If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2654
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2654 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | » | Last | Show all
 
  2008-03-21 04:42:39 PM
An Open letter to Supporters of Hillary Clinton from a supporter of Barack Obama:

A working democracy relies on an informed citizenry, and the ability to listen to another viewpoint- please don't flag me without hearing me out.

We live in a Democratic Republic, right? This brief period, where corporations dictate how taxes are spent, and usually choose their own offshore bank accounts as the beneficiaries, this is temporary, right? We're not going to consign ourselves to oligarchy- we're Liberals. We believe in individual freedom, from a woman's right to choose when she's ready to have a child, and the separation of religious passion from rational law. We won't back away from controversy, or creating art that freaks the squares. We believe in the right to open a business that won't be taken over by one already established. We seek an even playing field, which rewards determination and individuality, but protects new enterprise from the chains of old monopoly.

Who best represents us, as a whole? Hillary or Barack?

Hillary is a woman, and women have had a limited role in politics for most of history. Through the Industrial Revolution, the World Wars and the modern day, women have stepped up from behind the shadows of husbands, brothers and fathers to claim their place in history. They have lead the way to freedom for oppressed people on the underground railroad- and I'm not just talking about Sojourner Truth, though she was chief among them. They have walked through four feet of snow singing "Bread and Roses" to attain equal employment rights at the turn of the 20th century. They rallied under the banner of suffrage and claimed the right to vote and run for office. Women have risen to the point where they now outnumber men in white collar jobs and in college admissions and graduations. A victory for Hillary then, would be a victory for women everywhere, a shattering of the glass ceiling that keeps young girls from dreaming to be Presidents instead of Princesses, as mold-breakers instead of trend-setters.

This would be a victory, but is it the only victory on the line this election season? Black America has also waited in the wings for a candidate with a face like theirs, and Obama is set to show a nation of calloused people that they too can now take equal part in the story of America. So whomever we choose, there is a glass ceiling that's going to break, if we can unite behind that candidate. Is Hillary the one to break that ceiling? She has shown that she can hang with the big boys, but for that very reason, is she a bit too much like them? I think so. When she voted for the Iraq war, she was showing the boys she could be just as tough as them, but was she making the right choice for the country? Hillary has been a strong advocate for children, families and workers. She's been the wife of a President and accompanied him on many trips around the world, and in meetings with important people. This is formidable experience, no doubt.

But consider further: Hillary has always been at least upper middle class, and she has been wealthy for decades. Is her experience with workers and the poor actual, or academic? And when we finally elect a woman President, will we want detractors to be able to say that she only got there because she was the wife of a former President, and just used his already established network to get two more terms for her husband though her? Whether it's true or not, it will forever sully women's natural ascension as equals, by suggesting that it could have never happened without the intervention of her male counterpart.

Now look at Barack Obama. No, really, look at HIM, the man- not his pastor or the Obamaniacs who support him. The most common complaint I hear is that he is just an empty suit, just another politician. He's eloquent, an orator, a motivational speaker, but nothing more- words without action. But let me ask you this- when the golden politician of our day comes, the person who reaches the iconic status of Kennedy or King or FDR, what will he or she look like, and how will we know them? Will we dismiss them before we have investigated them, because we were trained to by whoever we thought the media had already chosen? Will we let a storm of looped sound bites drown out their message?

I picked up a copy of "Dreams from My Father", the memoir Barack wrote after he graduated from Harvard, but before he became a legislator. It is uncommonly honest, forthright and specific. It is so honest, that it has been used as ammunition against the man in every campaign he has undergone. I won't go into a book report, but I will back up the following opinions with what I know from that book, and encourage all to read it.

Barack Obama is not an empty suit. He is a child of a single, willful mother, raised by grandparents rooted in another time; in environments exotic , like Indonesia, optimistic as Hawaii, creative as California, gritty as New York and as spiritual as Chicago. He was raised working class, and lived in Hawaii not because he was rich, but because his grandparents saw that it was going to become a state soon, and therefore full of opportunity, and his mother got into college there. The man may look young, but he's pushing 50. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and Obama was born in 1961, the son of his mother and an exchange student from Kenya.

