Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on January 23, 2007, 02:17:56 PM
-
Sitting here watching the news channels and the buzz is Bush plans to reach across party lines and try to pull a rabbit out of his arse. Rumor is the democrats will like his speech much, MUCH more than the republicans. :O
So what do you think? Will Bush abandon the ones that have been carrying the water for him or will it be another dose of the same old shinola?
-
I predict that his lameduckness will bring forth the shinola.
-
Well, we could wait until after the speech, and listen to the media tell us what he really said, rather than trying to formulate what he meant to say before he actually said it.
Hmm, I could be a politician. :D
-
Mindless speculation is the realm of the television journalist. ;)
...now back to Skuzzy on location in Grapevine...
-
I predict rpm and sandman will be very disappointed that Bush can not run for office again after hearing his speech tonight...
Well maybe...
:D
-
I predict rpm and sandman will not like whatever bush says.
-
Bits are starting to leak. Bush is going treehugger. Drastic reduction of gas consumption (20% in 10 years) seems to be the hole card. Get ready to buy a hybrid.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Hehe, he is setting up the next President to be a fall guy. Oh, this is gonna be good.
I can see him now. "How can I make sure history does not paint me to be an idiot? AH HAH! Make the next guy look worse!" He is petty enough and has enough ego to do this.
-
dont miss the Bullets Suns game if you can get it
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Mindless speculation is the realm of the television journalist. ;)
And the O'Club
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Mindless speculation is the realm of the television journalist. ;)
...now back to Skuzzy on location in Grapevine...
Sad thing is, I do not think they realize they are speculating. I think they really believe what they are saying and really want us to beleive it as well.
Course, so does Bush and merry men. Hmm,..this would seem to make politicians and the press the same. Odd that one.
-
This SOTU will be boring for me. Last time me and a few friends got together and had a drinking game during it.
911, Iraq, terrorist, and 'over there instead of here' were the words and phrases that required a shot of tequila.
I woke up the next afternoon feeling like a dead dog.
Gonna be smart about it this year though. We changed the key words to 'peace in our time', redeploy, the will of the < American > people, mandate and wartime profiteering.
I think I'll be able to get up early tomorrow and go fishing.
-
sounds like u already r fishing :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
what a joke.
the state of the union is as follows:
federal taxes are low.
interest rates and unemployment are low
there is plenty available capital for whatever someone may want to do.
the feds are filling the federal coffers at an all time record high, literally their cup runneth over.
carrying the battle to arab nutjobs is keeping them from our gates.
the state of the union is good..
this time next year we may not be doing so well with the resonance chamber poised above their neck demcrats holding the purse strings, but so far so good.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Sitting here watching the news channels and the buzz is Bush plans to reach across party lines and try to pull a rabbit out of his arse. Rumor is the democrats will like his speech much, MUCH more than the republicans. :O
So what do you think? Will Bush abandon the ones that have been carrying the water for him or will it be another dose of the same old shinola?
Lets see, the USA is by far the worse financial shape it has ever been in, we are bogged down in Iraq with no way out, our constitution has been shredded, our privacy raped, our minds blown out by the sickening lies and deceptions, we are in debt to international bankers for centuries to come along with some well connected corporations, I'd say its just about time to hand the ball off to the democrats so they can be duly blamed for the misery we are going to suffer in the coming years. Thats called the 'take the money and run and leave them holding the bag' gag. An oldie but goodie. :aok . Who says these guys cant run a country.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Lets see, the USA is by far the worse financial shape it has ever been in, we are bogged down in Iraq with no way out, our constitution has been shredded, our privacy raped, our minds blown out by the sickening lies and deceptions, we are in debt to international bankers for centuries to come along with some well connected corporations, I'd say its just about time to hand the ball off to the democrats so they can be duly blamed for the misery we are going to suffer in the coming years. Thats called the 'take the money and run and leave them holding the bag' gag. An oldie but goodie. :aok . Who says these guys cant run a country.
(http://ryanduff.net/images/wordpress/chickenlittle.jpg)
THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!
-
And awayyyyy we go!!!
-
WooHoo!! First sign of things to come, Bush snubbed Hastert in the handshake line!:lol
-
Id hit it :D
-
Ya know, she's probably wearing 10lbs of makeup and sporting some hidollar plastique, but yeah I'd hit it too!
-
See Rule #6
-
And there goes Hillary smirking like a 4 year old brat again
Bush is a buttwhipe fer sure.
But I loath Hillary's attitude
-
I keep waiting for Cheneys built in defibrillator to kick in :aok
Yeah, Pelosi is a good looking woman for her age. I wonder what she looked like 30 years ago.
-
Hmm, so far I like most of what I hear. This is George "Dubya" Bush speaking, isn't it???:confused:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Id hit it :D
Who Yeager? I looked up Hastert and it's a he. :confused:
Mark
-
Originally posted by rpm
WooHoo!! First sign of things to come, Bush snubbed Hastert in the handshake line!:lol
He shook his hand on my TV.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I keep waiting for Cheneys built in defibrillator to kick in :aok
I think it just did!
-
Originally posted by rpm
Hmm, so far I like most of what I hear. This is George "Dubya" Bush speaking, isn't it???:confused:
I agree..in principle
That'll change though. Just as soon as starts in in Iraq
He stopped shot of authorising shooting illegals caught trying to cross the border though.
Which I while not surprised, find dissapointing
-
Originally posted by Slash27
He shook his hand on my TV.
I don't have it recorded, but it looked like Hastert was first on the right and Bush turned left and went down the line.
