The hype kind of proves the point, though. There is incredible hype surrounding him because he created it. He's incredibly charismatic.
and that means exactly nothing when it comes to the success of running a country. it just means that people will get excited about what he says regardless of if it is a good plan or a poor one.
The conundrum here - a really this issue is a microcosom of this entire thread throughout it's history - is that you and I (and lots of other people on this thread) are going to have very different ideas about what it means to be "successful" in running a country.
Yea, but if you want to see what happens when liberalism "successfully" runs an entire government, just look at the state of the economy in California. It's like a glimpse into our nations future.
dont forget detroit.
Exactly! If liberalism worked, California would be the richest and most prosperous state in the country. But instead, they are in the crapper and Texas, one of the most conservative states, has a strong healthy economy and one of the lowest poverty rates and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Hmmm... How did that happen if socialism is so freakin great??
Why is it you always pull r vs. d, conservatism vs. liberalism into a question/debate?
I'm not arguing in favor of "liberal" success. I'm a conservative. I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined. Sure there will be areas of agreement, and lots and lots of areas of disagreement.
By the way, a quick check found Texas does have a RELATIVELY low unemployment ranking (14th) and an even higher poverty ranking (9th). California has a higher unemployment ranking (47th) but a much lower poverty ranking (23rd). So all I've gleaned from that a greater percentage of people are working in Texas than in California, but they're working for peanuts and maybe can't even put food on the table. Not quite the scenario you painted.
I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined.
mine is simple.
Freedom.
thats freedom to succeed and freedom to fail; and to do so with no government intervention. the only time the Government will ever do anything is when a person has their individual rights violated. that is government done right.
The hype kind of proves the point, though. There is incredible hype surrounding him because he created it. He's incredibly charismatic.
and that means exactly nothing when it comes to the success of running a country. it just means that people will get excited about what he says regardless of if it is a good plan or a poor one.
The conundrum here - a really this issue is a microcosom of this entire thread throughout it's history - is that you and I (and lots of other people on this thread) are going to have very different ideas about what it means to be "successful" in running a country.
Yea, but if you want to see what happens when liberalism "successfully" runs an entire government, just look at the state of the economy in California. It's like a glimpse into our nations future.
dont forget detroit.
Exactly! If liberalism worked, California would be the richest and most prosperous state in the country. But instead, they are in the crapper and Texas, one of the most conservative states, has a strong healthy economy and one of the lowest poverty rates and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Hmmm... How did that happen if socialism is so freakin great??
Why is it you always pull r vs. d, conservatism vs. liberalism into a question/debate?
I'm not arguing in favor of "liberal" success. I'm a conservative. I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined. Sure there will be areas of agreement, and lots and lots of areas of disagreement.
By the way, a quick check found Texas does have a RELATIVELY low unemployment ranking (14th) and an even higher poverty ranking (9th). California has a higher unemployment ranking (47th) but a much lower poverty ranking (23rd). So all I've gleaned from that a greater percentage of people are working in Texas than in California, but they're working for peanuts and maybe can't even put food on the table. Not quite the scenario you painted.
But I know people in Texas that live below the poverty line that live in, and pay for themselves, 3 bedroom homes. You won't find that in California because the cost of living is through the roof. I wasn't attacking you with the references about liberals as much as making a statement about or origional conversation. Please don't take it that I was going after you with that, just making a statement.
The hype kind of proves the point, though. There is incredible hype surrounding him because he created it. He's incredibly charismatic.
and that means exactly nothing when it comes to the success of running a country. it just means that people will get excited about what he says regardless of if it is a good plan or a poor one.
The conundrum here - a really this issue is a microcosom of this entire thread throughout it's history - is that you and I (and lots of other people on this thread) are going to have very different ideas about what it means to be "successful" in running a country.
Yea, but if you want to see what happens when liberalism "successfully" runs an entire government, just look at the state of the economy in California. It's like a glimpse into our nations future.
dont forget detroit.
Exactly! If liberalism worked, California would be the richest and most prosperous state in the country. But instead, they are in the crapper and Texas, one of the most conservative states, has a strong healthy economy and one of the lowest poverty rates and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. Hmmm... How did that happen if socialism is so freakin great??
Why is it you always pull r vs. d, conservatism vs. liberalism into a question/debate?