He moved to the continent for college and to find a community. He discovered his black roots in Chicago, where he took a job as a community activist for a scant $10,000 a year. He rallied the residents of the Altgeld projects to motivate their local officials to improve their conditions, and in the meantime rediscovered his African past, as he met with distant relatives from his lost father's life.

He went back to school to study law, to be more effective as an organizer, and became the first Black President of the Harvard Law Review, graduating Magna Cum Laude. He took a year off to write the aforementioned book, and was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. He started a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters. Soon after, he ran for office, serving 8 years as a state Senator for Illinois. His speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and run for US Senate are where most people pick up his story.

This is a man who made it there by his own hard works and initiative. If ever it is to be said that someone pulled themselves up by their boot straps, then Barack is that person. He has, through it all, maintained a definitive understanding of the clash between races, religions and classes. His campaign for President includes the largest base of individual donors in the history of America. He is the definition of grass roots. While Hillary has leaned on a base of established donors from her husband's time in office, Obama has eschewed donations from lobbyists and waged the most successful internet campaign to date, funding his bid for the white house on visions of hope and change of the status quo, not on dollars from corporate interests.

This is Barack's time. And this is our time to have a candidate that speaks for the working class, because he's been a part of it for most of his life. He's a candidate that has shown that he can see past political affiliation and find common ground with people of every stripe, and work with them to improve our politics. This can't be done quite as well if America turns into an oscillating oligarchy where we exchange a Bush for a Clinton for four administrations and look for all the world like a banana republic.

Hillary supporters: Take a new observation of Barack Obama, and ask yourself if he is not the golden politician of our day. All I ask is a second look, because I believe that's all it will take to change your mind. And it's OK to change your mind. Scientists do it all the time. It's how progress is made- observation, experiment, correction, ad nauseum.

Thanks for hearing me out.

-Paul, Seattle
 
  2008-03-22 12:17:22 PM
I got thru about the first paragraph of pinko's post and threw up a little in my mouth therefore had to stop and run to the bathroom. Comeone... seriously
 
  2008-03-23 09:54:07 AM
Godless Pinko: Take a new observation of Barack Obama, and ask yourself if he is not the golden politician of our day.



You've got to be farking kidding me! Did the kool-aid you're drinking come with the LSD in it already, or did you mix it in yourself?!

Why is it that this country can't come up with a good candidate? Boil everything down and you come to these conclusions:

Obama is not qualified to lead, defend, or improve this country in any way. And NO ONE has any solid, reality based, reason to think otherwise. He is selling HOPE, and if you vote for him, all you are have is the HOPE that his words aren't just smoke and mirrors in front of a big bottle of snake oil. He reminds me of Deval Patrick in Mass.- ask the citizens of the Commonwealth how that's working out for them.

Clinton is too corrupt and power hungry to do anyone any good, while she does those near her a great deal of harm. While a candidate, she has stood for whatever she has believed would get her elected. Before she was a candidate, she stood for whatever was on the agenda of those who expanded her power. She is a walking stereotype of all that is wrong with our system. Do we really think that we want a leader so power hungry that she would destroy her political party to get elected?

I could go on and on, but I won't. I am dismayed by the way our system can no longer find a competent, selfless leader, who truly has the best interests of the entire United States of America at heart.
 
  2008-03-24 06:15:25 PM
Solwyvern: Obama is not qualified to lead, defend, or improve this country in any way. And NO ONE has any solid, reality based, reason to think otherwise.

I've got plenty of reasons to "think otherwise." Have you read his campaign issues?

I could go on and on, but I won't. I am dismayed by the way our system can no longer find a competent, selfless leader, who truly has the best interests of the entire United States of America at heart.

I'd be concerned if I were some staunch Republican, but I really can't see what you've got against Obama. Hillary I'm not a fan of, though. She is a crappy choice like Kerry.
 
  2008-03-25 06:57:54 AM
Whidbey.... Just because he says (in your mind) the "right things" does not mean he is going to be a good leader or is going to be able to "bring this country together".

But what I think Solwyvern is trying to point out is that Obama is possibly the least experienced candidate the Dems have EVER selected to be President.
 
