Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Romney appraisal Options · View
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:50:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
CoopsRuthie wrote:


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."



Lol.. What a twist! Wow spinning out of control! Using that line of thought the government paying my mortgage would promote the general welfare because I would have more money to spend on other things I want from society.

CoopsRuthie that is by far, hands down, without a doubt the wildest interpretation of that verse I have ever heard. Even the ACLU isn't as brave as that.

You go girl!

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
Ruthie
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:12:03 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,371
Location: United States
RobinMaxwell760 wrote:



Lol.. What a twist! Wow spinning out of control! Using that line of thought the government paying my mortgage would promote the general welfare because I would have more money to spend on other things I want from society.

CoopsRuthie that is by far, hands down, without a doubt the wildest interpretation of that verse I have ever heard. Even the ACLU isn't as brave as that.

You go girl!

RM


What do you imagine the general welfare is if not the well being of the people of the country? The country isn't made up of laws and documents, it's made up of people.

Here is the definition of general welfare: "The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens."

Article 1, section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Individual debts aren't general welfare. If you're another one of these rugged individualists living on government pensions the government is already paying your mortgage.


LadyX
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:15:35 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
CoopsRuthie wrote:


What do you imagine the general welfare is if not the well being of the people of the country? The country isn't made up of laws and documents, it's made up of people.


And corporations and Super-PACs, Ruth Ann. Let's not forget those hallowed institutions that form the backbone of this perfect union.
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 1:09:37 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
All I know is that how do you expect this man to make good decisions in office when he can't even decide against wearing mom jeans. Like he had to buy them, put them on, look himself over and he still decided to wear them. There is something off in that thought process. It's a major red flag. Even his team of advisors, that fucking Anne too let him go out in those. WTH?





DebbieMilf
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 1:15:32 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/9/2012
Posts: 20
Location: United States
Myth Rmoney----Yuck!
TransitionalMan
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:55:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 108
Location: Ohio, United States
I really don't care about Mitt's jeans, but in truth he is the biggest liar I've ever seen in 40 years of following elections, and he represents a party which has left the reality train far behind. I have to wonder if there is a single lie that man won't tell, and what will happen if he really is elected.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 9:20:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
Here is the definition of general welfare: "The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens."


Well if you're going to use the might makes right morality against wealthy citizens, that's going to be bad for health, peace and safety, because you'll end up with debt, high unemployment and an inability to compete in global markets. I think you've focused a little to much on specific welfare of individuals and favored groups instead of the general welfare of the entire nation.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 11:11:53 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Well if you're going to use the might makes right morality against wealthy citizens, that's going to be bad for health, peace and safety, because you'll end up with debt, high unemployment and an inability to compete in global markets. I think you've focused a little to much on specific welfare of individuals and favored groups instead of the general welfare of the entire nation.


welfare has existed so far right? shit, when was welfare for americans first established? And show me how its affected our economy.



Magical_felix
Posted: Sunday, October 07, 2012 11:15:12 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
TransitionalMan wrote:
I really don't care about Mitt's jeans, but in truth he is the biggest liar I've ever seen in 40 years of following elections, and he represents a party which has left the reality train far behind. I have to wonder if there is a single lie that man won't tell, and what will happen if he really is elected.


You should care.. its a major judgement error. A man that doest even realize mom jeans look fucking horrible on him wont see the forrest through the trees on other issues. He cant make the simplest of choices. Look at those fucking jeans. Its a joke.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:12:59 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,289
Location: Cakeland, United States
TransitionalMan wrote:
I really don't care about Mitt's jeans, but in truth he is the biggest liar I've ever seen in 40 years of following elections, and he represents a party which has left the reality train far behind. I have to wonder if there is a single lie that man won't tell, and what will happen if he really is elected.


Looks like he's a fucking bold assed cheater too.

Neither candidate is allowed to bring their own notes or cards of information to use during the debate.
Check out Mr. Smooth from this camera angle. His handlers are insisting that's a hankie to wipe his sweaty brow with.



