Post: #126

Quote:The republicans want to keep the middle class impoverished so big business can continue to build on job insecurity and depress wages.

Again, this can't be true, because it's not a viable strategy to winning votes. Giving away free shit is. Helping big business? Not really.

Typically, Republicans win votes by promising to lower taxes on the middle class. That's an example of a viable political strategy.

Post: #127

(10-04-2013 02:15 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  Maine, the whitest state in the country, has white people doing regular jobs. Shocker, I know.

Unions aren't the original unions that were originally created for basic protection from unsafe working conditions and extremely long working hours.

Now, it's more about the connections into getting a job that overpays. Not about producing quality work.

Unions are pure garbage. Evil.

Nowadays, it takes a lot longer to build and a lot more to build it.

It's similar to communism. If you knew the right people, you can get an easy job doing BS work and still get paid. Paid well of course.

By tech, I mean more STEM, and I mean non-college. Programming, Networking, Infrastructure, etc.

Hands-on, trade-style work should be a mandatory duty in high school.

The future is 3-month long courses teaching everything there is to know, then throwing you right into the field.

Not 4 years of overpriced crapeducation.

Yeah, well I understand where you are coming from, but I disagree once more. Learning the trades shouldn't be mandatory during high school. For people who have the skills necessary to be lawyers, bankers, doctors, etc. this would just be a waste of time. Our problem is that we have too many people who think they can do these jobs, but don't actually have the ability.

As an aside, I am also sick of hearing about how liberal arts colleges/schools are worthless. Believe me, people who are graduating with liberal arts degrees from Bowdoin, Bates, Middlebury, Tufts, and "other worthless liberal arts colleges" like the aforementioned are having no problem getting jobs. High paying jobs, in fact. The problem here is that we have too many people going to low quality schools, and getting actually worthless degrees there.

So, I think a proper solution would be to implement a system of education like Germany's. In Germany, you take a placement test at the end of middle school, and that coupled with your grades and teacher recommendations will place you into the rest of your education path. You can either go on the University path, or the trade/vocation path. By selecting who gets to go where, Germany has been able to ensure that most people will get a job.

The problem I see with this method, however, is that in the US we have the "American Dream". The Statue of Liberty shines as a beacon of hope, telling the Old World to "Give us your weak/tired/poor, the exiled, the homeless". Only in the US, it is said, can you rise from being a bum with only a dollar to his name to become a rich man, by pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. So it would be a slap in the face to this vision of America to begin telling people that they can't go to college, and would be better off as a blue collar worker.

Post: #128

(10-04-2013 02:30 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  We should pass a law to make people purchase from American companies.

Not happening, because number one, what even defines what an "American" company is? Some companies may have their headquarters here, but the components they use to build their products could come from anywhere. And what if it's an American company that builds a certain model of a car in another country, does that mean it's illegal to sell it in America even though it's an American company?

I think tariffs address the issues you bring up, for whatever it's worth.

Btw, I wish it were impossible for IRTs and $1/hr virtual assistance to provide intellectual work online. Imagine how much the wages for programmers would go up here at home.

(10-04-2013 08:00 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  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.

Huh? So an increase in government revenue would not lower the deficit? That's news to me.

Post: #129

(10-04-2013 02:47 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  [...]
I don't see it is a democrat or republican issue. I see it as a government of all stripes and big business working together issue. As I said in one of my earlier posts, which party the president is from doesn't really matter. Both the parties only look out for the wealthy elite.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

but here in the USA, we have inverted fascism in that the corporations are taking over the gov't .

Post: #130

(10-04-2013 03:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 02:30 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  We should pass a law to make people purchase from American companies.

Not happening, because number one, what even defines what an "American" company is? Some companies may have their headquarters here, but the components they use to build their products could come from anywhere. And what if it's an American company that builds a certain model of a car in another country, does that mean it's illegal to sell it in America even though it's an American company?

I was being sarcastic about passing a law.

Tariff's will also hurt exports since most countries tend to reciprocate these types of things. America wants other countries to rely on it's economy. It is a form of coercion to be exploited. That is why you see foreign banks buckling under the pressure to rat out all Americans.

Quote:Btw, I wish it were impossible for IRTs and $1/hr virtual assistance to provide intellectual work online. Imagine how much the wages for programmers would go up here at home.

