Post: #76

(10-04-2013 12:46 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Some of his policy decisions have been pretty disappointing. HC, have you listened to Cornell West's criticism of Obama?

Yeah. Dr. West and Tavis Smiley have been hard on Obama since day one. By their own admission, they say that's their job to draw the president's (any president) attention to the issues facing minorities and African-Americans in particular.

But check out the video in my last post. You can see parallels with the criticism from his black classmates in school with those who criticize him today. He's the same guy.

Post: #77

(10-04-2013 12:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

The rich pay the most because the rich hoard the most money. Am I supposed to feel sorry for their predicament? That's what happens when the richest 400 families own more wealth than 50% of the ENTIRE country.

I'm curious, do things like this even bother you? At all?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...2493.story

I feel like for Republicans and Libertarians, even putting the issue of economic equity on the table is taboo. It's as if it's a subject that shouldn't even be breached. Like talking about masturbation in church. Anywhere else in the world people would be protesting in the streets. I think that the protestant ethic is why Americans, even many poor ones humbly accept the vast disparities of wealth in this country. Because we have been conditioned to believe that if you are rich, you are virtuous and hard-working(which often is the case, though sometimes not), and if you are poor or struggling, you're just lazy and unworthy and it's some failure on your part that you are not rich. And of course there are plenty of examples where that is the case. But there are people that worked hard their whole life and then had their job shipped overseas and they end up losing their house, and thus most their biggest nest-egg.

I realize there's only so much you can do about wealth inequality without turning into a Hugo Chavez and seizing everyone's property, which I don't want. But I think the issue has to at least be put on the table for serious national discussion and we need to figure out why the economy is only growing at the top and how we can make this trickle down, because it is NOT trickling down as Reaganomics promised.

I dedicated and sacrificed many years to build my own business while others are more interested in purchasing the next iphone or other non essential things.

My money goes into my business and soon will go into other investments.

Because of this, I will become more and more wealthy while the people spending all their money on Macs will cry how life isn't fair and the rich owes them more stuff. Their tears don't bother me so much.

Not all rich people got there by robbing America yet many seem to group them all together. Sorry, but I come from a belief that you can rise above if you truly want too. Most people won't put in the dedication needed. Honestly, I don't know if I would want to go through what I have been through if I had to decide again.

Post: #78

(10-04-2013 12:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

I realize there's only so much you can do about wealth inequality without turning into a Hugo Chavez and seizing everyone's property, which I don't want. But I think the issue has to at least be put on the table for serious national discussion and we need to figure out why the economy is only growing at the top and how we can make this trickle down, because it is NOT trickling down as Reaganomics promised.

Speak, I kind of hear what you're saying but those good days of relatively easy upward mobility are gone bro. The economy is global now and that means competition from all over. No one gives a fuck about your finances or that of millions of other people. The wealthy have had government in a headlock (as they should and as any of us would in their position).

There's really no moral sympathy to be had about this. Besides, rich is relative. Billions of people overseas would be happy to trade places with you.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Post: #79

(10-04-2013 12:57 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Speak, I kind of hear what you're saying but those good days of relatively easy upward mobility are gone bro. The economy is global now and that means competition from all over. No one gives a fuck about your finances or that of millions of other people. The wealthy have had government in a headlock (as they should and as any of us would in their position).

There's really no moral sympathy to be had about this. Besides, rich is relative. Billions of people overseas would be happy to trade places with you.

The global economy is a huge advantage and many people became so much more richer because of it.

Why worry about competition so much? If there is competition there is money to be made. Too me, that sounds more like an excuse to not even try.

Why should people care about your finances? I doubt you want people to tell you how to spend your money so why should they care? Most people spend and only invest in some retirement fund. That won't get you rich. It seems like a double standard to me.

Those questions weren't directed to you HC but in general. Too many rums and trying to be coherent is a bad thing. haha

Post: #80

(10-04-2013 12:57 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

I would argue that there are a damn sight more than 3 billion people on earth who can't read English.

Just sayin'.

Post: #81

This thread needs more brian

Post: #82

(10-04-2013 12:10 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 11:07 PM)McQueensPlayboyRules Wrote:  There's a word for fucking the rich and "taxing them to death" and it does not fucking work. Period.

It's called....

Socialism.

Good to know we have socialists on this forum.

Don't come banging on my door when shit hits the fan.

