Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on May 30, 2007, 05:43:07 AM
-
Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society
the dems should just come out of the closet and call a spade a spade..
She is promoting communism. Where is the media outcry?
And this anti-American way rhetoric came out of their leading choice for their parties nomination? Talk about class envy .. I think she should set an example, donating the majority of the Klintons net worth "for the common good".
We Are All in It Together, Clinton Says (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1)
I took the liberty and adjusted their icon accordingly:
(http://www.pogbird.com/X45/democratdonkey2.jpg)
-
I'm glad, that I'm not the only one who notices these things....
OG
-
lol nice :)
-
I think her husband made like 40 million since he left office and he still wants 10k a year from the poor people to fund his health care even tho he is covered by his wife.
lazs
-
Until they live in a 1000 sqft house on $1500.00 to $2000.00 a month they don't have a leg to stand on as far as distributing other peoples money is concerned. They are just as hypocritcal, if not more so, than gore for his energy usage. You folks burn just a little bit but he burns several orders of magitude more.
:rolleyes:
-
In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.
So you all don't see this as a problem?
-
Yep. Socialism runs deep in her veins. Her thesis back in college was essentially a socialist manifesto, or at least that's what's been suggested. No way to find out, since the University (at Hillary's request) won't release a copy to the public. That in itself speaks volumes. Interestingly enough, the "smartest woman in the world" flunked the bar exam in D.C. This forced her to take the Bar exam in Arkansas, where apparently she managed to squeak by. I believe Arkansas is somewhere in the bottom 5 states for education achievement.
-
So you all don't see this as a problem?
====
Im making more money now then I ever have, and Im just an employee. Cant speak for other people though, dont vote for other people either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you all don't see this as a problem?
And your idea of what should be done is?????
-
And you think that if I don't post a solution it must not be a problem? heh.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you all don't see this as a problem?
are you making less? Im not .. don't know anyone who is either
the last six years eh.. hmm ..sounds like another "blame bush" line of crap
how bout you lead the way MT and give up half your income .. show us how it is done .. you know hillary will never do it lol
what about the millions she is spending trying to get into the big house - sounds like clothes and homes for many of her supporters to me .. what a joke
-
Sounds like everyone is dodging the question.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds like everyone is dodging the question.
I do not have a problem that someone makes more money than I do and i do not make much.
why does it bother you?
-
The question has to do with the increased inequity in salaries, not how much you make.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you all don't see this as a problem?
Thats a problem MT, but what can the government do about it?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The question has to do with the increased inequity in salaries, not how much you make.
The solution lies in the understanding of supply and demand.
Once you understand that principle, you'll realize that there is no problem. Except for the fact that YOU chose the wrong career so as to not capitalize on the demand for CEO's.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The question has to do with the increased inequity in salaries, not how much you make.
It is none of my business, I truly don't care. It is not a concern of the government in a free society nor should it be.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sounds like everyone is dodging the question.
Yes you are indeed dodging the question. That's nothing new for you however.
What is your idea of an equitable solution to your "problem"? I'm really interested in hearing how you plan to solve this.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think she should set an example, donating the majority of the Klintons net worth "for the common good".
And the bush should set a similar example by donating all the family $$ Prescott Bush earned by helping the Nazis. With the Clinton's and the bush both broke, maybe they'll both just go away and live happily ever after at the same trailer park downing billy beer and smoking meth.
Although Bill could make $$ in porn, " Watch Willie get slick; Jurassic pri_k" and the bush could drape lights over his head and rent himself out an an x-mas tree at the mall... he does have the intellect of a house fern, he'd be a great tree... so that's good.
Even if they keep all their cash, the bush & clinton families are "model citizens" we should all strive to emulate, we really need the best of both to run the country. Maybe Hillary should hook up with Jeb and run on a communist neo-clown platform that promises to start wars.
-
Jewish Anti Defamation League (for some reason they are virulent Nazi haters...)
Rumors about the alleged Nazi "ties" of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated.
Despite some early financial dealings between Prescott Bush and a Nazi industrialist named Fritz Thyssen (who was arrested by the Nazi regime in 1938 and imprisoned during the war), Prescott Bush was neither a Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer.
Credit to Virgil.
-
The only thing more disgusting than a Neocon is a limousine liberal.
Why can't these goons just leave people the F alone for a change?
-
Sounds like everyone is dodging the question.
====
Oh my....well then....do I have a problem with people getting wealthy?