It also makes competing on a global scale much more difficult. Virtual assistance isn't programming but low end work that can be done by anyone. Most of the programming jobs dried up when the tech bubble crashed. That was when I knew I had to take care of myself. Outsourcing to India was big back then. Jobs are coming back though but it isn't the same pay as before.

Unless people are willing to pay for higher priced products to allow for a higher level of living, this will be the way it is.

Post: #131

(10-04-2013 10:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Wrong on all counts.

The democrats love it when the middle class is destroyed, because it means more people on welfare. Who gives them welfare? The democrats. More welfare dependents = more democratic voters.

Same principle on why democrats love illegals - the more illegals they let in, the more democratic votes they get.

I think you need to fact check your talking points, Samseau. Red states are the main ones sucking the nation dry:

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-state...ens-2011-8

Quote:Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Also, I hope you aren't being so myopic as to only define "welfare" as TANF. That program is 0.7% of the Federal budget.

Post: #132

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

but here in the USA, we have inverted fascism in that the corporations are taking over the gov't .

Corporatism is THE key to understanding why the entire 2 party political system is nothing more than a divide and conquer charade.

Voting for Bush or voting for Obama had absolutely zero effect on influencing the power structure of the fascist state.

All this Republican/Democrat arguing on this and other threads is playing directly into the fascist state's tactics of divide and conquer.

That was the point I tried to get across to Hencredible Casanova and others here, but it seems to go right over their heads in trying to promote "their side."

Note that instead of addressing my actual facts, he re-framed the debate into glorifying Obama as some sort of brilliant mind for achieving a credentialed post in Academia when he was in college. It would be good for RVF members to note that it's not just women we should avoid putting up on a pedestal....

Obama extended, ratified, re-affirmed and built upon almost everything substantive that Bush did when he was in office...that's because they are both figureheads for the real power players in the US fascist government.

The wars in the Middle East are just another facet of BIG BUSINESS.

BIG War is the biggest business of all, and Obama had no intention of shutting down that lucrative industry he and Bush are both a part of marketing to the masses.

The dialectical divide of "right" vs. "left" is an illusion, especially when the "right" attacks Big Government and the "left" attacks Big Business.

They are one and the same.

Big Business got that way, precisely because they were able to get Big Government to pass laws and regulations that favored their products and services and giving them monopolistic or oligopolistic privileges in the marketplace.

For instance, Big Ag (Monsanto, Cargill, Archer-Midlands et al) have all had their CEO's appointed to the USDA under every administration going back decades. It mattered not if it was a Donkey or a Pachyderm in office, they still got their people appointed to the regulatory agencies who then were able to pass regulations that stifled or eliminated smaller competitors, or put up huge barriers of entry that prevent upstarts from competing with them.

Same goes for Big Pharma and appointments to the FDA.

Oh, and let's not forget the former head of DHS who was also the CEO of the corporation that manufactured all the backscatter x-ray machines that were then sold for millions to the nation's airports.

The revolving door of corporate fat cats and the various regulatory agencies of the Federal Government is the rosetta stone for understanding the various assertions of those of us who continually assert that there is not a damn bit of difference between any particular Democrat or Republican President or politician. They are all just pawns of the Big Government-Big Business cartel that really runs the show.

Arguing in support of one or the other just plays right into their hands in keeping them firmly in control of the country and furthering their agenda of globalization of corporate control.

Post: #133

(10-04-2013 01:31 PM)MrXY Wrote:  Northwest Florida

Oh, well that's hardly news then. You live on the panhandle which is famously known as the "Redneck Riviera." Pensacola, Panama City, etc...that's like the most conservative part of the state filled with folks otherwise known as "white trash, trailer trash, etc." No disrespect as those aren't my views but you know that's the stereotype.

Btw, DC is soooooo different with this shutdown. It's crazy how quiet the city is. I'm currently at that libtard coffeeshop Tryst in Adam's Morgan. Such a homo atmosphere...

Post: #134

Red states are the main ones sucking the nation dry:



The corporations and central banking system are not only sucking the nation dry, they are doing it by enslaving us all with debt.

Post: #135

Some people have fetishes, some with illegals and others with "ghettos".....

REAL REPUBLICANS LOVE ILLEGALS. Why? They are a cheap source of work that can be kept stupid-fied. Republican values are capitalist values, even libertarians value illegals because they are able to work so cheaply. It's like back in the day with slaves and plantations....now it's factories/fields and "workers".