  2008-03-25 04:25:50 PM
dottedmint: Whidbey.... Just because he says (in your mind) the "right things" does not mean he is going to be a good leader or is going to be able to "bring this country together".

Seems like a perfectly reasonable platform to me. If he sticks to it, there'll be some good progress made in this country.

But what I think Solwyvern is trying to point out is that Obama is possibly the least experienced candidate the Dems have EVER selected to be President.

He's got enough to do the job. The most attractive element of his campaign is that he's not a career politician, he's put in enough time in government to understand how it works. I think the expectations of what counts as "experience" is chalked up much too high for these elections. If he can take the heat of the election process, he's good to go. He hasn't broke down in tears, or met anything he hasn't been able to handle. That's a good sign.

I want a President to get into office and do some maintenance on this country. I don't want sweeping visions of what America is supposed to be. We need to address the health care issue and work to get us out of Iraq. If there's room to do anything else after that, I'm all ears, but it's probably going to be something for a second term.
 
  2008-03-25 10:21:56 PM
Whidbey: "Seems like a perfectly reasonable platform to me."

Right.... To you.

"If he sticks to it, there'll be some good progress made in this country."

I'm not so sure everything Obama wants to do would be good for this country. You may think so but I don't.

"He's got enough to do the job."

Of course he has "enough to do the job". That wasn't my point. My point is that he is possibly the most inexperienced candidate that the Dems have put up to be President.

"The most attractive element of his campaign is that he's not a career politician, he's put in enough time in government to understand how it works."

He's not a "career politician" because he is not old enough for his experience to fall under the catagory of a "career". But he is clearly a politician that if given enough time would become a "career politician".

"I think the expectations of what counts as "experience" is chalked up much too high for these elections."

I think it is good to have what "counts" as experience to be held to a high standard.

"We need to address the health care issue and work to get us out of Iraq."

And I don't think he has the right answer to either one of those issues.
 
  2008-03-26 01:37:01 PM
I get so desperately confused some time. If someone has LOTS of experience they are slammed for being a 'beltway insider'. If they have little experience, they are slammed for not having enough to do the job.

Obama has more time as an elected official than Hillary does. Statement of fact. Perhaps the most important 'experience' a candidate for the Presidency could have would be governorship of a state... but NONE of the candidates have that. Even then, a governor does not deal with the enormities of geopolitics, being the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military machine on the globe, or many other such duties the President undertakes.

In fact, barring actual executive experience... perhaps the most important trait a presidential candidate could have is buckets of passion and ideas. Obama has this. I am not an Obama 'fanatic'. I have donated money to him, but only after I carefully weighed his pro's and con's. The only 'con' I have with Obama is his plans to gut NASA. Perhaps thats my Trekkie side talking.

However, if I chose not to vote for someone just because of a single issue I disagree with him on... that would be foolish. There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. The penchant for many people to not vote for someone based on a single issue irritates me. For example, for some people the only reason they do not vote for people on the Democratic ticket is because of the abortion controversy. Even though that particular person may agree with just about EVERY other thing with the Democratic parties platform... they still vote Republican. I believe they are called 'one-issue voters'.
 
  2008-03-26 05:33:16 PM
I dunno, dottedmint, you're going to have to be a lot more specific. If you have criticisms of Obama's policy, I'd like to hear them.

Discounting his ability to lead this country because he's somehow "inexeperienced" isn't holding up.
 
  2008-03-26 10:13:26 PM
Alright Whidbey

From Obamas site...

"Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans."

It sounds good when he says he "will restore fairness to the tax code" but what he is promoting does not (in any way) "restore fairness".

When the top 5% of wage earners pay something like 50% of the federal tax burden that is not "fair" and Obama is promoting making that ratio even higher.

Obviously the "rich" would pay more in taxes because they make more but completely eliminating income taxes for some Americans while increasing income taxes for others is not "fair".

"Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs."

Frankly I find the whole idea of a "minimum wage" counter-productive.

Every time you increase the expenses that a company has (increasing wage) either the customers pay or the workers pay.

This is the same concept that I've expressed about increasing taxes on companies...

"Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, which is why he'll require lenders to provide this information during the application process."