Top marginal tax rate in the USA under Eisenhower was 91%, it's now a tick under 40% under Obama. Was Eisenhower a socialist?

Of course that doesn't mean the rich in the 50s paid anywhere near that amount of their effective income in tax since so much of the income of the wealthy comes from capital gains.

Look man, I like you, but listen up...even Warren Buffet admits out his own mouth that he is taxed at effectively a lower rate than his secretary, even though he's the 2nd richest man in the country. Is this really fair?? Why should super rich people be able to have lower effective tax rates than the rest of us just because they are able to make their money through capital gains rather than wages like most of us peons? Do we really want to live in a country that looks more like a Latin America nation where 1% owns 99% of the resources? Well it's getting more and more like that every year.

Warren Buffet is a big govt. socialist who wants to crush his competition in the middle class. Like most of the elite wealthy he wants to buy and control the govt. to crush the middle class.

Of course the wealth disparity is getting worse. We have a socialist feminist president and his socialist feminist party is largely in charge of the country. What happens in socialist countries? You have a tiny fraction of extremely wealthy and a HUGE lower class. That is what Obama and the Democrats are successfully doing today, and the Republicans are not much better with their military spending.

Post: #83

(10-04-2013 12:53 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

The rich pay the most because the rich hoard the most money. Am I supposed to feel sorry for their predicament? That's what happens when the richest 400 families own more wealth than 50% of the ENTIRE country.

I'm curious, do things like this even bother you? At all?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...2493.story

I feel like for Republicans and Libertarians, even putting the issue of economic equity on the table is taboo. It's as if it's a subject that shouldn't even be breached. Like talking about masturbation in church. Anywhere else in the world people would be protesting in the streets. I think that the protestant ethic is why Americans, even many poor ones humbly accept the vast disparities of wealth in this country. Because we have been conditioned to believe that if you are rich, you are virtuous and hard-working(which often is the case, though sometimes not), and if you are poor or struggling, you're just lazy and unworthy and it's some failure on your part that you are not rich. And of course there are plenty of examples where that is the case. But there are people that worked hard their whole life and then had their job shipped overseas and they end up losing their house, and thus most their biggest nest-egg.

I realize there's only so much you can do about wealth inequality without turning into a Hugo Chavez and seizing everyone's property, which I don't want. But I think the issue has to at least be put on the table for serious national discussion and we need to figure out why the economy is only growing at the top and how we can make this trickle down, because it is NOT trickling down as Reaganomics promised.

I dedicated and sacrificed many years to build my own business while others are more interested in purchasing the next iphone or other non essential things.

My money goes into my business and soon will go into other investments.

Because of this, I will become more and more wealthy while the people spending all their money on Macs will cry how life isn't fair and the rich owes them more stuff. Their tears don't bother me so much.

Not all rich people got there by robbing America yet many seem to group them all together. Sorry, but I come from a belief that you can rise above if you truly want too. Most people won't put in the dedication needed. Honestly, I don't know if I would want to go through what I have been through if I had to decide again.

Yes, and once again, I was careful not to make blanket statements such as all people who become rich are dishonest. I don't even put people like you in the problematic category. Where wealth becomes problematic is where it becomes intermingled with policy and powerful lobbies basically write our laws for us and have puppets in government on their bankroll to rig the system in their favor. It's the reason will we never have single-payer healthcare. The insurance lobby is just too powerful to allow that to happen. We will never be able to import cheaper drugs from other countries, because the powerful Pharma lobby blocks all attempts to do this, even if it will benefit the average person. This is the result of too much concentrated wealth. There are some quick fixes the will at least help. For example, we could lower taxes on income, and raise them on capital gains. It's middle class spending that is what keeps the economy going. More money in their pocket is good for the economy. Since wealth isn't trickling down from the top, more money in the hands of the rich is not good for the economy.

Post: #84

(10-04-2013 01:43 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:53 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:48 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 12:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  The rich pay around 70% of all taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 90%? Hell, maybe they should pay 100%.

The rich pay the most because the rich hoard the most money. Am I supposed to feel sorry for their predicament? That's what happens when the richest 400 families own more wealth than 50% of the ENTIRE country.