Is there a study that keeps track of how many illegals-turned-citizens vote?
The ones that I know....never vote. Why? "I have other things to do".

Right-wing politics IS big government. Just look at how many departments were created after 9/11. A bunch of "intelligence community" agencies, Homeland Security, and others. PATRIOT ACT passed, NSA got a blank check, and we have america as it is now.

Post: #136

Post: #137

(10-04-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 10:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  Wrong on all counts.

The democrats love it when the middle class is destroyed, because it means more people on welfare. Who gives them welfare? The democrats. More welfare dependents = more democratic voters.

Same principle on why democrats love illegals - the more illegals they let in, the more democratic votes they get.

I think you need to fact check your talking points, Samseau. Red states are the main ones sucking the nation dry:

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-state...ens-2011-8

Quote:Take a look at the difference between federal spending on any given state and the federal taxes received from that state. We measure the difference as a dollar amount: Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes. A figure of $1.00 means that particular state received as much as it paid in to the federal government. Anything over a dollar means the state received more than it paid; anything less than $1.00 means the state paid more in taxes than it received in services. The higher the figure, the more a given state is a welfare queen.

Of the twenty worst states, 16 are either Republican dominated or conservative states. Let's go through the top twenty.

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51
Montana: $1.47
Hawaii: $1.44
Maine: $1.41
Arkansas: $1.41
Oklahoma: $1.36
South Carolina: $1.35
Missouri: $1.32
Maryland: $1.30
Tennessee: $1.27
Idaho: $1.21

Does anyone else notice the overwhelming presence of northern "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska, the Dakotas and Montana, along with most of the South? Why it's almost like there's a pattern here or something.

Where can we find liberal bastions California, New York, and Massachusetts? California is 43rd, getting back only $0.78 for every dollar it sends to Washington. New York is 42nd, and one penny better off, at $0.79 per dollar. Massachusetts is 40th, receiving $0.82 for every dollar it sends to DC.

Also, I hope you aren't being so myopic as to only define "welfare" as TANF. That program is 0.7% of the Federal budget.

You're confused on several things.

1. Just because red states get the most in welfare benefits does not mean it wasn't federal democratic policies that got them the welfare.

2. It does not matter if red states get the most welfare, because I'm talking about political strategies and not actual outcomes. Just because the democrats promise lots of free shit to the poor, does not mean the poor will get it. Remember, the goal is to get elected - after that, what the politicians do is immaterial.

In theory, people would remember what politicians promise and hold them to their word, but of course we all know the voters memory is as short as a goldfish.

3. The fact that red states have the most welfare recipients proportional to their population shows red states have the most poor friendly policies and the lowest costs of living. After all, if blue states were good for poor people then poor people would move there.

In practice, the high taxation and excessive regulation makes it impossible for poors to find any sort of living in blue states, and welfare isn't enough to cover living expenses. Thus poor people usually flee to red states where they can just live off the land and barely scrape by. Much easier to squat on some land in Tennessee where there's very little property/income taxes than trying to find a coveted non-profit job outside of Boston.

4. I never said that welfare for the poor is bad. I merely pointed out that there's zero incentive for democrats to get poor people on their feet, indeed, the democrats have a large incentive to make people even poorer since it just means more votes for them.

Post: #138

(10-04-2013 03:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 08:00 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  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.

Huh? So an increase in government revenue would not lower the deficit? That's news to me.

You really think that's a valid point?

Taxing the rich 100%?

Not cutting all that wasteful spending?

Post: #139

You can't argue with those getting a handout.

Post: #140

(10-04-2013 06:44 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 03:34 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-04-2013 08:00 AM)NY Digital Wrote:  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.

Huh? So an increase in government revenue would not lower the deficit? That's news to me.

You really think that's a valid point?

Taxing the rich 100%?

Not cutting all that wasteful spending?

The non-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission said that we will need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. That seems the most sensible way to get out this long-term debt. Obama was willing to compromise with the Republicans and reduce spending in exchange for tax increases on the wealthy. The Republicans would not budge on their side and sign off on ANY increase in tax, even the top 1%.

Post: #141

(10-04-2013 09:29 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The non-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission said that we will need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. That seems the most sensible way to get out this long-term debt. Obama was willing to compromise with the Republicans and reduce spending in exchange for tax increases on the wealthy. The Republicans would not budge on their side and sign off on ANY increase in tax, even the top 1%.