-
Hastert was the second guy he shook hands with. Although when I replayed it I did see Bush attempt to kick Obama in the knee.
-
See Rule #2
-
:aok
-
Whats Pelosi sucking on? I'm intrigued :D
-
Gotta grudgingly admit.
This was probably his best State of the Union Speaches
-
Wow, knocked it out of the park.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Whats Pelosi sucking on? I'm jealous :D
Fixed:D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, we could wait until after the speech, and listen to the media tell us what he really said, rather than trying to formulate what he meant to say before he actually said it.
Hmm, I could be a politician. :D
WRONG!!
You make too much sense to be a Poli-anything. :aok
Sometimes. :D
-
great speech. typically pelosi was nodding off.
-
"without animosity, without amnesty."
:aok
-
Looks like we will be making citizens out of criminal border-jumpers.
-
Although. it seems we can await a scathing responce
-
When I heard the democratic response talk about corporate profits, then says 'fairly shared', that sounds an awful lot like socialism.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Looks like we will be making citizens out of criminal border-jumpers.
sounds to me like we won't be.
at least i hope that is what he meant.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
-
Originally posted by JB88
sounds to me like we won't be.
at least i hope that is what he meant.
JB... It's coming but he just uses "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Instead of the WORD amnesty.
-
I spoke too soon.
To a half bad responce either
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
When I heard the democratic response talk about corporate profits, then says 'fairly shared', that sounds an awful lot like socialism.
In a way I can see the point. The disparity in large corperations has reached a point of absurdity.
Easy solution. Dont just raise the minimum wage.
double it and increase corperate taxes.
and maybe install some sort of outsourcing tax.
Whereas you are taxed at a higher rate if you outsource jobs overseas
I have no problems raising taxes on corperations. Only on individuals
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Easy solution. Dont just raise the minimum wage.
double it and increase corperate taxes.
and maybe install some sort of outsourcing tax.
Whereas you are taxed at a higher rate if you outsource jobs overseas
I have no problems raising taxes on corperations. Only on individuals
:aok
-
Who do you think will ACTUALLY pay the taxes you impose on corporations?
Who do you think will feed, clothe, and house all the people you put out of a job by raising the minimum wage?
How many more ILLEGAL aliens do you think will become gainfully (albeit illegally) employed here when they are used as replacements for those people who lose their jobs because companies cannot afford to pay more than the current minimum wage?
Some people need to THINK, and RESEARCH, before they toss out their "brilliant" ideas.
-
Oh noes, t3h moms & pops will have to open storez again
-
Corporations dont pay taxes, they never have, truly. They pass it on to you and I when we buy their product, which is what will happen to gas prices when their tax incentives are removed. If there were less lawyers trying to run our country and more business/economy majors, we'll be better off
-
We could just nationalize every company whose CEO makes more than 20 times his lowest paid worker's salary.
That'd fix everything, right?
-
Corporations->Higher taxes->higher prices->consumer pays more.
Yup...makes sense to me.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
In a way I can see the point. The disparity in large corperations has reached a point of absurdity.
Easy solution. Dont just raise the minimum wage.
double it and increase corperate taxes.
and maybe install some sort of outsourcing tax.
Whereas you are taxed at a higher rate if you outsource jobs overseas
I have no problems raising taxes on corperations. Only on individuals
Great solution!
The corporations will go right out and fire half their minimum wage employees, if not more. Then they'll go ahead and increase the cost of products to cover the costs of the new corporate taxes. Ontop of that, they'll increase prices even more to cover the raised costs of the outsourced jobs. The jobs they outsourced to keep prices for US low in the first place.
To sum up, about half of the minimum wage population will be out of a job and to just throw salt on their wounds, everything will cost twice as much.
Ontop of that (as if it couldn't get any worse), all salaries will decrease. Due to Supply and Demand and there being a sudden influx of supply, the amount of money an employer would have to pay to retain an employee just drops sharply.
Good job dred, YOU'VE JUST CRIPPLED THE NATION WITH YOUR SOCIALIST PROGRAMS.
-
Nah, you guys don't understand.
You can raise a corporation's taxes as much as you want and they'll cheerfully pay it without changing anything else.
They love paying taxes.
-
Originally posted by chancevought
See Rules #2, #4, #5
:lol
-
Originally posted by rpm
Oh noes, t3h moms & pops will have to open storez again
Do a little research and a little thinking. It's the "mom and pop" operations you'll KILL with a minimum wage increase.
Oh yeah, and let's force all of the small businesses to lay off all of those kids going to school and working a minimum wage job because they can't afford to pay them $7-$8 an hour. Real freaking smart.
And the people screaming about the low minimum wage will be the ones screaming TWICE as loud about higher prices and higher unemployment.
Just like the people screaming that corporations should pay more taxes will be the ones screaming TWICE as loud when the cost of their purchases go up.
-
Give small businesses tax breaks.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Give small businesses tax breaks.
I'll second that motion. :aok
Mark
-
Pump the minimum wage and don't do anything to stop illegal immigration and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Pump the minimum wage and don't do anything to stop illegal immigration and see what happens.
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Only they're going to do something MUCH worse than that. They're going to increase the minimum wage by near 50%, and then they're going to change the laws to ENCOURAGE illegal immigration by offering amnesty AND creating a guest worker program. Pure genius.
-
Yeah, somewhere it's fiesta time. ;)
-
Ready for the revolution?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Give small businesses tax breaks.