I'm curious, do things like this even bother you? At all?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...2493.story

I feel like for Republicans and Libertarians, even putting the issue of economic equity on the table is taboo. It's as if it's a subject that shouldn't even be breached. Like talking about masturbation in church. Anywhere else in the world people would be protesting in the streets. I think that the protestant ethic is why Americans, even many poor ones humbly accept the vast disparities of wealth in this country. Because we have been conditioned to believe that if you are rich, you are virtuous and hard-working(which often is the case, though sometimes not), and if you are poor or struggling, you're just lazy and unworthy and it's some failure on your part that you are not rich. And of course there are plenty of examples where that is the case. But there are people that worked hard their whole life and then had their job shipped overseas and they end up losing their house, and thus most their biggest nest-egg.

I realize there's only so much you can do about wealth inequality without turning into a Hugo Chavez and seizing everyone's property, which I don't want. But I think the issue has to at least be put on the table for serious national discussion and we need to figure out why the economy is only growing at the top and how we can make this trickle down, because it is NOT trickling down as Reaganomics promised.

I dedicated and sacrificed many years to build my own business while others are more interested in purchasing the next iphone or other non essential things.

My money goes into my business and soon will go into other investments.

Because of this, I will become more and more wealthy while the people spending all their money on Macs will cry how life isn't fair and the rich owes them more stuff. Their tears don't bother me so much.

Not all rich people got there by robbing America yet many seem to group them all together. Sorry, but I come from a belief that you can rise above if you truly want too. Most people won't put in the dedication needed. Honestly, I don't know if I would want to go through what I have been through if I had to decide again.

Yes, and once again, I was careful not to make blanket statements such as all people who become rich are dishonest. I don't even put people like you in the problematic category. Where wealth becomes problematic is where it becomes intermingled with policy and powerful lobbies basically write our laws for us and have puppets in government on their bankroll to rig the system in their favor. It's the reason will we never have single-payer healthcare. The insurance lobby is just too powerful to allow that to happen. We will never be able to import cheaper drugs from other countries, because the powerful Pharma lobby blocks all attempts to do this, even if it will benefit the average person. This is the result of too much concentrated wealth.

Conservatives would say this is a problem associated with government, not wealth. The solution to the conservative would thus be to decrease the size of the corrupt state apparatus.

Post: #85

Anybody else bothered by the fact that these pussies shot the car full of bullets when they knew there was a fucking baby in the car? And the driver didn't even have a gun?

We sure as shit ain't in Mayberry anymore, people.

Post: #86

(10-04-2013 01:42 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Warren Buffet is a big govt. socialist who wants to crush his competition in the middle class. Like most of the elite wealthy he wants to buy and control the govt. to crush the middle class.

Do you ever debate or discuss without engaging in hyperbole? Since the time you have joined all you harp on about is socialist feminist government this and the government wants to destroy the middle class that? No the government doesn't want to destroy the middle class. They want the middle class to prosper because the middle class pays taxes. Big business wants to weaken the middle class because it creates job insecurity and allows them to depress wages. The government would actually rather people have working full-time and paying more taxes than working part-time and relying on government programs and running up the deficit.

I think the core of your arguments is something I would agree with to an extent but you are so caught up in the socialist this and that and the government wants to destroy the middle class. That is laughable.

Post: #87

(10-04-2013 01:47 AM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Conservatives would say this is a problem associated with government, not wealth. The solution to the conservative would thus be to decrease the size of the corrupt state apparatus.

To conservatives, goverment = education, assistance to needy families, healthcare, social security. It never means war/military spending. They're all too happy to write the Pentagon and their contractors(as well as Israel) a blank check.

Post: #88

(10-04-2013 01:49 AM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 01:42 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Warren Buffet is a big govt. socialist who wants to crush his competition in the middle class. Like most of the elite wealthy he wants to buy and control the govt. to crush the middle class.

Do you ever debate or discuss without engaging in hyperbole? Since the time you have joined all you harp on about is socialist feminist government this and the government wants to destroy the middle class that? No the government doesn't want to destroy the middle class. They want the middle class to prosper because the middle class pays taxes.

Of course the govt wants to destroy the middle class, and they have been doing a great job of it. The govt. wants to destroy the middle class, because the govt. is run by the wealthy elites.

Whether it be the lobbyist controlling our govt. or extreme wealthy people backing socialist policies that only hit the middle class, it has been more of the same over and over.

They want the middle class to have just enough to keep paying the burdens but not enough to challenge the wealth of the elites. Sort of like what you have in western Europe today. Enough to barely get by, enough to pay taxes and pay for consumer goods, but not enough to run and build up successful endeavors that allow you take market share from the elites.