No.
Do I have a problem with corporate executives being paid good money for doing good work?
No.
Thats how it works for me...good work means salary raise.
Heres another tidbit, I would rather have the life I do now, the ability to live my life how I want, waste my free time on whatever fancies me at the time, rather than be one of these 18-7-365 executives that have no life, no family time. All they do is work, Nope....I need to play. They can have the big bucks.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The solution lies in the understanding of supply and demand.
Once you understand that principle, you'll realize that there is no problem. Except for the fact that YOU chose the wrong career so as to not capitalize on the demand for CEO's.
Hey look ...laser passed econ 101.
Sorry, but I think it would be better to return to the type of economic system backed by Teddy Roosevelt and espoused by Carnegie. But that's just liberal old me.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry, but I think it would be better to return to the type of economic system backed by Teddy Roosevelt and espoused by Carnegie. But that's just liberal old me.
Is that the system where Carnegie destroyed the union by hiring the Pinkertons?
Or maybe you refer to some more enlightened economic system...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hey look ...laser passed econ 101.
Sorry, but I think it would be better to return to the type of economic system backed by Teddy Roosevelt and espoused by Carnegie. But that's just liberal old me.
or roosevelt prompting the laws such as the sherman anti trust act? both roosevelts were communists.
-
What specifically are you so enamored about from those two folks work? Last I heard Carnegie wasn't all that upset with his own wealth and he was rather well to do even by todays "standards".
How do you envision distributing other peoples wealth?
Oh, and to answer your particular question. In regards to any govt. action, no I'm not upset that CEO's are being paids lots of money. That's for the stockholders to deal with, not the Federal Government.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hey look ...laser passed econ 101.
Sorry, but I think it would be better to return to the type of economic system backed by Teddy Roosevelt and espoused by Carnegie. But that's just liberal old me.
-
Liberals and socialists like Hilary feel that certain people's slices of the pie should be made smaller, so that other's slices can be made larger. Me, I figure we pay the REALLY smart people more so they can make the pie bigger for all of us.
-
I make 200 percent more now at my job than when I started. I worked hard to get here. Others can do the same.
-
On the one hand
Yes some of us are making more then ever before. But if you really look at it. How many of us are able to afford more then we could before with that "more" we now make.
Some will say yes. others no
Im sure if analysed nation wide alot more would say no, then yes
The disparity between the haves and have nots is reaching the point of absurdity.
This type of situation historically never tends to end well or lead to good things happening. Eventually it reaches a breaking point and all hell breaks loose
ON THE OTHER HAND
In a free society.
Im not entirely sure it should be the governments job to overly regulate how wealth is distributed.
But rather policies in the way of incentives that encourage rather then mandate a more free flow of wealth to the have nots is probably better.
The government already does this with states for highway funding Can you say "Click it or Ticket" or "Zero Tolerance for Agressive Drivers Week"?
Dont for a minute think that the states really give a damn about your safety.
It all about the federal money they dont get if tickets arent issued
One thing is for sure.
Like it or not at some point something will have to be done.
Because the nations fiscal health as a whole has to be a top priority for the government. And not only the fiscal health of the top earners.
But the more and more I look at the world.
the more I am starting to be inclined to think we might be better off with a WWIII. Wipe the slate clean and start over from scratch.
Or as someone here once so elequently put it.
"Sometimes I go outside at night and wonder. Where the hell is that damn asteroid"
-
or roosevelt prompting the laws such as the sherman anti trust act? both roosevelts were communists.
I would disagree. Anti trust laws and enforcement allow us to have a free market at all. Standard Oil abused its power and market position to artificially dominate the market, for example, by shutting competitors out of the rail system. Hard to compete on price or quality if you are physically strong armed out of the market. I might be a bit biased though, since the magazine I now edit was the only independent voice in the oil industry at the time leading the opposition to Standard Oil :)
IMO, the laxness of the FTC in the past decade where mergers and acquisitions have been concerend has been very detrimental to our economy long term.
Charon
-
Ummm, are you serious?
Free and Anti-trust don't belong together in the same sentence.
-
Speaking of Teddy Roosevelt
Sound familiour?
"Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
Kinda jumping around a bit but
"Now, this means that our government, national and state, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice -- full, fair, and complete, -- and, now, mind you, if there were any attempt by mob violence to plunder and work harm to the special interest, whatever it may be, that I most dislike, and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would fight for him, and you would if you were worth your salt. He should have justice. For every special interest is entitled to justice, but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation. "
The entire speach is a really interesting peice of work.