Great idea. And exactly how much tax break do you propose we give? Is it going to be enough to cover the near 50% wage hike we're "giving" their employees? AND the increase in taxes they have to pay on the increased wages we give them the priviledge to pay? It better be REAL freaking big to cover the increased cost for the average family owned and operated eatery, landscaping company, or other small business that employs mostly inexperienced and unskilled students as the largest part of their labor force.
What you don't grasp here is that the Democrats aren't going to give those people a tax break. Or have you missed the part where they say people making $50K-$60K and up don't pay their fair share?
Increase taxes, increase the minimum wage, after all, there are wealthy people out there who can afford to pay more. Pure genius. A wise lady once said, "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend".
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Ready for the revolution?
No, I don't have enough reloading supplies, and I haven't fleshed out my collection of firearms and reloading goodies. I think I'll get started on that tomorrow.
-
I think if and when it comes, it will be short. You won't need much ammo because I think the rank and file of the "government" forces are as sick to death of this government as anyone else.
:)
And one thing's certain: the politicians themselves don't have the sand to fight.
It'd be a walkover.
-
It'd be a walkover? Do you guys know how much you've fought me over points of simple socialism? And that's from both sides of the aisle.
While not up to civil war standards, it won't be a streak free revolution.
-
My opinion... the one to which I am entitled, your grace... is that the American military will not support a government that has driven the populace to open revolution.
I think that fact would make the revolution much easier to accomplish.
You are entitled to your opinion as well, your worship.
-
Toad, there are people so invested in the system, that it's very unlikely they'll roll over, politicians included.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Great idea. And exactly how much tax break do you propose we give? Is it going to be enough to cover the near 50% wage hike we're "giving" their employees? AND the increase in taxes they have to pay on the increased wages we give them the priviledge to pay? It better be REAL freaking big to cover the increased cost for the average family owned and operated eatery, landscaping company, or other small business that employs mostly inexperienced and unskilled students as the largest part of their labor force.
What you don't grasp here is that the Democrats aren't going to give those people a tax break. Or have you missed the part where they say people making $50K-$60K and up don't pay their fair share?
Increase taxes, increase the minimum wage, after all, there are wealthy people out there who can afford to pay more. Pure genius. A wise lady once said, "the problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend".
(http://ryanduff.net/images/wordpress/chickenlittle.jpg)
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!
-
I was really impressed with one thing he mentioned....and none of you guys touched on it.
Eliminating earmarks.
-
I cant feel any sympathy for a company when the CEO's make tens of millions of dollars..i jus cant.....I got a friend that jus had a kid and can't get food stamps because they say she makes too much. She works a part time job at a grocery store makin less than $200 a week. After rent, diapers, and baby sitter she is broke, yet that is too much for her to have food for herself and her child. I just don't have any sympathy for millionaires, while a wonderful girl and beatiful baby cant even get food...
a second job isn't an option, because then her baby-sittin cost would double, not to mention that her kid would grow up being raised by day-cares....there is something fundamentally wrong with this picture and those that think all is well.
-
I take it she chose to have a baby out of wedlock? If she did, she's living with the consequences of that choice. Not to worry though, the Democrats are in power and they will take care of her!
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I was really impressed with one thing he mentioned....and none of you guys touched on it.
Eliminating earmarks.
Overall it was a very good speech. Iraq was the only weak spot. The only problem with his Iraq solution is it's too little, too late. It does not bring the force up to the minimum required in the Army manual to occupy an urban area.
-
My opinion... the one to which I am entitled, your grace... is that the American military will not support a government that has driven the populace to open revolution.
I think you're right on that one Toad.
-
Diablo..thats not fair...with a divorce rate of over 50% how can u assume she had it out of wedlock? And if she did, you ever hear of the bumper sticker that says S*#t Happens. So because of one instant or one bad choice in men, she and her child are subject to struggle and recieve no help? This seems like a human response to you? It's Ok for a company to charge taxpayers $100 for a bag of laundry cleaned, or $45 dollars for a 6-pack of soda, but this American mother and her American child should not recieve a few food stamps because she doesn't have a husband now? This seems right to you?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Oh noes, t3h moms & pops will have to open storez again
Oh noes we would have to take the covered wagon instead of drive.
-
Originally posted by chancevought
Diablo..thats not fair...with a divorce rate of over 50% how can u assume she had it out of wedlock? And if she did, you ever hear of the bumper sticker that says S*#t Happens. So because of one instant or one bad choice in men, she and her child are subject to struggle and recieve no help? This seems like a human response to you? It's Ok for a company to charge taxpayers $100 for a bag of laundry cleaned, or $45 dollars for a 6-pack of soda, but this American mother and her American child should not recieve a few food stamps because she doesn't have a husband now? This seems right to you?
No it doesn't seem right. But then again so little in life is "fair". Having a baby whether in or out of wedlock is a choice and a risk. You didn't state in your initial post that she was a divorcee so I just had to assume she had the baby out of wedlock. Sounds like she made two bad decisions; to marry this p.o.s. guy and then to have a baby by the aforementioned p.o.s. It's a matter of living with the choices one's made. She's made her choices, she has to live with them. No one promised everyone born in this world a worry and risk-free life.
-
very true..there are no gaurantees, but why do hospitals try to save people? why do u want ur parents to live as long as possible? why do want your kids to prosper? None of these things are gauranteed, but if you have a heart that still beats, you want the best for everyone around you, right? So my point originally was that I cant have sympathy for companies and millionaires when a working American cant get help feeding her kid. We dropped 21 billion helpin Iraq rebuild from their mistakes (and ours), but we cant feed a baby? Who cares if she has a husband or not, that kid deserves to be fed just because he is American...take of your own you know...