Obama is a socialist feminist. He has repeatedly said that women make less than men because of sexist policies in companies, while every red pill male knows this is not true. Yet this is a huge basis of many of his economic policies.

Post: #89

(10-04-2013 01:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Of course the govt wants to destroy the middle class, and they have been doing a great job of it. The govt. wants to destroy the middle class, because the govt. is run by the wealthy elites.

No the government rather you have paying more taxes than you working part-time and relying on social programs which increase government deficit. The government is run by wealthy elites but then the elites are the problem not the government. This means that the President doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter whether it's a democrat or a republican in the office. I am glad we got that out of the way.

(10-04-2013 01:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Whether it be the lobbyist controlling our govt. or extreme wealthy people backing socialist policies that only hit the middle class, it has been more of the same over and over.

This is extremely false. Elites on both sides want to hit the middle class. Some elites want to hit you with "socialist" policies, others (like Koch Brothers) want to hit you with extreme deregulation. Both are equally bad for the middle class. To classify this as the elites backing socialist policies is a narrow-minded, ideology driven, false view which ignores the full scope of the problems. Elites don't give a fuck about the left or the right, they just want to pay as little as possible and tell you to go home with a smile for the privilege of having a job.

(10-04-2013 01:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  They want the middle class to have just enough to keep paying the burdens but not enough to challenge the wealth of the elites. Sort of like what you have in western Europe today. Enough to barely get by, enough to pay taxes and pay for consumer goods, but not enough to run and build up successful endeavors that allow you take market share from the elites.

This I partially agree with though I disagree with you on "they" is. "They" in this case isn't the government or socialist elites. It's big business.

(10-04-2013 01:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Obama is a socialist feminist. He has repeatedly said that women make less than men because of sexist policies in companies, while every red pill male knows this is not true. Yet this is a huge basis of many of his economic policies.

I don't care for Obama, I don't like Obama. Fuck everything he says. To me he is a hack just like every other politician who will say whatever needs to be said to get elected. If you can't see that then the joke is on you. Right now we are going through extreme feminism and he made use of that. I think the next election will see the US electing a republican president and you can bet your ass he will be saying the same things to get that white women vote.

To me big government and big business are equally bad. Unlike you, I don't have a narrow view of the government and understand that globalization is a tool used by big business to reduce wages in the West and that isn't on the government.

It's easy to argue blindly but to discuss and debate these problems you need to get out of the republican/conservative bubble. There is a democratic/leftist bubble too; don't get me wrong but it seems to me you are in one right now.

Post: #90

(10-04-2013 01:53 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Obama is a socialist feminist. He has repeatedly said that women make less than men because of sexist policies in companies, while every red pill male knows this is not true. Yet this is a huge basis of many of his economic policies.

Is Brian back?

Post: #91

(10-04-2013 01:43 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Yes, and once again, I was careful not to make blanket statements such as all people who become rich are dishonest. I don't even put people like you in the problematic category. Where wealth becomes problematic is where it becomes intermingled with policy and powerful lobbies basically write our laws for us and have puppets in government on their bankroll to rig the system in their favor. It's the reason will we never have single-payer healthcare. The insurance lobby is just too powerful to allow that to happen. We will never be able to import cheaper drugs from other countries, because the powerful Pharma lobby blocks all attempts to do this, even if it will benefit the average person. This is the result of too much concentrated wealth. There are some quick fixes the will at least help. For example, we could lower taxes on income, and raise them on capital gains. It's middle class spending that is what keeps the economy going. More money in their pocket is good for the economy. Since wealth isn't trickling down from the top, more money in the hands of the rich is not good for the economy.

I hear ya when it comes to special interests. I really believe that politicians shouldn't be able to make a career out of it. Set terms like the presidency may not cut out all corruption but I would bet it would help somewhat.

You should include Apple computers, Microsoft, Amazon and other tech companies like those that keep billions overseas because of taxes. I don't see how at least some of that money wouldn't trickle down to more research, to more investments, or to stockholders as dividends. It has to be better than having it sit overseas doing nothing.

More taxation won't hurt the 1%'s. It hurts the smaller businesses which ends up hurting more of the middle class. Small businesses can't afford to develop tax workarounds like the big companies.

Taxes were raised on the 400k or higher groups. That isn't even close to rich.

This is a global economy now. America really hasn't been able to compete, in many markets, which is why a lot of jobs went overseas.

Adapt or die which has always been the case in business. The problem is many business can't adapt because of laws and unions. So what happens is they take jobs overseas.