While I think companies like Payday Loans are a bit slimy I don't think the government should be saying that these companies can only charge "X" for an interest rate.

Those people who go to Payday Loans are not forced to go there....

"Support Campaign Finance Reform: Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system."

The idea of "public financing" of campaigns is very disturbing to me. Also "free television and radio time" ???? Does this mean that people could not pay for their own TV and radio ads?

"Expand Paid Sick Days: Half of all private sector workers have no paid sick days and the problem is worse for employees in low-paying jobs, where less than a quarter receive any paid sick days. Barack Obama will require that employers provide seven paid sick days per year."

Again....if you increase the costs to employers (paid sick days) either customers or the workers will pay for that increase of costs.

Well....there's a few issues....
 
  2008-03-27 01:07:22 AM
dottedmint: When the top 5% of wage earners pay something like 50% of the federal tax burden that is not "fair" and Obama is promoting making that ratio even higher.

The top 5% of wage earners make far, FAR more than 50% of the total income in the country. I remember seeing a stat a while back that the top 10% make ~90% of the total income, but I'm not sure how accurate/outdated that is.

Furthermore, taxes HAVE to be top-heavy to make sense. Someone making $30,000 a year needs every penny he earns. Someone making $300,000 a year can actually AFFORD to pay taxes.
 
  2008-03-27 07:14:46 AM
TheCid "The top 5% of wage earners make far, FAR more than 50% of the total income in the country."

Right. And if we had a fairer tax code they would still pay far more than the lower income brackets but the ratio would be alot closer.

"Furthermore, taxes HAVE to be top-heavy to make sense. Someone making $30,000 a year needs every penny he earns. Someone making $300,000 a year can actually AFFORD to pay taxes."

No. It is one thing for taxes to be "top-heavy". It is completely different to have such a small % of wage earners responsible for such a high % of taxes. And also, when you have a large %tage of wage earners paying nothing (or almost nothing) in taxes they are not going to have an interest in keeping taxes in control.

IF the tax rate was the same (or almost the same) for every income bracket (everyone paid the same rate in taxes) things would be fair and the "rich" would still pay a larger amount in taxes. And that would be fairer....


"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
 
  2008-03-27 12:38:07 PM
dottedmint: IF the tax rate was the same (or almost the same) for every income bracket (everyone paid the same rate in taxes) things would be fair and the "rich" would still pay a larger amount in taxes. And that would be fairer....

So someone who makes $30,000 should pay the same percentage as someone who makes $300,000?

Really?

If you actually believe that, you're a farking moron. Someone who makes $30k/yr does not have any "extra" money. They are spending practically every dollar they make on necessities.

Someone who makes $300k/yr actually HAS money to spare.

Corporations are only taxed on profit, why are people- who the government is supposed to serve- taxed on income?
 
  2008-03-27 06:46:31 PM
If you actually believe that, you're a farking moron.

I laughed.
 
  2008-03-27 07:29:34 PM
TheCid: "If you actually believe that, you're a farking moron. Someone who makes $30k/yr does not have any "extra" money. They are spending practically every dollar they make on necessities.

Someone who makes $300k/yr actually HAS money to spare.

Corporations are only taxed on profit, why are people- who the government is supposed to serve- taxed on income?"


Alright.....

Someone who makes 30,000 a year and had a tax rate of 5% would have to pay 1,500 dollars.

Whereas someone who makes 300,000 a year and had a tax rate of 5% would have to pay 15,000 dollars.

So the one person pays $1,500 and the other pays $15,000 dollars....

And that is not enough????

That would be the most "fair" way of figuring the tax code.

The "rich" guy makes 10 times as much as the "poor" guy but also pays 10 times as much in taxes.

Someone who makes $3,000,000 a year would pay $150,000 in taxes.

....gee....paying 100 times as much in taxes....

Don't talk about fairness in the tax code if you are not actually interested in having a fair system....

Now personally I would question the logic behind an income tax as well.

We want people to make money (have income) don't we? So why would we tax people on what we want them to make?

OH....BTW....

Don't try to tell me that someone who makes $30,000/yr does not have any "extra money".