I'm not arguing in favor of "liberal" success. I'm a conservative. I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined. Sure there will be areas of agreement, and lots and lots of areas of disagreement.
By the way, a quick check found Texas does have a RELATIVELY low unemployment ranking (14th) and an even higher poverty ranking (9th). California has a higher unemployment ranking (47th) but a much lower poverty ranking (23rd). So all I've gleaned from that a greater percentage of people are working in Texas than in California, but they're working for peanuts and maybe can't even put food on the table. Not quite the scenario you painted.
But I know people in Texas that live below the poverty line that live in, and pay for themselves, 3 bedroom homes. You won't find that in California because the cost of living is through the roof. I wasn't attacking you with the references about liberals as much as making a statement about or origional conversation. Please don't take it that I was going after you with that, just making a statement.
What can I say, I'm sensitive...I know, I know, Maddy...I'll turn in my man card. The real question is, why would you live in California OR Texas when you could live in PA...now that's a state. Granted, we have a big fat, greasy slob of a pig for a governor, but that'll change soon enough.
I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined.
mine is simple.
Freedom.
thats freedom to succeed and freedom to fail; and to do so with no government intervention. the only time the Government will ever do anything is when a person has their individual rights violated. that is government done right.
This is exactly how I feel about this whole mess. That's pretty much all I have to say about it. I'd rather not delve too deep and show my ignorance on these subjects, lol.
to me this all translates to: run your company more inefficiently or we will force you to pay a penalty. the only way a corporation can incur this cost is to raise prices on everything they sell/do or by laying off employees
I think that having a country run from corporate entities is what is going to keep pushing the country further and further down that path. It seems as though people just want "money" and even though it is against what is right. I so very much hope that this can be turned around...
I think that having a country run from corporate entities is what is going to keep pushing the country further and further down that path. It seems as though people just want "money" and even though it is against what is right. I so very much hope that this can be turned around...
that is a fundimental lack of understanding of what socialism is. a country with very strong private sector corporations is not socialist. it cannot be. it cannot force socialism into being. it is the antithesis of socialism. when governments take over corporations run them and fund them with tax revenue THAT is socialism. the government tells that corporation what to do; how to operate. this isnt just ofr corporations. small companies can be taken over by the government as well. it is an abuse of government power and a violation of the rights of the people that have made that company. (large or small) as long as the company has not violated the rights of others, it is none of the governments business what the heck they do.
Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy just what we need. make it harder to make and save money. that will sure bring more people out of poverty. this just looks like more class envy BS. take money from the most productive and educated people and give it to the people that produce the least. yeah, THATS sustainable. the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the collective.
I think that having a country run from corporate entities is what is going to keep pushing the country further and further down that path. It seems as though people just want "money" and even though it is against what is right. I so very much hope that this can be turned around...
Kuzi had a good response to this. A Corporation can't force you to do anything. They can't take the money out of your check before you ever get it, they can't force you to buy from a certain company, they can't force you to do ANYTHING. All they can do is make a product or service and market it, produce it, sell it, produce more and more of it, and make it the best product on the market. This process creates a lot of jobs, and provides a lot of money to people who want to work and be productive members of society. The country isn't and never has been run by corporations. In a free capitolist society the country can never be run by Corporations.
I think that having a country run from corporate entities is what is going to keep pushing the country further and further down that path. It seems as though people just want "money" and even though it is against what is right. I so very much hope that this can be turned around...
Kuzi had a good response to this. A Corporation can't force you to do anything. They can't take the money out of your check before you ever get it, they can't force you to buy from a certain company, they can't force you to do ANYTHING. All they can do is make a product or service and market it, produce it, sell it, produce more and more of it, and make it the best product on the market. This process creates a lot of jobs, and provides a lot of money to people who want to work and be productive members of society. The country isn't and never has been run by corporations. In a free capitolist society the country can never be run by Corporations.
puro, just look at the billions of money these large companies are paying to senators and congress to keep good legislation from being passed! or should I say legislation that will begin to fix things, such as health care, Dependantcy from oil, campaign reform..... Or if people would just vote for people who don't take their money, though it is so easy for people to get on the ballet too... Money is it. If corporations weren't "running" things than health care would have been fixed long ago, look at medicare! the evidence is all over the place. I would really love for there to be a LARGE investigation in money seanators and congressmen get from companies and whether or not their votes are solely in the position for the companies that are paying. A good example is how the latest Health care meetings were set up and who was there... oh all the insurance companies and hmo's, but hell single payer advocates were arrested!!! wow, what a concept. let's throw them in jail, let's reject their organization, but hey, they'd bring way more than what these current companies would bring. Hundreds of doctors and nurses don't know what their talking about.....
Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy just what we need. make it harder to make and save money. that will sure bring more people out of poverty. this just looks like more class envy BS. take money from the most productive and educated people and give it to the people that produce the least. yeah, THATS sustainable. the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the collective.
Just because you are rich doesn't make you productive and educated. Just as an example how is undermining the United States by moving manufacturing out of country going to help it? that doesn't make much sense for a company, oh it does if the country which you are based out of doesn't have any restrictions (thank you bill clinton and other republicans) and taxes on those products that are being shipped overseas to be made only to be brought right back and sold not to mention all the jobs that were lost. So yeah tax the hell out of them. The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars. We once use to be a major exporter and manufacturing society, now since so many years of loop holes and less and less restrictions then ultimately NAFTA our country has shriveled. But hey few people are billionaires!
As an example of how some republicans like to use "fear" tactics if that is what you want to call it, there are other names....
Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian accused in two American Embassy bombings a decade ago, pleaded not guilty — in English — in a brief but historic federal court hearing that transported him from open-ended military detention to the civilian criminal justice system.
President Barack Obama has said keeping Ghailani from coming to the United States "would prevent his trial and conviction." Taking a drastically different stance, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio labeled Tuesday's move "the first step in the Democrats' plan to import terrorists into America."
While in a committee another Republican went so far as to say that Obama wanted to brink terrorists inside the united states, free them and put them among populations, give them rights under the constitution and pay them. WTF? yeah... Well that's just a "example" of how some of these people are so friggin' ignorant that they just spew crap out. Another one that I love is about national health-care, as a lot of Republicans have said, that there would be a buracrat between people and their doctors and that it would ruin the system. yeah, well right now there is a bean counter and a friggin company that tells people what they can and can't do or even cancel people's insurance when ever they want. Well I've had health care from the Govt and I'd take that over the "system" now. I know that not all Republicans are this way but the few that are have the reins and are driving the party. Though I can compare several Dem. with the crazies Rep out there, the a-hole on the health care committee is one of them, senator bockus can suck a dirty nut!
Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy just what we need. make it harder to make and save money. that will sure bring more people out of poverty. this just looks like more class envy BS. take money from the most productive and educated people and give it to the people that produce the least. yeah, THATS sustainable. the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the collective.
Just because you are rich doesn't make you productive and educated.
true. look at paris hilton
however, on average, the people who are making the most money are the ones that are providing a good or service that is in high demand or that only they can do. Paris didnt make that much money of her own. but her parents did. they provided a service that many many people use.
phobicsquirrel:
Just as an example how is undermining the United States by moving manufacturing out of country going to help it?
because they pay lower taxes in other countries. the US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. so what you are asking is "how is spending less money on taxes going to help the company?" the answer to that is: if they paid less taex, they could afford to hire more people and create more goods and be more productive and make more money that will be cycling through the system
phobicsquirrel:
The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting.
partially because of union leaders and their greed
phobicsquirrel:
The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars. We once use to be a major exporter and manufacturing society, now since so many years of loop holes and less and less restrictions then ultimately NAFTA our country has shriveled. But hey few people are billionaires!
correction: but now after so many years of tax hikes and punishing companies by forcing them to do impractical things for the business, our country has shriveled.
just look at the billions of money these large companies are paying to senators and congress to keep good legislation from being passed! or should I say legislation that will begin to fix things, such as health care, Dependantcy from oil, campaign reform.....
in a way you are right. companies should not interfere with the government. but in the same right, government should not meddle in the business of business. forcing corporations to provide health care will either lower wages, or cause greater unemployment. If we would drill our own damn oil fields we wouldnt be dependent. but somehow our government is the only one in the world that wont let its citizens use its own natural resources. Campaign reform....? i cant speak too much on that with out knowing what exactly you mean by that.
phobicsquirrel:
Or if people would just vote for people who don't take their money, though it is so easy for people to get on the ballet too... Money is it. If corporations weren't "running" things than health care would have been fixed long ago,
false.