More business will be going overseas to avoid this shit. Why deal with the huge taxes, the burdensome laws, the IRS, and the people who complain they make too much money? Unless you have a physical presence in the US, there really is no reason.

You really think big business is lobbying for this type of nonsense? Hell, maybe they are. It surely cuts down on competition from the small guys.

Hell, America makes it more difficult for it's citizens to do business overseas because of bank reporting requirements.

You think increasing the taxes will do anything? Not a chance.

Post: #92

(10-04-2013 02:14 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 01:43 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Yes, and once again, I was careful not to make blanket statements such as all people who become rich are dishonest. I don't even put people like you in the problematic category. Where wealth becomes problematic is where it becomes intermingled with policy and powerful lobbies basically write our laws for us and have puppets in government on their bankroll to rig the system in their favor. It's the reason will we never have single-payer healthcare. The insurance lobby is just too powerful to allow that to happen. We will never be able to import cheaper drugs from other countries, because the powerful Pharma lobby blocks all attempts to do this, even if it will benefit the average person. This is the result of too much concentrated wealth. There are some quick fixes the will at least help. For example, we could lower taxes on income, and raise them on capital gains. It's middle class spending that is what keeps the economy going. More money in their pocket is good for the economy. Since wealth isn't trickling down from the top, more money in the hands of the rich is not good for the economy.

I hear ya when it comes to special interests. I really believe that politicians shouldn't be able to make a career out of it. Set terms like the presidency may not cut out all corruption but I would bet it would help somewhat.

You should include Apple computers, Microsoft, Amazon and other tech companies like those that keep billions overseas because of taxes. I don't see how at least some of that money wouldn't trickle down to more research, to more investments, or to stockholders as dividends. It has to be better than having it sit overseas doing nothing.

More taxation won't hurt the 1%'s. It hurts the smaller businesses which ends up hurting more of the middle class. Small businesses can't afford to develop tax workarounds like the big companies.

Taxes were raised on the 400k or higher groups. That isn't even close to rich.

This is a global economy now. America really hasn't been able to compete, in many markets, which is why a lot of jobs went overseas.

Adapt or die which has always been the case in business. The problem is many business can't adapt because of laws and unions. So what happens is they take jobs overseas.

More business will be going overseas to avoid this shit. Why deal with the huge taxes, the burdensome laws, and the people who complain they make too much money? Unless you have a physical presence in the US, there really is no reason.

You really think big business is lobbying for this type of nonsense? Hell, maybe they are. It surely cuts down on competition from the small guys.

Hell, America makes it more difficult for it's citizens to do business overseas because of bank reporting requirements.

You think increasing the taxes will do anything? Not a chance.

Well ultimately the health of America's middle class is of utmost importance to even big business, because America is the world's number one consumer. Businesses may complain about taxes and regulations and try to globalize their labor, but squeezing the wage growth of the American middle class is shooting themselves in the foot. Who is going to make up for the slack? Indians living off $2 a day? Henry Ford had the insight to pay his workers a healthy salary for that time under premise that his workers should be able to afford the products they are building.

Post: #93

Quote:It's easy to argue blindly but to discuss and debate these problems you need to get out of the republican/conservative bubble. There is a democratic/leftist bubble too; don't get me wrong but it seems to me you are in one right now.

I'm not a conservative or a Republican and much what you said about conservatives and republicans I agree with.

But right now it is the Democrats running the govt. And things have gotten drastically worse incredibly fast.

I understand that companies in the west are able to use the global economy to reduce wages and power their employees. But the left is helpless in stopping this, the US govt. cannot force companies to pay their workers a certain amount. So the best bet for all of us red pill males is for the US govt. to get the hell out of our road and let us build our own small businesses and other endeavors. But those possibilities continue to disappear with more and more bad economic policies and more and more regulation from 1,200+ page bills that even most teams of attorneys struggle to understand and apply.

Post: #94

(10-04-2013 02:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  Well ultimately the health of America's middle class is of utmost importance to even big business, because America is the world's number one consumer. Businesses may complain about taxes and regulations and try to globalize their labor, but squeezing the wage growth of the American middle class is shooting themselves in the foot. Who is going to make up for the slack? Indians living off $2 a day? Henry Ford had the insight to pay his workers a healthy salary for that time under premise that his workers should be able to afford the products they are building.

We are the number one consumer even after all the jobs left.