This is the guy the Koch Brothers are buying @ over $1 billion of their PAC bux to be our next puppet.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:07:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
welfare has existed so far right?


Yes, but irrelevant.

Quote:
shit, when was welfare for americans first established?


I don't know, but irrelevant.

Quote:
And show me how its affected our economy.


Unbelievably naive. Federal fiscal and monetary profoundly affects the competitiveness of American products. Pandering to the wanty is much safer when confined to state agencies. Giving people what they have no right to is charity and using government power to do it is letting them vote to coerce charity.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
tazznjazz
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:13:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
1ball writes ''I don't know, but irrelevant'' which makes his non point irrelevant.

Welfare was created under FDR in 1933 to feed those who couldn't feed them selves or their family's after non-regulated stock speculation by wall street brokers ruined the economy causing millions to lose jobs, homes and life savings through no fault of their own.
1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:59:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
tazznjazz wrote:
1ball writes ''I don't know, but irrelevant'' which makes his non point irrelevant.

Welfare was created under FDR in 1933 to feed those who couldn't feed them selves or their family's after non-regulated stock speculation by wall street brokers ruined the economy causing millions to lose jobs, homes and life savings through no fault of their own.


The "general welfare" was created in the Constitution. There has been "welfare" via regulation and via direct subsidy in one form or another in local, state and federal governments since the country formed. To blame the Great Depression on "wall street brokers" is to ignore the failure of the federal government to protect individual rights. Choosing to respond by creating group rights for labor, seniors, and the poor and attempting to pay for it by taxing the rich ruins the economy and costs jobs, and the loss of homes and life savings through the fault of the voters. That's your solution?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 6:53:30 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
1ball wrote:


Unbelievably naive. Federal fiscal and monetary profoundly affects the competitiveness of American products. Pandering to the wanty is much safer when confined to state agencies. Giving people what they have no right to is charity and using government power to do it is letting them vote to coerce charity.


I was asking how it affects the economy since you're an expert. I wasn't saying it doesn't affect the economy. I was asking to be enlightened. Your reading comprehension skills are unbelievable.

Quote:
Federal fiscal and monetary profoundly affects the competitiveness of American products.


Welfare affects our products? or what does this mean? Can you explain without fancy wording how having welfare affects the economy? And how is it that the welfare programs haven't crumbled us yet if they are so bad? When the economy was good there was welfare, when it's bad there is welfare.



1ball
Posted: Monday, October 08, 2012 10:29:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
I was asking how it affects the economy since you're an expert. I wasn't saying it doesn't affect the economy. I was asking to be enlightened.


I guess you're lacking a basic understanding of economics, since you're seeking enlightenment on such a simple thing. This link is to a basic primer that can help you. It really doesn't take long to read and you can download a PDF and reread it until it sinks in.

http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L3

Quote:
Welfare affects our products?


It affects the competitiveness of our products. If you buy something from a foreign country because it is cheaper from there or even too expensive to make profitably here, that means that fewer people here engaged in high value taxable economic activity (manufacturing), which boosts the demand for welfare and decreases the supply of tax revenue to cover it.

Quote:
Can you explain without fancy wording how having welfare affects the economy?


Welfare in the form of labor law makes our products more expensive and foreign products more attractive in both domestic and global markets.

Welfare in the form of SS and Medicare rely on taxation of employers, which also raises the cost of doing business. This additional cost gets passed on to consumers, or reduces pay or opportunity for employees or results in business failure.

Welfare in the form of Cash For Clunkers style programs is a broken windows fallacy. See the economic text I linked to for an understanding of that. That program decreased the affordability of used cars by taking so many out of the market without reducing the demand.