-
Will Bush abandon the ones that have been carrying the water for him
That happened a long time ago.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I was really impressed with one thing he mentioned....and none of you guys touched on it.
Eliminating earmarks.
lol! Huh? The rupublicans had total domination, senate, house, president, but their budgets had so many earmarks Reagan rose from his grave and fainted!
But guess who's gonna control those earmarks now? haha! Now you can't have them!!
That's rich
-
didn't catch teh speech, anything about planes on a conveyor belt in there?
-
No, but he did say something about free shark mouthed C-150's for every man, woman, and child in the country, legal or illegal.
-
well i guess thats kewl for just about evary 1 but me & Andrew Stahlin :cry:cry:cry:cry:cry:mad:boosh:mad::furious
-
Heh, suXXXorz 2 b u!111!!1!! :cry :cry :cry :cry :rofl :cry :cry :cry :cry
-
Twenty nine states already have minimum wages above the federal level, some of them for over a decade now. The same dire consequences were offered up by business groups then.
How would you explain the fact that economic calamity didn't happen in those states, and that there is no evidence that the last two increases in federal minimum wage caused significant job losses?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Who do you think will ACTUALLY pay the taxes you impose on corporations?
Who do you think will feed, clothe, and house all the people you put out of a job by raising the minimum wage?
How many more ILLEGAL aliens do you think will become gainfully (albeit illegally) employed here when they are used as replacements for those people who lose their jobs because companies cannot afford to pay more than the current minimum wage?
Some people need to THINK, and RESEARCH, before they toss out their "brilliant" ideas.
I have thought..and that's exactly why I came up with that brilliant idea.
Normally I would agree with you. In the end the little guy would be hurt just as he normally is by continually taxing the rich more and more
Doing it that way they cant raise prices on goods without increasing the taxes on themselves.
the only addition I can think of to ad is some sort of tax break for domestic labor under say..70 K per year
Then perhaps corporations will start trimming at the top where its usually needed most instead of at the bottom.
Get rid of one 100 K executive and you can save the jobs of four 25 K FTE's
The middle class is being squeezed out of existence as we rapidly approach a 2 class system of the very rich and the very poor.
Something, at some point is going to have to be done out of necessity for the good of the country as a whole.
If your not in that middle class. Its hard to comprehend or relate to the trouble its in.
Just as its hard to relate to someone with a bad tooth not going to the dentist.
For Alot of people its like. Just go get it fixed.
But for that middle class person it can be a decision of. Either get the tooth fixed. Or pay the electric bill.
Thats the type of problems a lot of people are in.
They make too much money to get government assistance. But too little money to be able to afford even the slightest thing going wrong.
and if your not in that situation or have never been in that situation. You just cant relate to it.
At some point something will have to be done. And if business wont do it themselves.. Like it or not. For better or worse. The government will have to do something for them. For the good of the country as a whole.
Other wise your going to be having a lot of companies going out of business due to lack of people being able to afford their products.
then EVERYONE including the rich. Gets hurt
and if they shot illegals at the boarder there wouldnt be an illegal immigration problem on the scale we have now.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Great solution!
The corporations will go right out and fire half their minimum wage employees, if not more. Then they'll go ahead and increase the cost of products to cover the costs of the new corporate taxes. Ontop of that, they'll increase prices even more to cover the raised costs of the outsourced jobs. The jobs they outsourced to keep prices for US low in the first place.
To sum up, about half of the minimum wage population will be out of a job and to just throw salt on their wounds, everything will cost twice as much.
Ontop of that (as if it couldn't get any worse), all salaries will decrease. Due to Supply and Demand and there being a sudden influx of supply, the amount of money an employer would have to pay to retain an employee just drops sharply.
Good job dred, YOU'VE JUST CRIPPLED THE NATION WITH YOUR SOCIALIST PROGRAMS.
No minimum wage earners and the corporations will have exactly who to produce their products?
The execs? LOL I highly doubt it. Most execs I've come across. The only thing they have going for them is a degree. 2/3s of the time not even in the field they are working in. And largely these people are highly over rated and over paid
They cant increase the prices of their products without increasing the tax burden on themselves.
And its kinda silly to produce and sell a product for more then people can pay for it.
If they dont keep prices reasonable. They simply price themselves out of business
With no minimum wage workers to produce the goods
Where is this sudden influx of supply coming from?
The continuing outsourcing of jobs may help keep costs down. but it also costs American jobs in the process.
As more jobs are lost. there are less people to buy the goods you offer.
Now that works fine for anyone who is in for the short term gain. but eventually. Long term, which is what the government SHOULD be thinking about.
Long term,at some point something has to give. Or we will end up being the next 3rd world country
this is perfect. in the last week I've been called a "right winger" by my neighbor. for my views on taxing he rich and now you are insinuating I'm a left winger.
that tells me I probably have it just about right
-
Dear lord, the hike in minimum wage will reduce execs salaries from 23 million to 21 million, it's an outrage
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Dear lord, the hike in minimum wage will reduce execs salaries from 23 million to 21 million, it's an outrage
I've already passed the costs on to my buyers.
You'll see it as a tiny little increase in the cost of automotive parts, depending where you buy them.
Didn't cost me anything.
-
American Samoa
hmm wonder why???? (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070112-120720-2734r.htm)
-
I guess the outrage of executives over a minimum wage increase is moral outrage as they don't want to see minimum wage workers pay more for Coca-Cola? Yea, I'm buying that by the pound:rolleyes:
-
Raising the minimum wage won't change executive compensation; get that out of your head. As has been pointed out, they'll just pass the increase along or move the business out of the US.