What does that say? It says people purchase too much shit. hah

How about this approach. Let's get everyone to pay more for goods and only purchase goods that are made in America. If we are talking about Henry Ford, then let's talk about American's purchasing stuff made in America.

You think you will get people to purchase stuff at higher prices when they can get stuff from China for lower?

Yeah, we know the answer.

I bet there would be more manufacturing and more jobs if we all purchased locally. Consumers have no loyalty but you expect businesses to have loyalty. If you don't give the consumer what they want, you end up out of business. Walmart proved that consumers wanted low end shit from China. Apple is one of the most profitable companies in the world and their products are assembled in China. People, in the US, should stop purchasing their products yet they won't.

Consumers are cutting their own throats yet they want to have high paying jobs with health insurance and retirement funds.

We should pass a law to make people purchase from American companies.

Post: #95

Quote:We should pass a law to make people purchase from American companies.

---------------------------------------------------------
What we could start to really improve this country is remove unions, kick out illegal immigrants by the millions, revamp our education system, get rid of reality Television, create community programs to help hopeless young men learn new skills and meet people, encourage a more tech based industry, and get rid of the entitlement complex. No one is entitled to welfare unless you actually work. Make the unemployed or those on welfare work 30-40 hours doing actual public services, and in turn give them some free career counseling.

That would be a GREAT start. Not going to happen though.

The reason America becamse great was we were united in one cause and we had a strong culture.

Now we're just a salad bowl of various cultures combined and it just simply doesn't work.

Give all those unemployed college grads a chance at a real job.

The National High-Speed Maglev Train System.

Pay them enough to get by, enforce strong work ethic and reward those who produce good work.

Put the money to good use. Improving infrastucture while helping to train millions of TAX-paying American CITIZENS.
-------------------------------------------------

Post: #96

(10-04-2013 02:25 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  I'm not a conservative or a Republican and much what you said about conservatives and republicans I agree with.

But right now it is the Democrats running the govt. And things have gotten drastically worse incredibly fast.

I understand that companies in the west are able to use the global economy to reduce wages and power their employees. But the left is helpless in stopping this, the US govt. cannot force companies to pay their workers a certain amount. So the best bet for all of us red pill males is for the US govt. to get the hell out of our road and let us build our own small businesses and other endeavors. But those possibilities continue to disappear with more and more bad economic policies and more and more regulation from 1,200+ page bills that even most teams of attorneys struggle to understand and apply.

Good lord dude. You can one of a few things. Look forward fix the problems or rehash the past. But if you want to rehash the past, you have to think about that though the current administration is democratic, the foundation for this disaster was laid by the Republicans. Tax reductions for the wealthy? Smart move, two unfunded wars, smart move.

Part of the reason there is a hold up on resolving the shut down is because of perceived disrespect.

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

The 1995 shutdown was partly due to Newt Gingrinch feeling slighted.
   

I am pretty moderate - I think we need a strong defense, did you know the president gets a daily report of where all the aircraft carriers are (I mention this to prove how defense matters to me), but I am not blind to some inequalities that occur in life.

No one is perfect, and by choosing one side, clearly not all sides are represented. The ego wants you to feel right all the time and people sometimes fight to the death to be right over something. But life isn't always about being right.

I am all for giving someone a beating, lighting someone up in a business deal. But it doesn't have to happen in every moment, nothing would ever get done.

Obama is a smart dude facing some obstacles that no recent president has had to deal with, along with the fact that people hate him for nothing more than the color of his skin.

Did you see that comedy clip that has been playing it asks people what they like better Obama Care or the Affordable Care Act. Of course, they hate Obamacare and love the affordable care act and then you should see the reaction when they are told they are the same.

Let's try to be fair in these conversations, when people lose sight of trying to be fair and reasonable, that is when things escalate and any objective sharing or growth is lost.

But I am not for handouts, but nor am I for the financial engineering that occurs. There is a balanced approach to most things, people just can't see past their own needs.

Post: #97

(10-04-2013 07:47 AM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 02:25 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  I'm not a conservative or a Republican and much what you said about conservatives and republicans I agree with.

But right now it is the Democrats running the govt. And things have gotten drastically worse incredibly fast.

I understand that companies in the west are able to use the global economy to reduce wages and power their employees. But the left is helpless in stopping this, the US govt. cannot force companies to pay their workers a certain amount. So the best bet for all of us red pill males is for the US govt. to get the hell out of our road and let us build our own small businesses and other endeavors. But those possibilities continue to disappear with more and more bad economic policies and more and more regulation from 1,200+ page bills that even most teams of attorneys struggle to understand and apply.