I don't have the article in front of me right now and I don't recall the exact figures but most people who live in "poverty" spend money on more than what they really need to live.... not just "necessities".

They have "extra money" to spend on big TVs, stereos, microwave ovens, cell phones, fancy shoes and other not "needed" items so don't tell me that someone who makes $30,000 doesn't have "extra money".
 
  2008-03-28 01:19:24 AM
A cell phone is practically a necessity in the business world, and a cell plan can be CHEAPER than a land line w/ long distance.

A microwave oven is CHEAPER than a conventional oven, you moron. I suppose someone making $30,000 a year is supposed to eat everything frozen or raw in conservative bootstrap-land.

Or are they actually supposed to eat bootstraps?

Right now, the rich people pay LESS as a percentage because they get paid in stock, which we for some absurd reason, consider "capital gains" (19%) instead of income (30+%).

5% isn't even remotely feasible as a tax rate. You're so disconnected from reality that it's absurd.

Doing a flat 0-50 split would work much better than any even scheme or the current system of multiple staggerings that vary depending on your charitable donations, marriage status, number of children, houses bought, phase of the moon, etc...
Split it at wherever it needs to be. I imagine it'd be somewhere in the 60-70k range though I don't have access to the numbers that are obviously necessary to peg the proper location to eliminate the deficit.
 
  2008-03-28 07:14:19 AM
You miss the point TheCid.

The fact that you seem to think that someone who makes $30,000/yr spends their money on nothing but necessities shows that you (not me) are "disconnected from reality".

Neither cell phones nor microwaves are necessities no matter what you say.

"5% isn't even remotely feasible as a tax rate. You're so disconnected from reality that it's absurd."

....sigh....


I was using 5% for no other reason than to make the math simple. It would not matter what the number was because the "rich" would still pay more in taxes than the "poor".

"Doing a flat 0-50 split would work much better than any even scheme or the current system of multiple staggerings that vary depending on your charitable donations, marriage status, number of children, houses bought, phase of the moon, etc..."

First... I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "a flat 0-50 split".

Second.. I think our whole deduction for this, deduction for that, deduction for something else is a mistake. I question if there should be ANY deductions other than MAYBE a certain amount for housing.

"Split it at wherever it needs to be. I imagine it'd be somewhere in the 60-70k range though I don't have access to the numbers that are obviously necessary to peg the proper location to eliminate the deficit."

So anyone who makes less than 60k would pay nothing while people who make more than 60k would pay (how much in %tage?). Again in this situation you would have many people paying nothing in taxes while everyone else would be paying.

That just does not sound like being "fair".

Also....

The answer to eliminating the deficit is not to increase taxes. It is to control spending....
 
  2008-03-30 09:14:26 AM
Where did you go Whidbey?

You said, "I dunno, dottedmint, you're going to have to be a lot more specific. If you have criticisms of Obama's policy, I'd like to hear them."

I gave you some specific criticisms of Obama's policy and I haven't heard from you yet.

Do you need me to give you some more criticisms of his policy before you will respond?
 
  2008-03-30 05:42:01 PM
dottedmint: I gave you some specific criticisms of Obama's policy and I haven't heard from you yet.

Do you need me to give you some more criticisms of his policy before you will respond?


I don't really have anything to add. So you disagree with what wants to do when he gets elected...not surprised.

My contention was with the assumption that Obama is somehow not experienced enough to be President.

I do believe the upper crust of this society should be taxed the highest. They get the most of out of this country. They're still well-off even after they scream they're being taxed to death.

The middle class is the one who needs the break. I'm also tired of giving so much preference to corporate America. We've been giving that preference for more than a century at least, giving them incentives to make them even more wealthy.

This country was a leading exporter of goods for many many years, notably oil. If we had been wise with our resources instead of letting a bunch of unscrupulous types make untold billions, we probably wouldn't have an oil crisis. We probably wouldn't hear about jobs being shipped overseas for dirt cheap wages.

It especially annoys me when I hear that big business will then threaten to increase prices or costs because they're being saddled with regulation. People spend most of their lives working their jobs. They deserve a decent sick day/vacation day package. And I don't think a company making billions a year should be shirking their workforce, holding the threat of "competing in a global market" over their heads.