I have no idea how one goes about changing the ratio of executive compensation to employee compensation.
What's to stop and executive from paying himself 500x the salary of his lowest paid employee except the stockholders?
How many stockholders even vote their shares?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No minimum wage earners and the corporations will have exactly who to produce their products?
The execs? LOL I highly doubt it. Most execs I've come across. The only thing they have going for them is a degree. 2/3s of the time not even in the field they are working in. And largely these people are highly over rated and over paid
They cant increase the prices of their products without increasing the tax burden on themselves.
And its kinda silly to produce and sell a product for more then people can pay for it.
If they dont keep prices reasonable. They simply price themselves out of business
With no minimum wage workers to produce the goods
Where is this sudden influx of supply coming from?
The continuing outsourcing of jobs may help keep costs down. but it also costs American jobs in the process.
As more jobs are lost. there are less people to buy the goods you offer.
Now that works fine for anyone who is in for the short term gain. but eventually. Long term, which is what the government SHOULD be thinking about.
Long term,at some point something has to give. Or we will end up being the next 3rd world country
this is perfect. in the last week I've been called a "right winger" by my neighbor. for my views on taxing he rich and now you are insinuating I'm a left winger.
that tells me I probably have it just about right
i think that with the way corporations have been running rough shod over the populace lately that it is entirely possible for big business to "price itself outa business" as you said loosely. but when is the american moral system going to come into play and realize that we have become a society of luxury?
-
The continuing outsourcing of jobs may help keep costs down. but it also costs American jobs in the process.
Bingo
Look at the American Car Industry .
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I take it she chose to have a baby out of wedlock? If she did, she's living with the consequences of that choice. Not to worry though, the Democrats are in power and they will take care of her!
The baby didn't make that choice.
-
Originally posted by jhookt
but when is the american moral system going to come into play and realize that we have become a society of luxury?
What's wrong with a society of luxury?
Modern medicine and the long lifespans it brings are a luxury. Is that somehow wrong or immoral? Doubt it.
-
The execs? LOL I highly doubt it. Most execs I've come across. The only thing they have going for them is a degree. 2/3s of the time not even in the field they are working in. And largely these people are highly over rated and over paid
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason they make so much money is because they are worth so much money to the company? You didn't, because you're a communist (as opposed to a socialist). You think that every job is equally difficult and thus should be paid equally.
-
Originally posted by indy007
What's wrong with a society of luxury?
Modern medicine and the long lifespans it brings are a luxury. Is that somehow wrong or immoral? Doubt it.
Gluttony or overindulgence is a better term than "luxury"
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Gluttony or overindulgence is a better term than "luxury"
Okay, fair enough... but that's a religious conviction that indulgence is a bad thing... and inherently unconsitutional. We have a right to life, liberty, and pursue happiness. We have a separation between church and state to protect us from religious morality dictating policy (in theory.. not quite reality).
Okay, lets go with a practical example... my business quadruples this year. I'm the owner. I celebrate by buying a Ferrari F430. Pure indulgence.
Which one is immoral?
Me pursuing happiness in a stupendously fast italian car..
or
Forcibly redistributing my wealth to my employees..
According to the constitution, forced redistribution is immoral, in that it impinges on my right to pursue happiness. While, according to religious morals, it would be the sin of gluttony on my part.
The end question is... which do people support more? The constitution or their religious beliefs?
As an Athiest, I would hope that people would support the constitution that gives equal rights to us all, and not the dictates of an ancient work of fiction.
-
I didn't catch the address live. The transcript read good to me regarding domestic issues, but I was puzzled that the President didn't say more to prepare Americans for an increasingly probable tactical nuclear attack on Iran's suspect nuclear sites. It is THE most important issue as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the SOTU address was not the proper venue... or maybe they are waiting for a smoking gun.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Twenty nine states already have minimum wages above the federal level, some of them for over a decade now. The same dire consequences were offered up by business groups then.
How would you explain the fact that economic calamity didn't happen in those states, and that there is no evidence that the last two increases in federal minimum wage caused significant job losses?
Most of them are out buying clearisil Rolex. I'm sure they'll get back to you.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason they make so much money is because they are worth so much money to the company?
you wouldn't be talking about the CEO whose company lost millions and he retired with a $200 million retirement package would you?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you wouldn't be talking about the CEO whose company lost millions and he retired with a $200 million retirement package would you?
Supply and demand. If the companies didn't demand good quality CEO's so much then they won't be paid so highly.
Supply and demand comes back to bite you in the ass.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Supply and demand. If the companies didn't demand good quality CEO's so much then they won't be paid so highly.
Supply and demand comes back to bite you in the ass.
So there is a demand to reward a ceo who loses millions?
-
A Libertarian response:
http://duggmirror.com/political_opinion/The_State_of_the_Union_A_Libertarian_Response/
This guy looks interesting, I'll be watching him.
EDIT: Replaced link with mirror
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
So there is a demand to reward a ceo who loses millions?
No, there is a supply of board members who are CEO's themselves and realize that a vote for high pay for one will raise all CEO boats.
shamus
-
I thought it was a pretty good speech and I guaranteed my wife he would not say the word nuclear throughout.
:aok
-
I don't know about this guy Chair. Real libertarians do not seek political power, do they? I clicked on the link to see his stance on guns and it seems the site's account has been suspended ???
-
Ha! His site got taken down by the digg effect. I'll grab a mirror. It's getting hammered, he exceeded his bandwidth.
Here it is:
http://duggmirror.com/political_opinion/The_State_of_the_Union_A_Libertarian_Response/
I have no idea what the 'political power' statement you made means, though, so can't help with that.