Good lord dude. You can one of a few things. Look forward fix the problems or rehash the past. But if you want to rehash the past, you have to think about that though the current administration is democratic, the foundation for this disaster was laid by the Republicans. Tax reductions for the wealthy? Smart move, two unfunded wars, smart move.

Part of the reason there is a hold up on resolving the shut down is because of perceived disrespect.

"We're not going to be disrespected," Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) told The Washington Examiner. "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is."

The 1995 shutdown was partly due to Newt Gingrinch feeling slighted.

The tax reductions for the wealthy were pretty much regarded by most economists as the reason we got out of the economic down turn Clinton left us with and lasted from 2000 to 2002.

So that was a brilliant move. Unless you want more taxes, which just means more money being stolen from men by the govt. to give to women. I don't want any more of that than is necessary.

As for the two wars, I agree. Afghanistan we should have just bombed, invaded, kicked the Taliban out and then left and said "if those guys are in charge again we will do the same again, keep them out".

Iraq, even if they did have WMD (and I believe they did) there was no need for a full scale war. HUGE mistake, but was backed by both parties.

Post: #98

Increasing taxes on the wealthy accomplishes NOTHING.

If you taxed the wealthy 100%, it'd only run the government a few days.

Our system is very inefficient, pointless, and simply too big.

Post: #99

(10-04-2013 12:57 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  ...

That infographic is wrong on many counts.
For one: 842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. This number has fallen by 156 million since 1990. This is a total of 12% of the world population. Source: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

Two: A similar amount of people live in slums, 827.6 million in 2010. Even though most slum-dwellers have the absolute basic requirements of a home(shelter and a place to sleep), we'll consider them to be "shelter-less". This is just 12% of the population. Source: http://www.unhabitat.org/documents/SOWC10/R1.pdf

Three: The world's average salary is $1,480 a month, which is just less than $18,000, a year, according to data released by the International Labor Organization. This is the average and it seems high even to me, I suspect the median is quite a bit farther down around $5,000 or something that. We also need to remember that the worldwide poverty rate according to the UN has fallen from 50% in 1990 to around 20% today.
TL;DR The world isn't as poor as it used to be.

I couldn't find any statistics about the number of people that live in insecure areas but I believe that the war-zone statistic is probably accurate. Granted, the proportion of people dying in war today is the lowest it's ever been in recorded history. This isn't a personal attack against Hencredible but I absolutely despise Facebook guilt-posts that are almost always made up without any statistical backing.

Post: #100

I agree we have a lot of issues with government, but it wasn't all recent. This thing started when we became a country, so we don't need to beat up the current guy for everyone else's nonsense.

Also, I was referring to the Bush era tax cuts. 4 good charts here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...ur-charts/

Here is one of them.
   

Look, I read the Economist, went to a top MBA school, am a free market capitalist. But there is a ton of inequality countries go through turmoil - so I would rather have some massive uprising. Your millions won't help you against the 99%.

As far as the Iraq war goes, there was false information presented.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-03...icism.html

Quote:Colin Powell says his erroneous address to the United Nations about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction provides a lesson to business leaders on the importance of staying skeptical and following their intuition.

“Yes, a blot, a failure will always be attached to me and my UN presentation,” the former U.S. secretary of state writes in a new book of leadership parables that draws frequently on his Iraq war experience. “I am mad mostly at myself for not having smelled the problem. My instincts failed me.”

Powell, 75, laments that no intelligence officials had the “courage” to warn that he was given false information that Iraq had such weapons during preparations for his February 2003 speech before the U.S. invasion the following month. Regrets are sprinkled through “It Worked For Me,” along with lessons gleaned from a career that carried him from foxholes in Vietnam to senior positions at the Pentagon and the State Department.

Now, people can go ahead and pick on Powell for not being strong enough, blah, blah. But he has been a solid citizen of this country. Respected, by both parties. If you start beating on him, well I'd be at a loss of words.

Look I don't have a position, my attitude is let's try and go forward, but if we choose to cite stuff, let us choose it on a fair basis and not just on information that supports our position. I understand that is the nature of arguing, but that is not always the nature of truth, or should I say our interpretation of truth. Because no one really knows the truth, since we shape everything through our lens.