Obama was willing to make cuts? Any link to what he was willing to cut and how much more money he was asking? I bet those two weren't even close.

Rich pay over 70% of all taxes yet you guys want more. The rates for the rich went up when Republicans agree to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. By wealthy, I mean people making over 400k a year. Don't worry, those asking for more from the rich will end up paying more once the rich cow has been milked.

Good luck on the insurance. Roosh posted a link to a young guy in Georgia who will end up paying close to $200 deductible without any vision or dental.

I really wish some of you guys that want more money from successful people would start companies and start giving back more instead of crying.

Me? I am almost done making plans to hire 3 to 4 programmers in either Poland or Romania. Possibly some customer support reps in Philippines. I am starting a new company in Hong Kong so no more corporate taxes in America. I will live overseas and pay myself a salary of less than 100k because all of that will be tax free. Most of my living conditions will be paid by my company.

Sure, keep going after successful people and that is how more and more scenarios will be played out.

Post: #142

I agree with worldwidetraveler. The rich are paying enough money. It's time to prioritize spending. Forcing the rich to keep paying more and more to support reckless spending isn't what I'd call liberal. Speakeasy, what government programs would you prioritize and what programs would you cut?

Post: #143

(10-04-2013 09:36 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  Obama was willing to make cuts? Any link to what he was willing to cut and how much more money he was asking? I bet those two weren't even close.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum...ding-cuts/

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/eco.../index.htm

Quote:Rich pay over 70% of all taxes yet you guys want more. The rates for the rich went up when Republicans agree to end the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. By wealthy, I mean people making over 400k a year. Don't worry, those asking for more from the rich will end up paying more once the rich cow has been milked.

Cry me a river...

Quote:Good luck on the insurance. Roosh posted a link to a young guy in Georgia who will end up paying close to $200 deductible without any
vision or dental.

That's better than the $2900 deductible I'm about to pay. I have Blue Shield PPO by the way.

Quote: I really wish some of you guys that want more money from successful people would start companies and start giving back more instead of crying.

Look dude. Believe it or not, I used to be VERY right-wing. I voted Republican during my 20s mostly. I listened to conservative talk radio religiously. You're not telling me anything I don't already know. If you could see my archives on some other forums I used to debate on a decade ago, I sounded more conservative than you do. Obviously, I've had an ideological transformation, like someone who was raised religious who ended up an atheist.

You know what pisses me off? It's knowing that we had a balanced budget and projected surplus but the right-wing fucked it up with their hawkish foreign policies and tax cuts for the wealthy. We didn't have to be in this situation.

Post: #144

Obama wanted to cut 1.7 trillion over ten years but was asking for how much? 1.3 trillion right now or something like that but will take over ten years to cut 1.7. So he reduces the deficit by 400 billion over ten years and that is ok with you?

(10-04-2013 10:12 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  You know what pisses me off? It's knowing that we had a balanced budget and projected surplus but the right-wing fucked it up with their hawkish foreign policies and tax cuts for the wealthy. We didn't have to be in this situation.

Again, trying to use facts without context. Clinton had one hell of a booming economy. Of course, Clinton is god and the booming economy was all his doing. Maybe we should have had Clinton stay president and no economic problems would ever happen again. Obama was ready to go to war with Syria but that is ok.

Quote:That's better than the $2900 deductible I'm about to pay. I have Blue Shield PPO by the way.

That was just his monthly payment. I bet he still has a deductible.

Post: #145

War with Syria? What Obama was about to do with Syria is not different than what he did with Libya.

No one raised taxes, the tax brake simply came to an end. It's like when something is on discount and the discount ends.

What were the rich doing with the money? Nothing.

Post: #146

(10-04-2013 11:09 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  War with Syria? What Obama was about to do with Syria is not different than what he did with Libya.

No one raised taxes, the tax brake simply came to an end. It's like when something is on discount and the discount ends.

What were the rich doing with the money? Nothing.

Attacking a country is considered war, is it not? Maybe I missed something when Obama called for war after chemical weapons were used. What about all the costs of sending arms and supplies to the Syrian rebels?

How do you know what the rich is doing with their money?

People making 400k a year is now rich. You think they are doing nothing with their money? Obama wanted 250k a year to be considered rich. I never said taxes was raised. Selective reading on your part. I said the Bush tax breaks weren't renewed for the rich. Well, unless you want to add in the new Obamacare tax on those bad rich people. That is a new tax and not a hike of course. Not only do they get to pay a Obamacare tax, but they also get to pay for their own insurance. How cool is that, man?