If he's a legit Libertarian, then his stance on guns is the same as the rest of us. The more the merrier, and the only gun control needed is a good eye and a steady hand.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The baby didn't make that choice.
Never said it did. Now the mom is responsible for the welfare of said baby.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Never said it did. Now the mom is responsible for the welfare of said baby.
No, the mom is responsible for attempting to provide for the baby. The baby cannot be allowed to starve due to her inadequacies. Would you let it die to teach the mom a lesson?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ha! His site got taken down by the digg effect. I'll grab a mirror. It's getting hammered, he exceeded his bandwidth.
Here it is:
http://duggmirror.com/political_opinion/The_State_of_the_Union_A_Libertarian_Response/
I have no idea what the 'political power' statement you made means, though, so can't help with that.
If he's a legit Libertarian, then his stance on guns is the same as the rest of us. The more the merrier, and the only gun control needed is a good eye and a steady hand.
iirc, he's a contributor to Heads Magazine. Heads is a slightly more refined version of High Times.
-
mt... unfortunately... if you continue to send the message that having a baby out of wedlock will get you an apartment and a credit card and no stigma will be attached...
You will attract more and more people to become unwed mothers. You may have to let 100 suffer so as to not breed 1000 more. which is the real mercy?
lazs
-
I have no idea what the 'political power' statement you made means, though, so can't help with that. - Chair
thx for linky. i should have phrased it that i thought real libertarians would not seek to obtain or wield political power on the national level because the position would necessarily run counter to the libertarian philosophy. it would be practically impossible to make decisions that are in line with a real libertarian world view as the President of the United States, don't you think?
-
Gunthr, I'd disagree. I think a Libertarian president would face some severe hurdles dealing with and disassembling the entitlements based system both the Republican and Democrats support, but I don't see how it would be impossible.
Not by far.
-
And this is why I don't consider myself a libertarian.
We understand that corporate welfare makes America weaker,
-
Vote third party? How can you forget what happened in '92? With the vote so evenly split between republicans and democrats we're locked into a two party system.
-
Lasersailor, could you elaborate?
-
Well, I was confused as to why Ayn Rand and the Objectivists were so extreme in their hatred of Libertarians. I now know why.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No, the mom is responsible for attempting to provide for the baby. The baby cannot be allowed to starve due to her inadequacies. Would you let it die to teach the mom a lesson?
How is your first sentence different than what I said? It's not about teaching a lesson Mid, it's about making the right decisions that you are able to fulfill. Of course I don't want the baby to starve, don't be ridiculous, but on the other hand if she had been a bit more responsible on her choices, and that's the key, she and her baby wouldn't be in the situation they are in. I'm all for support in any way as long as there is an effort on the part of the parent of the baby to put themselves in a better position for their future. It's all about decisions and choices made and the accountability of those decisions. The baby has no choice in this matter and she put the baby in that situation. What kind of message is, "Have a baby, we'll take care of you no matter you do?" sending to women and men how are less than ideal parents?
-
Gunthr, I'd disagree. I think a Libertarian president would face some severe hurdles dealing with and disassembling the entitlements based system both the Republican and Democrats support, but I don't see how it would be impossible. Not by far.
- Chair
i'd love to see it. but none of us ever will. if a libertarian with an upper case "L" were elected, that is, a Libertarian Party member, it would mean that there are many libertarian thinkers in the country.
i concede that in that scenario, a Libertarian Party President of the country would have enough support to actually dismantle parts of government and legislation that are against the libertarian view of the world. But he/she would never become elected without that support in today's reality without abandoning almost all - if not all - of his libertarian principles.
I'm happy with electing leaders that have libertarian (small "l") beliefs who are determined to try and move us in that direction. I guess it just rankles me that somebody running for President in the Libertarian Party seems to be very dishonest to me, considering that if he were actually elected he would not survive without comprimising his beliefs. its just a peeve of mine.
__________________
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I guess it just rankles me that somebody running for President in the Libertarian Party seems to be very dishonest to me, considering that if he were actually elected he would not survive without comprimising his beliefs. its just a peeve of mine.
I don't get this part. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't see how you can assert that ANYONE who's a Libertarian who gets elected would by definition have to compromise their belief.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The baby didn't make that choice.
Government is for helping, not a way of life.
And...it also requires those who cant afford children to assume some measure of responsibility.
I'm perpetually amused at these stories we're fed about poor couples, earning minimal wage, no health insurance yet pop out child after child.
Clearly the government isnt sending out the message clearly. We'll help, but we wont be a way of life.
"Single, unwed mother" opens a floodgate of freebies. Section 8 housing, food stamps, free education, yada yada. What do struggling single men get?
Gawd, I'm be a lot wealthier n smarter if I had fallopian tubes!
-
Isn't Libertarian government an oxymoron?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Isn't Libertarian government an oxymoron?
The emphasis should be on leadership, not government.
-
I don't get this part. I'm not trying to be dense, I just don't see how you can assert that ANYONE who's a Libertarian who gets elected would by definition have to compromise their belief. - Chair
semantics, i think. i see libertarianism as a world view, not a political party. politics and politicians and political parties are ALL about compromise. there is an unspoken promise from the Libertarian Party that by voting for them you are voting for a significant change to the status quo. you can see that there isn't much difference in action between the the Democratic and Republican Parties, and i doubt that if by some chance a President would be elected from the Libertarian Party, that it's effective actions would be much different than those of the Dems or Repubs. politicians are potatos.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
mt... unfortunately... if you continue to send the message that having a baby out of wedlock will get you an apartment and a credit card and no stigma will be attached...
