them. Don't read into it any more than that.

You seemed, along with a few others, to imply I am either:

Irresponsible with my money
and/or
Lazy

I assure you and others I am niether.

I am at a place in my life, that I cannot afford to live ON MY OWN, working 40 hours a week. I feel that in a country that boasts itself as the greatest, anyone doing any job for 40 hours a week for a majority of their waking life, should be able to live on their own.

What happened to the free market? Where is the dollar store equivalent of gasoline, houses, water, electricity, sewer, garbage collection?

Where is the free market capitialist principles for these things?

"Shit my water bill is too high, I think I will shop around for another provider in my area"

*shops around

"Shit"

-----

The 1% of this world, who control 80% of the wealth, design their companies, governments, enterprises, and everything else they can to nickel and dime and fuck peasants.

The American dream has cancer, it's name is neo-con.

It is my hope that Obama, is the cure for that. I will vote straight democratic (I am not a democrat) for the next 8 years, so that the neo-con fucktards who raped this country till she bled, get the fucking message, and I would urge anyone else whose ass is sore, red and bleeding to do the same.

------

All the rich fucks, who actually wish to illicit sympathy from me, saying they pay an "unfair" tax, can fist themselves. The rich who buy our leaders like pets, just held the country ransom for 700 billion, can now pay my hospital bills, pay more for the infrastructure of this place, and be grateful I show up to work for them.

In a democracy, it should be difficult for the rich, for the haves, to fuck over the have nots, and as poor, lower middle class citizens (majority of the country) it is our job as citizens to see that the wealthy understand this.

I plan on doing my job.

and be grateful I show up to work for them.
.

Why, you arrogant son of a bitch. They should be grateful you show up to work for them? You should be grateful they employed you. You go ahead and not show up to work, and guess what? They'll fucking fire you and get someone else. They're are plenty of unemployed people in this country who would be more then happy to have a job. People like you just make me sick. You go ahead and vote all the fucking liberals in. You think you can't afford to live now? Just wait until you're paying a 70% confiscatory tax rate, motherfucker.

Why, you arrogant son of a bitch. They should be grateful you show up to work for them? You should be grateful they employed you. You go ahead and not show up to work, and guess what? They'll fucking fire you and get someone else. They're are plenty of unemployed people in this country who would be more then happy to have a job. People like you just make me sick. You go ahead and vote all the fucking liberals in. You think you can't afford to live now? Just wait until you're paying a 70% confiscatory tax rate, motherfucker.

Libruls! Muslums! OOGA BOOGA!

Considering I have no wealth at the moment, I could go for some spreading.

talk about puffing up the arrogance of the bourgoisie whilst deflating the morale of the proletariat!

HOW POISONOUS!

If I did it alone...

I make 1200 a month, I work 40 hours a week. I have a 300 car payment, 100 dollar insurance, 510 rent (all utilities included) and a 40 dollar phone bill.

That leaves me roughly 250 a month for food, and gas. Thats about 63 bucks a week. I spend about 30 on gas, and 30 on food.

That leaves me 3 dollars to get soap, shampoo, dish soap, laundry detergent, laundry matt fees, shit paper, deodarant, toothpaste, mouth wash, garbage bags, sponges, Q-tips, razors, haircuts, new underwear and socks, new shoes, new clothes etc.

God forbid I need new tires, brakes, dental work, eyecare, oil change, wiper blades, car work etc. Or that I get a parking fine, a seat belt ticket, speeding ticket, overdraft fee etc.


Lol where the fuck do you live? Lucky!

San Diego, California, my 1 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment is 1800 $ a month by itself.

246$ in Car Insurance + 260$ a month in car payments, 30 for DSL


How the hell am I supposed to pay that PLUS UCSD tuition? THAT is why Obama is the shit.

Never heard shit from McLame about giving me college tuition wavers etc.

Obviously a lot of it is lies, but that is how politics are. I would rather here lies that involve taking better care of my interests, than no lies at all, and nothing is even promised.

Libruls! Muslums! OOGA BOOGA!

I dreamt about you last night...

I agree with BrokePhrophet on this. Although, I do not agree with class warfare; there is truth in that commerce comes from the bottom up, not the top down. I mean... seriously, there are a shitload of rappers on MTV's Cribs showing off ridiculous amounts of shit they have no need for in their homes. How did that happen? A shit load of idiots bought their stuff. A shit load of middle class and lower idiots to be exact. Sure rich people buy stuff too, but they only count as 1% of the population. We really depend on the idiocy of the other 99% to keep the economy going. Giving the other 99% some money will only result in the money returning to the market. Whether it be iPhones, 20 inch rims on their Lexus, or a walk-in closet full of niggerish clothes.

If we just let the 1% keep their money, you think they are going to spend it? Seriously think about it. I mean, how the hell did they become the top 1% in the first place. Obviously not from spending all of their money and living paycheck to paycheck. No... thats the other 99%. Us, the idiots.

This.

Unfair does not equal somebody losing.

Not saying democracy is perfect, but majority rules is pretty fair. Even if you are the minority, it is still fair. It would be more unfair if the minority dictated the majority.
It would be less unfair (fair?) if nobody dictated anybody else. "It could be worse" is not an argument.

So if the majority elect a guy who promises to raise taxes on the elite few, and the majority do this b/c they believe it will better their lives, and the elite few are not hurt by this (can't buy a second yacht does not equal, hurt)....

How is it unfair?

Because a minority always loses; the point isn't how much these people can afford to lose but whether or not it's fair in the first place.