That isn't enough though and some want the rich to pay even more (400k or higher).

I can normally tell who has taken a chance to build a business and who would rather suck off the teat of the successful (people making 400k or higher).

Don't worry, your tax hike will come and then let's see the tears. There is always someone else less fortunate than you that needs to be taken care of. People are starting to figure out what is going on with Obamacare and it isn't good. Ask the unions. haha

Post: #147

I think Obama prefers referring to them as "the wealthy", a group to which he also admits membership. I would say if your income is $250k+ a year, yes you are wealthy. Not rich, but wealthy. You are earning almost 10x the average US individual income. I realize that to someone who lives in Manhattan and has 10 years of medical school payments, that may not sound like a lot, but let's be honest those are exceptional cases. Most people making that kind of money are living VERY well. If you can't live quite lavishly off $250k a year(especially if you are married and have a second income), then you are seriously doing something wrong in your life.

Man, people who live in Africa off a dollar a day must scratch their heads wondering how people who make a quarter mil a year don't think of themselves as wealthy. I bet there's folks running around making a million a year who don't think they are wealthy either.

Post: #148

(10-04-2013 04:06 PM)K Galt Wrote:  [i]"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

Good post. Congress are the union reps of the wealthy. If you think unions are bad, you should look at the one that extorts the most.

Post: #149

(10-04-2013 11:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I think Obama prefers referring to them as "the wealthy", a group to which he also admits membership. I would say if your income is $250k+ a year, yes you are wealthy. Not rich, but wealthy. You are earning almost 10x the average US individual income. I realize that to someone who lives in Manhattan and has 10 years of medical school payments, that may not sound like a lot, but let's be honest those are exceptional cases. Most people making that kind of money are living VERY well. If you can't live quite lavishly off $250k a year(especially if you are married and have a second income), then you are seriously doing something wrong in your life.

Man, people who live in Africa off a dollar a day must scratch their heads wondering how people who make a quarter mil a year don't think of themselves as wealthy. I bet there's folks running around making a million a year who don't think they are wealthy either.

Obama can say wealthy all he wants, that still means rich.

Quote:wealth·y
ˈwelTHē/Submit
adjective
1.
having a great deal of money, resources, or assets; rich.
"the wealthy nations of the world"
synonyms: rich, affluent, moneyed, well off, well-to-do, prosperous, comfortable, propertied; More

250k to 400k isn't as lavish of a lifestyle as you think. I understand why many would think so but hardly what Obama ran his campaign on.

People in Ukraine think everyone in America make 10k a month. That doesn't really mean anything since they have no clue as to how people live here.

This is what it boils down for me...

I am just seeing less and less incentive to take on the risks, as a small business owner. Why deal with the risks, the stress, the long hours only to get shit on more and more because people perceive me to have too much.

I have ran into this mentality quite a bit in my entrepreneur career. Plenty, in fact, when I was dealing in real estate. I can't tell you how many times people thought I was making too much profit on a property. They don't know what happened in the background to make the deal work.

I just think it is arrogant to tell someone they shouldn't make too much money from their efforts. Most of those people couldn't do what we do yet want to cry not fair when people pull it off.

No small business, no America.

Hell, maybe I should just ride the cashflow out on the projects I have done and retire making less than Obama's "wealthy" threshold every year so I don't have to pay for people I don't know. Ah, first world problems...

Post: #150

Dude, nobody is saying that people can't make a shitload of money from their efforts. They clearly do as is evidenced by how much wealth the top 10% of this country own and the fact that the gap is actually GROWING, not shrinking. As such, this nation is clearly one of the best places in the world to be to make lots of money if that's your goal. If someone is trying to shit on the wealthy, it sure as hell isn't working.

If you make a lot of income, you pay a lot of tax. That's just the way it is. We have a progressive tax system. It has to be that way to make up for the fact that all other taxes are regressive. Think about it, the poor guy and the rich guy are both paying the exact same tax on the $50 they spend refueling their car. Yet that tax is going to hit the poorer person much harder than the rich. Or if both of them buy $100 of groceries, the tax on it is is the same regardless of income, but it's a much bigger hit to the poor guy given his vastly smaller wealth. Same with airplane tickets or a million other things. Income and capital gains is the only place where we can try and balance that out a bit.