Welfare in the form of direct subsidies to poor people relies on either taxation or debt and raises the cost of labor by reducing the labor supply. If people have the welfare option, they will be less interested in taking low paying jobs. When the price of labor goes up, the cost of doing business goes up and that's like friction on the economy. It slows economic growth and lowers the GDP. Carrying excessive federal debt also causes alienation of capital investment. Investors just don't want to risk capital where the solution to debt is likely to be increases in business taxation.

Welfare in the form of corporate subsidies theoretically lowers the cost of domestically consumed products like gasoline, milk, bread, etc., which theoretically benefits consumers, but it gives perverse incentives that generally add inefficiency that drives up costs in order to buy insurance against scarcity.

Quote:
And how is it that the welfare programs haven't crumbled us yet if they are so bad? When the economy was good there was welfare, when it's bad there is welfare.


You're thinking on such a short term. The answer is that the economy had a long way to drop, but it's running out of steam now. The amount of socialism an economy can tolerate depends on what foreign governments do. As their countries become more competitive, we have to respond or risk stagnation. Since the big socialist pushes of FDR, we've had mostly unending growth of social spending, but Europe has formed the EU to rein in their socialists, the USSR has collapsed, China has liberalized their economic policies and many third world countries have become more attractive to capital investment. In short, the competition has made big gains and we haven't kept up because welfare raised the cost of doing business here. We've lost many jobs and replaced many of them with lower paying jobs. We have unfunded liabilities in the form of the near-future SS and Medicare spending increases due to the retiring boomers.




My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 9:14:37 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
1ball wrote:


It affects the competitiveness of our products. If you buy something from a foreign country because it is cheaper from there or even too expensive to make profitably here, that means that fewer people here engaged in high value taxable economic activity (manufacturing), which boosts the demand for welfare and decreases the supply of tax revenue to cover it.



Doesn't that have more to do with the fact that americans want to get paid too much for work? And not just the ones that get welfare aid. Agriculture is dominated by immigrants that will work for a realistic salary. Manufacturing is going oversees where they can make the products affordable to the consumer. Why not stop the import of foreign products that will put american manufactures out of business? If in agriculture they used all american labor... Then americans would just buy produce from anywhere besides the USA, or just stop eating produce because it will be way too expensive. Welfare would only be needed after the agriculture industry collapses, it isn't what caused it to collapse.


Quote:
Welfare in the form of SS and Medicare rely on taxation of employers, which also raises the cost of doing business. This additional cost gets passed on to consumers, or reduces pay or opportunity for employees or results in business failure.


Wasn't mush of a business if that causes your business to fail.

Quote:
Welfare in the form of Cash For Clunkers style programs is a broken windows fallacy. See the economic text I linked to for an understanding of that. That program decreased the affordability of used cars by taking so many out of the market without reducing the demand.


So if the demand for used cars is still there but the used car is a bit more expensive now because you cant get a 2,000 piece of shit anymore, that is bad for the economy? Wouldn't people just spend a little more on a better car now? Plus it's not like you just got cash for a clunker... Didn't you have to spend money on a new car? A new car with better gas mileage? That's better for everyone.

Quote:
Welfare in the form of direct subsidies to poor people relies on either taxation or debt and raises the cost of labor by reducing the labor supply. If people have the welfare option, they will be less interested in taking low paying jobs. When the price of labor goes up, the cost of doing business goes up and that's like friction on the economy. It slows economic growth and lowers the GDP. Carrying excessive federal debt also causes alienation of capital investment. Investors just don't want to risk capital where the solution to debt is likely to be increases in business taxation.


I don't think it's welfare that stops people from taking low paying jobs. Do you really think that if welfare didn't exist there would be a rush of americans picking up all these minimum wage and low paying manual labor jobs because they wont be getting "handouts" anymore? Not sure about all of the united states. But in california go into any restaurant, whos is cooking? Go into any department store, who is cleaning it at night. Go onto any piece of farmland, who is working it? Who is doing pretty much any unskilled, low paying job? Immigrants. If welfare didnt exist, guess who would still be doing those jobs, immigrants because the american worker is lazy for the most part and just physically cant do those types of jobs. So what do you think is going to happen? More bums on the street, more americans living with their parents, more crime.