I believe we should offer incentives to companies who choose to do their business here, and punish those who pull up stakes and move offshore, firing workers and picking up a bunch of cheap labor. Absolutely.
 
  2008-03-30 08:23:26 PM
Whidbey: "My contention was with the assumption that Obama is somehow not experienced enough to be President."

I never said he wasn't experienced enough to be President. I simply pointed out that he is probably one of the most inexperienced candidate that the Dems have ever ran to be President.

"I do believe the upper crust of this society should be taxed the highest. They get the most of out of this country. They're still well-off even after they scream they're being taxed to death."

They make the most but also would pay the most even if everyone paid the same rate. In any case my main point is that don't claim that you are trying to make the tax rate fairer when you make it so that a large portion of Americans pay nothing (or next to nothing) in taxes when a small percentage of Americans pay most of the taxes.

"This country was a leading exporter of goods for many many years, notably oil."

Of course what party has been doing everything they can to make it as hard as possible for this country to drill for oi?

"It especially annoys me when I hear that big business will then threaten to increase prices or costs because they're being saddled with regulation."

As I have pointed out many times, any time you increase the costs to a company either their workers, or their customers pay for that increase.

You may be annoyed with it but even Whidbey Inc would do the same thing....

Every company does....

"People spend most of their lives working their jobs. They deserve a decent sick day/vacation day package."

Why?

IF in order for a company to get decent workers they feel they need to offer a good sick/vacation package fine. But it is their choice.

We are constantly increasing the number of "rights" that workers have.

We increase wages...

We increase benefits...

We now want to make paid sick/vacation days manditory...

Will we ever get to a point where workers have all the "rights" that they deserve.

How many vaction days would be the most a worker would ever need?

1 week?

2 weeks?

3 weeks?

4 weeks?

Would we ever get to a point where every worker would get a minimum of 8 weeks paid vacation?

Then of course how much sick time would each worker need???

"And I don't think a company making billions a year should be shirking their workforce, holding the threat of "competing in a global market" over their heads."

Again....that's fine that you think that but you can't increase the costs to a company in a way that will not be passed onto either their workers or their customers.

You want to "punish" the companies but you will end up punishing the workers or the customers.

BTW....(I'm curious)....do you have a specific company that you feel should be "punished" and how would you punish that company without punishing the workers or the customers?
 
  2008-03-30 09:48:05 PM
I don't know why you're arguing against a comfortable working environment, dottedmint.

I'm simply pointing out that if people are going to spend that much of their lives working, then they should have the right to call some of the shots.

And I'm sure there's a standard for both sick and vacation days, you don't have to rack your brain. Probably 30 days of each, with anything above that negotiable. Or perhaps a general "time paid off" model where sick and vacation time is accrued.


Of course what party has been doing everything they can to make it as hard as possible for this country to drill for oil?


The point is that big oil companies squandered our supply. We let them sell it all, they cashed in, and now they're still cashing in with our own domestic supplies depleted. There isn't going to be any new drilling for oil in the United States. It isn't going to meet the demand.

And of course, I could make the same argument for manufacturing. We once led the market, now many leading companies can't even "afford" to hire American workers, and the operations are in 3rd world countries.

We squandered our exporting/manufacturing base because a handful of corporate barons decided to get stinking rich back in the 20th century.

BTW....(I'm curious)....do you have a specific company that you feel should be "punished" and how would you punish that company without punishing the workers or the customers?

I would start by making a list of the corporations that have become transnational, and rely on outsourced work instead of using domestic workers.


You can't increase the costs to a company in a way that will not be passed onto either their workers or their customers.


They either need to cut their executive staff and realize they can't do business like they used to, or this country should allow subsidies for industries that can prove they're being substantially hurt by these reforms. I would prefer that they cut from the top, and stop being such over-achievers. The sky isn't the limit, dottedmint. It never was. We were led to believe that our resources are infinite and that conservation and wise management of said resources isn't good for business.
 
  2008-03-30 11:07:56 PM
Whidbey: "I don't know why you're arguing against a comfortable working environment, dottedmint."