You will attract more and more people to become unwed mothers. You may have to let 100 suffer so as to not breed 1000 more. which is the real mercy?
lazs
lol you think that you can slow the process simply by letting unfortunate women suffer? i could ask everyone i know if thier mother's ever told them not to touch a hot stove. find me one that listened. even better find me that didn't touch the stove. but i guess you and diablo will credit that to bad parenting.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I didn't catch the address live. The transcript read good to me regarding domestic issues, but I was puzzled that the President didn't say more to prepare Americans for an increasingly probable tactical nuclear attack on Iran's suspect nuclear sites. It is THE most important issue as far as I'm concerned. Maybe the SOTU address was not the proper venue... or maybe they are waiting for a smoking gun.
I hope your being sarcastic when you say you were puzzled the president didnt threaten to nuke Iran:huh
-
Originally posted by Shamus
No, there is a supply of board members who are CEO's themselves and realize that a vote for high pay for one will raise all CEO boats.
shamus
You dont think the board gets a special gift from the idiot who just trashed the company and they gave him a quarter billion dollar severance package, do ya? Imagine that, 'You idiot!!! Youre fired!!!!!!!!!!!' Heres 260 million dollars, dont let the door hit in the arse!":lol I wish i could follow that guy for a cupple days.
-
I hope your being sarcastic when you say you were puzzled the president didnt threaten to nuke Iran - Whitehawk
did i say that? actually, i wanted the president to speak more about the actual dangers of nuclear proliferation that we are facing. i don't believe in threats. in any event, i would think that two battle groups in the gulf speak loudly enought without blowing a lot of hot air. aren't you curious to know more about what might be the policy of our administration on how we intend to deal with nuclear proliferation, or would you rather not know?
i assure you plans are being made, training is going on in Turkey, Iraq, Israel and in the USA for delivery of nuclear warheads. i'd like to hear more about it since it does effect the state of the union, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason they make so much money is because they are worth so much money to the company? You didn't, because you're a communist (as opposed to a socialist). You think that every job is equally difficult and thus should be paid equally.
That's right. when you cant come up with a logical argument or valid counterpoint. start in with the name calling.
and then put words in my mouth I never said or even insinuated.
Makes you look like a real rocket scientist
If I owned a widget factory
I'd take someone with no degree in anything who has been in the business for 20 years and worked their way up from janitor through the company by actually being involved and knowing all about widgets and the production thereof. Then I would someone with a degree in say Liberal Arts and Sciences.
they at least know something about the business
Just seems to me that if you are going to do a job. or if your going to get hired for a job because of a degree. you should at least have a degree in the field of work your doing.
Hence if I want to hire someone because of a degree they should have a degree in widgets
and most of the Execs I've come across not only don't have a degree in their field. But don't have half a clue as to the workings of the company beyond their office
Hence they are overvalued and over paid.
What happened? You luck out and land yourself a cushy job you are neither qualified for nor experienced in nor hold a degree in?
You fall into that category and now feel threatened by my comment?
You seem kinda oversensitive to if your not.
-
Did anyone count how many times Pelosi blinked? Good god, she looked angry.
-
they at least know something about the business
Fine. What would you say if I went out and removed every single CEO and high paid officer in every company? And by remove, I mean that me and them are going on a vacation to an island in the South Pacific with scantily clad women and fruity drinks.
We'll come back when WE want to.
What do you think would happen to industry?
-
Take mine with ya.. we'll do just fine.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i'd love to see it. but none of us ever will. if a libertarian with an upper case "L" were elected, that is, a Libertarian Party member, it would mean that there are many libertarian thinkers in the country.
i concede that in that scenario, a Libertarian Party President of the country would have enough support to actually dismantle parts of government and legislation that are against the libertarian view of the world. But he/she would never become elected without that support in today's reality without abandoning almost all - if not all - of his libertarian principles.
I'm happy with electing leaders that have libertarian (small "l") beliefs who are determined to try and move us in that direction. I guess it just rankles me that somebody running for President in the Libertarian Party seems to be very dishonest to me, considering that if he were actually elected he would not survive without comprimising his beliefs. its just a peeve of mine.
_
actually I think this election will be the best opportunity a 3rd party could have.
Just look at the field of choices we are going to have from the two big parties.
e have whomever on the right. Giuliani probably stands the best chance.
And on the left we are going to have either a black man with an Arab sounding name. Or the woman named Hillary
Now I not trying ot sound racist.
But I ask you. is the country really ready or going to be willing to vote for a Black man with an Arab sounding name??
somewhow I dont think so.
Not enough to actually win anyway
Safe to say anyone But Giuliani stands about as much of a chance at winning as a twinkie lasting 5 minutes at a fat farm.
the country as a whole just isn't going to want to hear what any republican has to say because of Bush.
Dems are screwing this one up big time. All they have to do is run a white male and they win. Its the next best thing to automatic.
but nooo. they have to make it hard on themselves.
So what we have is one distasteful choice after another.
and a country that the polls show isn't real confident a Democratic majority will do any better.
All a 3rd party needs to do is come out with a fresh message and a new face and they would have a pretty decent chance at actually winning
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Fine. What would you say if I went out and removed every single CEO and high paid officer in every company? And by remove, I mean that me and them are going on a vacation to an island in the South Pacific with scantily clad women and fruity drinks.
We'll come back when WE want to.
What do you think would happen to industry?
If replaced by people who actually worke their way up as opposed to having a degree?
Those companies/industries would do just fine. If not better cause alot of the petty BS would be gone
Seems to me industries have done just fine in the past when run by self made people.