Its almost eery the comparatives that can be made today
The New Nationalism (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/31.htm)
-
Originally posted by OdinGrunherze
I'm glad, that I'm not the only one who notices these things....
OG
ditto... head :D
-
Liberals and socialists like Hilary feel that certain people's slices of the pie should be made smaller, so that other's slices can be made larger. Me, I figure we pay the REALLY smart people more so they can make the pie bigger for all of us.
Don't forget Einstein. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm)
-
I don't care who it is, if they advocate TAKING money/profits from the wealthy, they are wrong.
And NO. I'm NOT wealthy. Not even close. But taking what is not yours is wrong, whether you do it with a gun or a law book.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Don't forget Einstein. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm)
Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).
It's been proven not to work since then ...
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Until they live in a 1000 sqft house on $1500.00 to $2000.00 a month they don't have a leg to stand on as far as distributing other peoples money is concerned. :rolleyes:
ABso-friggin-lutley
-
Originally posted by Eagler
It's been proven not to work since then ...
Whoops!
-
Ummm, are you serious?
Free and Anti-trust don't belong together in the same sentence.
In the real world, unrestricted capitalism eliminates a free market. Market leaders, once a certain scale is reached, can easily use noncompetitive market pressure to eliminate your "better mousetrap." My Acme Mousetrap may be out of date, overpriced and have poor quality, but since I was able to dominate 60 percent of the market share by being first to market with a better product in days past (followed by unrestricted mergers and acquisitions). I now have enormous power in the retail channel. Through a closed-door deal with my only major competitor Axxis mousetraps (with 30 percent of the market) we have decided to divide up the market to our "fair" benefit and set mutually beneficial, but noncompetitive artificial prices for our mousetraps. You are an irritation to both of us, but fortunately we can easily make you go away.
So, I lean on my retail partners not to carry your better mousetrap or I will punish them. Perhaps I threaten to offer special deals to competitors unless they refuse to sell your mousetrap. Or perhaps exclude them from my profitable door hinge business, which would lose them $millions. Perhaps the fact that my conglomerate also controls 75 percent of the trucking industry as well as the mousetrap industry allows me to charge you 3 times the shipping rate for your mousetraps, or exclude your business from some regions.
A free market is not "free" if I can exclude you from the market artificially (relative to the basic tenets of free market capitalism).
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
In the real world, unrestricted capitalism eliminates a free market. Market leaders, once a certain scale is reached, can easily use noncompetitive market pressure to eliminate your "better mousetrap." My Acme Mousetrap may be out of date, overpriced and have poor quality, but since I was able to dominate 60 percent of the market share by being first to market with a better product in days past (followed by unrestricted mergers and acquisitions). I now have enormous power in the retail channel. Through a closed-door deal with my only major competitor Axxis mousetraps (with 30 percent of the market) we have decided to divide up the market to our "fair" benefit and set mutually beneficial, but noncompetitive artificial prices for our mousetraps. You are an irritation to both of us, but fortunately we can easily make you go away.
So, I lean on my retail partners not to carry your better mousetrap or I will punish them. Perhaps I threaten to offer special deals to competitors unless they refuse to sell your mousetrap. Or perhaps exclude them from my profitable door hinge business, which would lose them $millions. Perhaps the fact that my conglomerate also controls 75 percent of the trucking industry as well as the mousetrap industry allows me to charge you 3 times the shipping rate for your mousetraps, or exclude your business from some regions.
A free market is not "free" if I can exclude you from the market artificially (relative to the basic tenets of free market capitalism).
Charon
read henry m flagler's (the mastermind behind standard oil) biography IIRC titled the robber barons. while they did drive out competitors most of the principals of the companies they gobbled up became far wealthier with their standard oil stocks than would have ever become otherwise. the market has a way of regulating itself. all the feds ever do is gum up the works. anything the government puts it's fingers in it messes up.
the government can't even secure our border which is the most important function of any government yet they want to run industry. the only thing government is good for is taking money from the governed and mis spending it.
I'm not an anarchist and I do believe in paying taxes for the basic services the legitimate government should be concerned with but government should have absolutely no say in the affairs of the privately held companies that operate within it's borders.
the roosevelts were communists as all liberal N/Easterners tend to be.
-
Yea, I saw that news clip. Basically said she wants to destroy the concept of capitalism and the free market, in favor of handouts and universal... well, everything.