Quote:
You're thinking on such a short term. The answer is that the economy had a long way to drop, but it's running out of steam now. The amount of socialism an economy can tolerate depends on what foreign governments do. As their countries become more competitive, we have to respond or risk stagnation. Since the big socialist pushes of FDR, we've had mostly unending growth of social spending, but Europe has formed the EU to rein in their socialists, the USSR has collapsed, China has liberalized their economic policies and many third world countries have become more attractive to capital investment. In short, the competition has made big gains and we haven't kept up because welfare raised the cost of doing business here. We've lost many jobs and replaced many of them with lower paying jobs. We have unfunded liabilities in the form of the near-future SS and Medicare spending increases due to the retiring boomers.


It would be interesting to see how well the economies of countries with a lot of welfare programs are doing compared to the economies of countries with zero welfare programs. And welfare like we have it.

I mean how is sweden not collapsing under their welfare system? Or are they doomed too? how much time do we have left by the way, since you are aware that now its running out of steam because of welfare, you must know the timeline. Fucking swedes man. They ALL have healthcare, if they get good grades in school the government pays for it, for ALL of them. If they can't afford a house they get help. It's kinda crazy but that is just the tip of the iceberg with them. They are also some of the smartest people and happy overall. How the hell do they do it with all this fucking welfare being passed around?



1ball
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:07:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
Doesn't that have more to do with the fact that americans want to get paid too much for work?


More to do? Enough to do is what matters. The debt and the taxation required to pay for it are reasons that Americans demand higher pay, so they can cover their tax bill and compensate for the effects of the federal debt.

Quote:
Why not stop the import of foreign products that will put american manufactures out of business?


I'm going to assume you didn't read the economics lesson and in particular, Chapter 11. American consumers won't tolerate mercantilism. We believe we have the right to buy the cheapest or best value. Tariffs and other trade barriers would be imposed against the US if the US erected trade barriers against foreign trade. If we can't beat foreign products in competition on a level playing field, we're paying a premium to buy American products.

Quote: Welfare in the form of SS and Medicare rely on taxation of employers, which also raises the cost of doing business. This additional cost gets passed on to consumers, or reduces pay or opportunity for employees or results in business failure.

Quote:
Wasn't mush of a business if that causes your business to fail.


Lots of businesses operate on narrow margins, but the greater the cost of labor, the more the incentive to cut it out of the picture. Liberals have this pipe dream that business owners are just going to sit back and accept less profit for "the common good". Capital chases profit. If a labor intensive business become less profitable and the business can't get away with raising prices, it will try to find a way to make labor more efficient. If successful, that can mean fewer jobs or replacing high cost labor with low cost labor. If it can't do that, it might merge with another business and then "rightsize" (lay unnecessary people off).

Quote:
Welfare in the form of Cash For Clunkers style programs is a broken windows fallacy. See the economic text I linked to for an understanding of that. That program decreased the affordability of used cars by taking so many out of the market without reducing the demand.

Quote:
So if the demand for used cars is still there but the used car is a bit more expensive now because you cant get a 2,000 piece of shit anymore, that is bad for the economy?


Chapter 2.

Quote:
I don't think it's welfare that stops people from taking low paying jobs. Do you really think that if welfare didn't exist there would be a rush of americans picking up all these minimum wage and low paying manual labor jobs because they wont be getting "handouts" anymore?


Yes. They would prefer that to starving. They might also have fewer children or otherwise reduce their expenses.

Quote:
So what do you think is going to happen? More bums on the street, more americans living with their parents, more crime.


Dealing with crime is the purview of state governments. If the federal government was not providing welfare, then state governments would compete with each other more meaningfully. They would work harder to reduce the number on welfare or they would fail to compete with states that did.