it is the government in health care that IS the problem. the regulations are forcing the market to charge higher prices to cover the new costs.
phobicsquirrel:
look at medicare!
yes look at it. look how it is failing horribly. look how it is an unsustainable program. look how much it costs to keep going. then imagine that nightmare on a national scale.
just look at the billions of money these large companies are paying to senators and congress to keep good legislation from being passed! or should I say legislation that will begin to fix things, such as health care, Dependantcy from oil, campaign reform.....
in a way you are right. companies should not interfere with the government. but in the same right, government should not meddle in the business of business. forcing corporations to provide health care will either lower wages, or cause greater unemployment. If we would drill our own damn oil fields we wouldnt be dependent. but somehow our government is the only one in the world that wont let its citizens use its own natural resources. Campaign reform....? i cant speak too much on that with out knowing what exactly you mean by that.
phobicsquirrel:
Or if people would just vote for people who don't take their money, though it is so easy for people to get on the ballet too... Money is it. If corporations weren't "running" things than health care would have been fixed long ago,
false.
it is the government in health care that IS the problem. the regulations are forcing the market to charge higher prices to cover the new costs.
phobicsquirrel:
look at medicare!
yes look at it. look how it is failing horribly. look how it is an unsustainable program. look how much it costs to keep going. then imagine that nightmare on a national scale.
lol, you think that companies would fix health care. Sure (under bush companies had some of the most un-restricted reign in a long long time, and where did that take things.... yeah to the shitter. but keep believing the talking heads). Well that about does it for me. I'm obviously wasting my time here. So it's the govt's fault. Kuzi your an informed guy and pretty smart but on this your way off. Defending large corporations especially saying that they would be better off without any govt oversight and that things would be cheaper is just not so.
"The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars."
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
"The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars."
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
Unions are at fault? yeah that's what rush and bill have been saying... no truth to it but believe what you want puro. Because companies have cared so much for employees like firing them, moving jobs, and cutting pay and benifits. while still making major profits.... (not saying unions are a godsend, as there has been a lot of corruption in some of them. A local one that is at PGE is one of them.)
"The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars."
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
Unions are at fault? yeah that's what rush and bill have been saying... no truth to it but believe what you want puro. Because companies have cared so much for employees.... (not saying unions are a godsend, as there has been a lot of corruption in some of them. A local one that is at PGE is one of them.)
Philips Lighting Company plant in Paris Texas. Union run plant. Got rid of all but 6 people out of over 50 because they couldn't afford to pay them. The Union had a chance to cut the company some slack, but when they demand the guy that sweeps the floor and takes out the trash be paid $15 and hour for a minimum of 4 hours a day no matter how long it actually takes him, then yes. The Union is 100% to blame. My ex-fiance was the HR Manager for this plant. This is one of MANY MANY MANY MANY cases of Unions destroying a company through greed and an entitlement mentality. That mentality is also what is destroying our country. "The government owes me food, healthcare, welfare, a new car..." Unions do the same thing to companies. I didn't get that from Rush fucking Liimbaugh or anyone else. I know for a fact it's true.
"The manufacturing base in the country down right is crap, and one of the reasons why our economy is hurting. The United States should make it's own products and grow it's own food, that brings in dollars."
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
Unions are at fault? yeah that's what rush and bill have been saying... no truth to it but believe what you want puro. Because companies have cared so much for employees.... (not saying unions are a godsend, as there has been a lot of corruption in some of them. A local one that is at PGE is one of them.)
Philips Lighting Company plant in Paris Texas. Union run plant. Got rid of all but 6 people out of over 50 because they couldn't afford to pay them. The Union had a chance to cut the company some slack, but when they demand the guy that sweeps the floor and takes out the trash be paid $15 and hour for a minimum of 4 hours a day no matter how long it actually takes him, then yes. The Union is 100% to blame. My ex-fiance was the HR Manager for this plant. This is one of MANY MANY MANY MANY cases of Unions destroying a company through greed and an entitlement mentality. That mentality is also what is destroying our country. "The government owes me food, healthcare, welfare, a new car..." Unions do the same thing to companies. I didn't get that from Rush fucking Liimbaugh or anyone else. I know for a fact it's true.
the first $2000 dollars of every car made by UAW companies goes to paying for union demands. tell me that had nothing to do with GM And Chrysler going bankrupt.
the union demands health care. the union demands higher wages. the union demands raises every year. the union demands excessive retirement plans. the union demands that people get paid no matter how productive/unproductive they are. all of those things cost money. money that has to be made up by raising the prices of the goods they produce. this causes people to buy less of that product. so you combine the worst things you can ever have in a business: mandated higher costs and slower sales.