No reason to think it couldnt happen again.
You seem to be suffering from the same delusion alot of exacs do.
they think they are irreplacable.
heh
EVERYONE is replacable
-
The funny part here is that you are assuming that every successful person isn't self made. But I'll laugh at you when it all falls apart when the CEO's finally decide to go on strike.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Fine. What would you say if I went out and removed every single CEO and high paid officer in every company? And by remove, I mean that me and them are going on a vacation to an island in the South Pacific with scantily clad women and fruity drinks.
We'll come back when WE want to.
What do you think would happen to industry?
after a couple of months somebody will say "hey, whatever happened to whats his name?"
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
What do you think would happen to industry?
Probably a huge increase in productivity as the troops in the trenches finally get a say in how they do the job.
Particularly if the troops received the reward for the increased productivity instead of the island-hopping, umbrella drink snarfing CEO's who usually contribute nothing to productivity.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The funny part here is that you are assuming that every successful person isn't self made. But I'll laugh at you when it all falls apart when the CEO's finally decide to go on strike.
I never said any such thing.
And to assume as such would be ridiculous.
By self made though I mean worked their way up from the bottom of the company. actually doing the grunt work before moving up the ladder.
I wouldn't say they aren't out there because I am sure they are.
In fact I know they are. I once worked for one.
most competent exec (in his case VP) I ever met
I respected the hell out of him.
Most people did. but by the same token he respected us as well because he'd been there.
While as I said I am sure there are some still out there. Its
something pretty rare these days
LOL And yanno what would happen if they all went on strike?
they would simply be replaced by someone else.
Ok you disagree with my proposed policies.
What would you do?
Now remember. You cant just think of the good of any 1 or group of companies. But the good of the country as a whole.
Long term.
You cant keep having ever increasing disparities between the haves and have nots. If history has taught us one thing. Its that eventually something has to give. And usually it isnt pretty
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Did anyone count how many times Pelosi blinked? Good god, she looked angry.
HUH???:huh
She did not look angry at all to me. I do wish they would stop handing out copies of the speech to the members, it makes them all look like they are napping while they read along.
As a matter of fact, Condi was the one with the "I want to kill something" look on her face. I did'nt see her smile once.
-
Totally unscientific, but I've noticed here and on AGW that more and more people are coming out for the Libertarians. I never here the same for the Republicans or Democrats.
-
Originally posted by rpm
HUH???:huh
.
As a matter of fact, Condi was the one with the "I want to kill something" look on her face. I did'nt see her smile once.
I was thinking the exact same thing myself.
Actually I was thinking she looked like an angry Gorilla were my exact thoughts
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Totally unscientific, but I've noticed here and on AGW that more and more people are coming out for the Libertarians. I never here the same for the Republicans or Democrats.
Been noticing the very same thing myself
-
libertarians have their own problems but yeah...
The real hope for the country is that libertarian principals will appeal to the young people more than a better minimum wage that gets em a little closer to the poverty line.
That young people will say "hell no" to the next round of democrat nanny crap...
I know the democrats won't let us down.. they will do their part... they will ban more and more things that the young and strong like to do... protect them from themselves... an unatural state...
It will be up to the kids to say "enough is enough old ladies"
lazs
-
I dunno Laz. I cannot consider our neighborhood any kind of microcosm, but about half the kids that gradu....,,uh,...finished high school six years ago are still living at home.
And when you talk to them, it becomes clear they are looking for a free ride, and do not or cannot shoulder any responsibility for themselves. Everything that is wrong is due to someone else, and nothing else matters.
Really quite bizarre. Absolutely no desire to be on thier own. I think this lot would vote for anyone who would be willing to give them a handout. They are more concerned with the inheritance taxes and that thier Mom makes sure to do thier laundry, than anything as world reaching as getting a job.
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Did anyone count how many times Pelosi blinked?
Did you catch last night's Daily Show? The count was 41 to 1 Pelosi over Chaney.
I'm betting she was wearing contacts and all the lights were drying them out.
-
I thought Ms. Rice was going to lunge onto the podium and attack the speaker of the house. Either that, or her 'intent listening' and 'burning hatred + longing to kill' expressions are a bit too close.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I thought Ms. Rice was going to lunge onto the podium and attack the speaker of the house. Either that, or her 'intent listening' and 'burning hatred + longing to kill' expressions are a bit too close.
I actually paused my DVR on that expression and called the wife into the room. Condi is a pro with the stinkeye.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
did i say that? actually, i wanted the president to speak more about the actual dangers of nuclear proliferation that we are facing. i don't believe in threats. in any event, i would think that two battle groups in the gulf speak loudly enought without blowing a lot of hot air. aren't you curious to know more about what might be the policy of our administration on how we intend to deal with nuclear proliferation, or would you rather not know?
i assure you plans are being made, training is going on in Turkey, Iraq, Israel and in the USA for delivery of nuclear warheads. i'd like to hear more about it since it does effect the state of the union, don't you think?
So you want the president to talk a bout a country harboring terrorists and possessing WMD's that we need to invade for our 'safety'? I think they realize we are not going to fall for that one again.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The funny part here is that you are assuming that every successful person isn't self made. But I'll laugh at you when it all falls apart when the CEO's finally decide to go on strike.
Under current law, they can all be replaced permanantly.:p
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
So you want the president to talk a bout a country harboring terrorists and possessing WMD's that we need to invade for our 'safety'? I think they realize we are not going to fall for that one again.
yea after two different presidents in a row saying it why would we fal for it a thrid time