Quote:
You're thinking on such a short term. The answer is that the economy had a long way to drop, but it's running out of steam now. The amount of socialism an economy can tolerate depends on what foreign governments do. As their countries become more competitive, we have to respond or risk stagnation. Since the big socialist pushes of FDR, we've had mostly unending growth of social spending, but Europe has formed the EU to rein in their socialists, the USSR has collapsed, China has liberalized their economic policies and many third world countries have become more attractive to capital investment. In short, the competition has made big gains and we haven't kept up because welfare raised the cost of doing business here. We've lost many jobs and replaced many of them with lower paying jobs. We have unfunded liabilities in the form of the near-future SS and Medicare spending increases due to the retiring boomers.


Quote:
It would be interesting to see how well the economies of countries with a lot of welfare programs are doing compared to the economies of countries with zero welfare programs. And welfare like we have it.


It isn't the quantity of welfare programs that matters. It's the amount of redistribution and the way it's accomplished.

Quote:
I mean how is sweden not collapsing under their welfare system? Or are they doomed too?


Sweden is a member of the EU. That makes it more like a US state than like a country. So that's really an apples to oranges comparison. The workers in Sweden can choose to move to and work in any of 20+ other countries without encountering immigration barriers. Likewise, if it gets too generous, it could attract freeriders from any of those 20+ countries. Those choices put a limit on how generous the government can be. In the US, the rich and the highly skilled can emigrate, but the low and unskilled labor isn't welcome anywhere else. The EU also imposes a debt limit on member states, similar to the balanced budget requirement for US states. Greece will probably soon exit the EU and lose the advantages of EU membership because its social programs are too generous.

Quote:
how much time do we have left by the way, since you are aware that now its running out of steam because of welfare, you must know the timeline.


Nobody knows. The dirty little secret is that an economy is a matter of confidence. It can evaporate overnight if investors lose faith in their ability to get a return on their investment. A worker will invest 1-2 weeks of labor and then demand a paycheck. An investor will simply hold back and wait for an opportunity that looks better, and that might be in another society. Much of what we call wealth is just the perception of a bright enough future. We know what causes the future to dim; the perception (by those who matter) of too much debt, no faith in the ability to pay it off, too little potential for reward at too much risk, too little gain for too much time and effort expended.

Quote:
Fucking swedes man. They ALL have healthcare, if they get good grades in school the government pays for it, for ALL of them. If they can't afford a house they get help. It's kinda crazy but that is just the tip of the iceberg with them. They are also some of the smartest people and happy overall. How the hell do they do it with all this fucking welfare being passed around?


Try to reproduce their system in a US state. That would be less of an apples to oranges comparison, but the federal government is in the way.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:45:29 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,908
Location: California
But why can't we just buy more money then?



Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:37:14 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,371
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


More to do? Enough to do is what matters. The debt and the taxation required to pay for it are reasons that Americans demand higher pay, so they can cover their tax bill and compensate for the effects of the federal debt.


Nonsense. People work for money to buy themselves things. Nobody wants to work for nothing. I doubt that you would work for nothing or take a job at minimum wage if you could find a job paying more. If people hate paying taxes so much, they could not work, like you, and pay none. Employers will pay the minimum amount that they can to get the job done. That doesn't mean any of us should work for wages that keep us in poverty. I work to pay my own bills, not the governments. I'd like to be paying the maximum amount of tax. I'd willingly pay 35% to make the amount that is taxed that amount.

1ball wrote:


Liberals have this pipe dream that business owners are just going to sit back and accept less profit for "the common good".


Everyone knows that businesses want to make as much profit as possible. That doesn't mean we have to work for nearly nothing so that they can get richer and richer off our labor. Why should I work for barely enough to live on to make it possible for some rich shareholder to have million dollar birthday parties for his kids. The reason that conservatives are so anti-labor is because they know that a unified labor force would make them pay an equatable wage. Conservatives have this pipe dream that only the well being of the ownership class is important and that the rest of us should happily be their slaves.