Anybody but Hillary in 2008.
-
read henry m flagler's (the mastermind behind standard oil) biography IIRC titled the robber barons. while they did drive out competitors most of the principals of the companies they gobbled up became far wealthier with their standard oil stocks than would have ever become otherwise. the market has a way of regulating itself. all the feds ever do is gum up the works. anything the government puts it's fingers in it messes up.
The level of innovation and market expansion we saw in the 1920s onward was night and day compared to the closed market under "The Standard." That breakup set the industry ahead a decade or more and made motor fuels and automotive transportation bloom in combination with the mechanization of post WW1 America and the Model T. This is an area I have researched using original materials from the period, and summaries from those heavily involved in the process and who covered the industry on a daily basis from a time when your could see reports on whale oil consumption and when gasoline was primarily just another industrial solvent. Kerosene for lamps was the hot product in the petroleum market as late as 1910.
The rapid expansion of gasoline after the breakup into new markets, the rapid proliferation of retail operations, the dramatic price competition (which really smacked the industry hard after an initial super expansion) all benefited the American consumer and allowed hundreds of entrepreneurs to enter the market, especially in the Jobber class. Many are still operating today on their 4th generation or so.
Too much regulation is certainly a bad thing, but no regulation doesn't serve entrepreneurs, innovators or customers. We have now, to some extent, reformed much of Standard Oil and the Seven Sisters are now down to four but that is still enough to allow a competitive environment in the market. I'm a bit more worried about defense, since any weapons program now only has 1-2 companies competing for the business.
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you all don't see this as a problem?
NO...
You dont like your salary as an employee... Get a better education, do better work, work your way up and you too can become a CEO....
But I guess the liberal answer would be the Robin Hood Theory.. Lets take part of his salary (which we think is too much) and spread it arounf to the poor surfs that work for him.........
-
Originally posted by sgt203
But I guess the liberal answer would be the Robin Hood Theory..
Robin Hood did not steal from the rich and give to the poor. He retrieved the tax money that the Sherrif and the Prince took from the peasants and gave it back to the peasants.
Robin Hood was a tax cutter.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think her husband made like 40 million since he left office and he still wants 10k a year from the poor people to fund his health care even tho he is covered by his wife.
lazs
Yea but nothing like Dick Chaney whom made what like 50 million while he was in office.. I wonder how much George Bush Sr. has made since he left office.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Robin Hood did not steal from the rich and give to the poor. He retrieved the tax money that the Sherrif and the Prince took from the peasants and gave it back to the peasants.
Robin Hood was a tax cutter.
The original story of Robin Hood did that. But it's current iterations are a socialist's wet dream.
-
Ohhh C'mon you heartless people... B & H Clinton has a child. They need to provide for. Chelsie could never make it on her own without the taxpayers assisting. Where are your Hearts at?
Just where are your Hearts?
Sad isn't it?
Mac
Free America!!!
-
Ya know alot of Americans now dont make as much maney as they could because of 1 thing. :OLAZYNESS:O . Yes, many Americans suffer from it.
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Ya know alot of Americans now dont make as much maney as they could because of 1 thing. :OLAZYNESS:O . Yes, many Americans suffer from it.
Spell Check would have prevented you from looking stupid.
:p
Mac
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1965, the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker, she said. By 2005, it was 262 times as much. In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you all don't see this as a problem? - MT
i don't. and i don't believe the government has any authority under the constitution to require "equality" of income. "Inequality" has got to be the most loaded buzzword in modern times.
-
Well, Hillary's views on government control of the economy certainly aren't new. Nor are they subject to any form of ongoing modification or development. They are fully formed and largely unchanged since she was a bespectacled nerd at Wellesley, where she first hitched a ride on the socialist bandwagon.
Yet, the real danger of Hillary's views lies not in the desire to control the excesses of the free-enterprise system, but in the lengths to which she is willing to go to curb those excesses. No doubt, she sees herself as a latter day Teddy Roosevelt; a modern Progressive who will achieve the socialist goal of egalitarianism through the redistribution of "unfairly" acquired wealth.
To achieve this goal, she employs class warfare and envy, although it is doubtful that she sees or recognizes her actions as being such. The danger in using class envy to achieve political and economic goals is that it is a two-ton monster that never stops growing and requires constant feeding. That is the problem with even the most well-intentioned and benign of wealth redistribution programs; those on the receiving end develop a sense of entitlement, and demand more and more as time goes by.