Comments
I'm not arguing in favor of "liberal" success. I'm a conservative. I just think Kuzi and I (and anyone else here really) are going to have very different ideas about how success on the part of the government is defined. Sure there will be areas of agreement, and lots and lots of areas of disagreement.
By the way, a quick check found Texas does have a RELATIVELY low unemployment ranking (14th) and an even higher poverty ranking (9th). California has a higher unemployment ranking (47th) but a much lower poverty ranking (23rd). So all I've gleaned from that a greater percentage of people are working in Texas than in California, but they're working for peanuts and maybe can't even put food on the table. Not quite the scenario you painted.
Freedom.
thats freedom to succeed and freedom to fail; and to do so with no government intervention. the only time the Government will ever do anything is when a person has their individual rights violated. that is government done right.
i live in the snow belt of ohio.
now that summer is here, i kind of miss it.
American descent into Marxism happening with breathtaking speed'...
Source: Russian Online News, Pravda.Ru
Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons.
that alonw will cause the cost of health care to soar.
to me this all translates to: run your company more inefficiently or we will force you to pay a penalty.
the only way a corporation can incur this cost is to raise prices on everything they sell/do or by laying off employees
...even though you cant prove that humans caused global warming...
and
Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy
just what we need. make it harder to make and save money. that will sure bring more people out of poverty.
this just looks like more class envy BS. take money from the most productive and educated people and give it to the people that produce the least. yeah, THATS sustainable.
the individual will not endlessly work for the benefit of the collective.
money is a representation of work. you do "X" job, you get "Y" money. how can this concept be "evil"
this is just promoting productivity.
iduno... its the beginning of a thought. i wanna think on this more and then comment more later if i remember to.
Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian accused in two American Embassy bombings a decade ago, pleaded not guilty — in English — in a brief but historic federal court hearing that transported him from open-ended military detention to the civilian criminal justice system. President Barack Obama has said keeping Ghailani from coming to the United States "would prevent his trial and conviction." Taking a drastically different stance, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio labeled Tuesday's move "the first step in the Democrats' plan to import terrorists into America."
While in a committee another Republican went so far as to say that Obama wanted to brink terrorists inside the united states, free them and put them among populations, give them rights under the constitution and pay them. WTF? yeah... Well that's just a "example" of how some of these people are so friggin' ignorant that they just spew crap out. Another one that I love is about national health-care, as a lot of Republicans have said, that there would be a buracrat between people and their doctors and that it would ruin the system. yeah, well right now there is a bean counter and a friggin company that tells people what they can and can't do or even cancel people's insurance when ever they want. Well I've had health care from the Govt and I'd take that over the "system" now. I know that not all Republicans are this way but the few that are have the reins and are driving the party. Though I can compare several Dem. with the crazies Rep out there, the a-hole on the health care committee is one of them, senator bockus can suck a dirty nut!
it is the government in health care that IS the problem. the regulations are forcing the market to charge higher prices to cover the new costs. yes look at it. look how it is failing horribly. look how it is an unsustainable program. look how much it costs to keep going. then imagine that nightmare on a national scale.
I agree with this statement 110%!!! The only thing is you have a strange way of correcting this problem that I don't agree with. Your solution is to punish the corporations but that is the reason so much of our production has gone overseas to begin with. Offer major tax breaks for companies that stay here in our country, offer LESS government involvment in the companies and last but certainly not least, DO AWAY WITH UNIONS! That last thing will never happen, but unions are directly responsible for a hundreds of companies going under. Unions served a purpose years ago, but they have outlived their usefulness.
the union demands health care. the union demands higher wages. the union demands raises every year. the union demands excessive retirement plans. the union demands that people get paid no matter how productive/unproductive they are. all of those things cost money. money that has to be made up by raising the prices of the goods they produce. this causes people to buy less of that product. so you combine the worst things you can ever have in a business: mandated higher costs and slower sales.
how are unions not biting the hand that feeds?