1ball wrote:

Yes. They would prefer that to starving. They might also have fewer children or otherwise reduce their expenses.


If the American dream to you is to not starve, then you're right. Let all the money fall into the hands of a very small percentage of the population. Then we can all do odd jobs for them for food, maybe the leftovers from their birthday parties.

You again demonstrate that you have no idea how economics work, or harbor any sense whatsoever of history.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:50:32 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,289
Location: Cakeland, United States
Further Romney Appraisal - more of his past illustrious Business acumen. --From Bloomberg (that liberal bastion of smear)

Mitt Romney has long had close ties to hotel operator Marriott International Inc. (MAR) The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, whose full name is Willard Mitt Romney, was named after the chain’s founder, J. Willard Marriott, a friend of his father. He joined the company’s board in 1993, and has served on it for 11 of the past 19 years, including six as chairman of the audit committee.

During Romney’s tenure as a Marriott director, the company repeatedly utilized complex tax-avoidance maneuvers, prompting at least two tangles with the Internal Revenue Service, records show. In 1994, while he headed the audit committee, Marriott used a tax shelter known to attorneys by its nickname: “Son of BOSS.”

(Amongst other questionable, unethical and borderline illegal activities) -wmm
<continued on site>

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:48:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Magical_felix wrote:
But why can't we just buy more money then?


That destroys confidence.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:27:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Quote: The debt and the taxation required to pay for it are reasons that Americans demand higher pay, so they can cover their tax bill and compensate for the effects of the federal debt.

CoopsRuthie wrote:
Nonsense. People work for money to buy themselves things. Nobody wants to work for nothing.


People demand higher pay so they can get higher take-home pay. Consequently the amount of taxation and price of what they wish to buy are relevant.

1ball wrote:Liberals have this pipe dream that business owners are just going to sit back and accept less profit for "the common good".

Quote:
Everyone knows that businesses want to make as much profit as possible. That doesn't mean we have to work for nearly nothing so that they can get richer and richer off our labor. Why should I work for barely enough to live on to make it possible for some rich shareholder to have million dollar birthday parties for his kids. The reason that conservatives are so anti-labor is because they know that a unified labor force would make them pay an equatable wage. Conservatives have this pipe dream that only the well being of the ownership class is important and that the rest of us should happily be their slaves.


When liberals attempt to dictate their worth to employers or the society, they harm the society. They cause abandonment and non-compliance. They won't ever accept blame for the harm they cause with their greed. They will instead blame the greed of those who take risks for the possibility of reward.

Quote:
Let all the money fall into the hands of a very small percentage of the population.


It's not exactly as if you you have many options. You can 1) leave, 2) live and let live, or 3)hurt yourself by trying to dictate your worth to the market. Repeatedly choosing option 3 and expecting different results is mental illness.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:44:18 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
Magical_felix wrote:


You should care.. its a major judgement error. A man that doest even realize mom jeans look fucking horrible on him wont see the forrest through the trees on other issues. He cant make the simplest of choices. Look at those fucking jeans. Its a joke.



Really kind'a creeps me out that you keep checking Romney's pants.puke

RM

"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:52:16 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:
When liberals attempt to dictate their worth to employers or the society, they harm the society. They cause abandonment and non-compliance. They won't ever accept blame for the harm they cause with their greed. They will instead blame the greed of those who take risks for the possibility of reward.


And this, in a nutshell, is why so many conservatives can't even see things from the non-'job creator' point of view, much less empathize with it. In conservative-world, things would be so much better if the labor force would just shut the hell up, keep their heads down, and be grateful for what we give them. And if we can convince them that any efforts they organize and make towards raising their standards of living will actually lower their standards of living, then we can run this racket unimpeded over the long term.

It's sort of genius, to the extent that people fall for it.
RobinMaxwell760
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:53:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/9/2012
Posts: 79
Location: Second star to the right...straight on til morning
CoopsRuthie,

There is no way the founder ever have a PBS station in mind when they wrote "General Welfare", they knew if things got to twisted that everything could be justified under the "general welfare" provision.