So, she will "rein in" the evil, corrupt influence of corporate America and throttle "special interests", only to turn control of the government over to voracious sectors of the electorate motivated by class envy and yet another form of greed. Those who work hard for greater personal profits wil be rewarded with confiscatory tax rates established by a government attempting to feed the monster, and ensure it's own reelection.
Given eight years under her leadership, the government will be well on the way to killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
She will achieve her vision of egalitarianism....and all we have to do is give up our individuality.
-
there should be a free market. In order to have a free market you have to have an open market. In the example given by charon.. you have extortion and blackmail. those would and should be illegal in a free market.
If the powerful acme mousetrap company threatened a small retail store with being locked out if they carried a competitors product then the retail store/competitor would sue and win in court. It is not difficult.. It does not account for corruption tho.
In the past.. workers were shot by police and even government troops at the behest of big buisiness.. this was of course all illegal. The idea of anti trust is to prevent the companies from getting powerful enough to buy the government which in itself always gravitates toward the illegal and corruption.
The idea of anti trust is a cynical one... it says that anyone with enough money can buy the government and that after that it will be a partnership of business and government to enslave the individual..
Socialism says essentialy that slavery is freedom... that the only way to assure freedom is at the point of a governments gun... no one individual can have power other than the government. the people can not be an armed threat to the government and business must be under the control of the government.
The idea that there is a disparity in wages now that is due to some robber baron business practice is not a very sound one...
How bout... if you want to get ahead... don't have more babies than you can take care of? How bout... Don't get married unless you plan on not getting divorced. The divorce industry has bankrupted millions... most houses on the auction block are because of divorce..
How bout the government do it's real job and protect individual rights and put an end to frivolous lawsuits? muzzle their real masters.. the lawyers.
and crocket... most politicians leave with more money than they came in with... it is just more distasteful when the likes of the socialist klintons tell the rest of us that they are gonna sock it to the cheating rich and pass it all out like robin hood.
Hell.. not like robin hood.. robin hood took from an oppressive government that taxed it's people to death and gave em back their own damn money... we need that kind of robin hood not a klinton.
It is proven over and over that the more you lessen the tax burden the more the people prosper... yet... the klintons and their democratic socialist insist on selling the message that we can tax ourselves into prosperity. That other peoples stupid decisons and choices are our responsibility...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Sounds like everyone is dodging the question.
====
Oh my....well then....do I have a problem with people getting wealthy?
No.
Do I have a problem with corporate executives being paid good money for doing good work?
No.
Thats how it works for me...good work means salary raise.
Heres another tidbit, I would rather have the life I do now, the ability to live my life how I want, waste my free time on whatever fancies me at the time, rather than be one of these 18-7-365 executives that have no life, no family time. All they do is work, Nope....I need to play. They can have the big bucks.
They deceided that money was more vaulable than the Kids, the Family time and so on, the trend seems to be how much money they can make at the costs of Family time and their Kids, I dont not feel sorry for them sense THEY made the choice of money over Family Values.
Let me ask you how much is enough money? Money brings Power and most seem to "enjoy" there Power
-
"We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"
- Hillary Clinton, born again communist.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Yep. Socialism runs deep in her veins. Her thesis back in college was essentially a socialist manifesto, or at least that's what's been suggested. No way to find out, since the University (at Hillary's request) won't release a copy to the public. That in itself speaks volumes.
This is silly.
Hell, I did a degree in Political Science and at the start I wrote my papers the way I felt. That was right up until I was failed on one question in an exam for giving my opinion on Quebec separatism. My answer included the withdrawl of all Canadian Government funding and the building of a big wall around Quebec with razor wire on top. The guy marking the exam called me xenophobic. I had to look it up because I'd never heard of the word back then. :)
After that I wrote exactly what the profs wanted to hear and was INVITED to join the masters program in Political Science because my grades were so good.
If you read them you would think I am a communist too.
Plus, you are accusing someone of something with no proof and nothing but pure speculation.
Nice.
-
xenophobe, pink short wearing scooter driving cigarette smoking poster on very obscure bbs.
I hope that helps
-
Originally posted by OdinGrunherze
I'm glad, that I'm not the only one who notices these things....
OG
AMEN!
Have to find the political bumper sticker web site and post link... They got all kinds of pics like the above with snappy catch phrases. Eagle, you may have found a second career ;)