The "general welfare" the founders were talking about ment trade agreements with other powers, stability of bourders, coining money, improving harbors for trade. Not a Kermit and Grover sing a-long paid for by taxpayers.

If PBS is needed and viable then let it be fully funded by donations, no taxpayer money.
Romney just doesn't want tax dollars paying for it in these economic times, you are free to donate your little heart out to keep it going.

RM



"I understand that 'Shit happens'! I don't under stand why I have to be under it when it does!!!"
RM
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:58:22 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: When liberals attempt to dictate their worth to employers or the society, they harm the society. They cause abandonment and non-compliance. They won't ever accept blame for the harm they cause with their greed. They will instead blame the greed of those who take risks for the possibility of reward.

LadyX wrote:
And this, in a nutshell, is why so many conservatives can't even see things from the non-'job creator' point of view, much less empathize with it. In conservative-world, things would be so much better if the labor force would just shut the hell up, keep their heads down, and be grateful for what we give them. And if we can convince them that any efforts they organize and make towards raising their standards of living will actually lower their standards of living, then we can run this racket unimpeded over the long term.

It's sort of genius, to the extent that people fall for it.


See what I mean about not accepting the blame? Big Labor drove the cost of American made goods and services up and up until a bubble burst and now they're still trying to dictate their value to a labor market they helped expand to every reach of the globe. Whining about the haves and using government to try to take from them caused non-compliance by consumers of goods and services and abandonment by those who saw opportunity elsewhere. Complain all you want about people not seeing things from your point and view and not having enough empathy for your plight, but that and about $3 will still only buy you a Happy Meal.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:00:02 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:
1ball wrote: When liberals attempt to dictate their worth to employers or the society, they harm the society. They cause abandonment and non-compliance. They won't ever accept blame for the harm they cause with their greed. They will instead blame the greed of those who take risks for the possibility of reward.



See what I mean about not accepting the blame? Big Labor drove the cost of American made goods and services up and up until a bubble burst and now they're still trying to dictate their value to a labor market they helped expand to every reach of the globe. Whining about the haves and using government to try to take from them caused non-compliance by consumers of goods and services and abandonment by those who saw opportunity elsewhere. Complain all you want about people not seeing things from your point and view and not having enough empathy for your plight, but that and about $3 will still only buy you a Happy Meal.


Happy meals are way overpriced, dude.

It's not my plight, or even my point of view, btw. I'm just able to see things from a perspective unlike my own.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:09:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


Happy meals are way overpriced, dude.


I wouldn't know. I haven't eaten at Mickey D's since well before they had Happy Meals.

Quote:
It's not my plight, or even my point of view, btw. I'm just able to see things from a perspective unlike my own.


Regardless of point of view, the labor market is as it is and people are hurting themselves by believing they can form a gang and dictate to it. Is it "butthurt"? They definitely screwed themselves. Maybe it was more like a pyramid scheme. The first generations of Big Labor, got the benefit due to lack of global competition. Now their kids and grandkids got their tubesnake enema.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:18:57 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:

Maybe it was more like a pyramid scheme. The first generations of Big Labor, got the benefit due to lack of global competition.


True. It's really a shame that workers were able to find leverage and that dangerous working conditions and slave-like wages weren't able to be preserved. Oh to think, how much more wealth could've been siphoned off the working classes and consolidated if not for that. What a dark day in American history.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:26:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
True. It's really a shame that workers were able to find leverage and that dangerous working conditions and slave-like wages weren't able to be preserved. Oh to think, how much more wealth could've been siphoned off the working classes and consolidated if not for that. What a dark day in American history.


I agree. The violation of the rights of workers and employees to freedom of association, while producing temporary benefits in a closed system, raised costs and screwed future generations. I'm glad I don't have kids.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.