I'm not arguing against a comfortable working environment. I'm against the government mandating how companies must compensate their workers. There was a time when perks like insurance, retirement, sick/vacation days were just that. Perks... Now we are being told that these things are "rights".

"I'm simply pointing out that if people are going to spend that much of their lives working, then they should have the right to call some of the shots."

They can call "some of the shots".

They can either quit and get a job that pays them and has the perks that they think they need..

or...

They can start their own company and provide their employees all the perks that they want.

"And I'm sure there's a standard for both sick and vacation days, you don't have to rack your brain. Probably 30 days of each, with anything above that negotiable. Or perhaps a general "time paid off" model where sick and vacation time is accrued."

WOW....

So my Widget company should have to pay each and every one of my employees at least 60 days for not working. Right???

So IF I have 500 employees that would be equal to 30,000 work days each year that I would have to pay for no work being done.

And to top it off I'll have to hire extra help to cover for those people who are off for those 30,000 days.

So.....to try to compensate for this increase of costs to my Widget company I am going to have to lay off 100 workers, not give the rest of my workers as high of a raise, and increase the price of my Widgets by 20cents.

"There isn't going to be any new drilling for oil in the United States. It isn't going to meet the demand."

It is debateable if it would meet demand or not. In any case if we allowed drilling for oil in the US it would increase our supply.


"They either need to cut their executive staff and realize they can't do business like they used to, or this country should allow subsidies for industries that can prove they're being substantially hurt by these reforms. I would prefer that they cut from the top, and stop being such over-achievers. The sky isn't the limit, dottedmint. It never was. We were led to believe that our resources are infinite and that conservation and wise management of said resources isn't good for business."

So now you are going to pass a law saying how many employees they can or cannot have???
 
  2008-03-31 12:55:37 AM
dottedmint: I'm not arguing against a comfortable working environment. I'm against the government mandating how companies must compensate their workers. There was a time when perks like insurance, retirement, sick/vacation days were just that. Perks... Now we are being told that these things are "rights".

Companies aren't in the business to be nice guys, we both know that. They aren't going to police themselves for potential unfair practices, and they certainly aren't going to treat their employees fairly if they don't have to by law.

This is why regulation occurs: because of basic greed refusing to budge. Environmental laws and all of the labor reforms.

And to top it off I'll have to hire extra help to cover for those people who are off for those 30,000 days.

Or you take a pay cut. Yes, you. The controlling interest, not the base workers. If you have that kind of capital, you're probably doing fine. Again, I don't see a problem with allowing government to help you if it's hurting your business. The truth is that many corporations corral the accountants and listen to their wild tales of how to slash the company's costs.

They can call "some of the shots".
They can either quit and get a job that pays them and has the perks that they think they need..


Sure, that'd be nice. I seriously doubt though, that they would quit their jobs they HAVE to have any more than you would.

or...
They can start their own company and provide their employees all the perks that they want.


Sounds awfully idealistic. I agree with you that I wish the world could be like this, but it doesn't really happen. Not for the majority of Americans who work for other people.

WE are the government. This little fact is often conveniently forgotten, and government is regarded as some unfeeling bureaucratic behemoth devoid of actual people like you and me.
 
  2008-03-31 06:41:46 AM
Whidbey: "Companies aren't in the business to be nice guys, we both know that. They aren't going to police themselves for potential unfair practices, and they certainly aren't going to treat their employees fairly if they don't have to by law."

I can easily disprove this by asking how many companies pay their workers MORE than the minimum wage required by law?

How many companies provide insurance even though it is not required by law?

How many companies provide sick and or vacation days without being required by law?

The answer is that many companies provide these because they feel they need to in order to attract quality employees.

Me "And to top it off I'll have to hire extra help to cover for those people who are off for those 30,000 days."

"Or you take a pay cut."



I think you are missing the point of that statement.


IF I am going to be paying people what is equal to 30,000 days each year NOT TO WORK I am going to need to have extra people around to make sure that work is done when those people are getting paid NOT TO WORK.

Also.... I probably would see my pay go down a bit but I'm only going to be willing to take so much of a loss.

I'm not going to be willing to cut my pay enough to compensate for all of the extra cost that my company would face.

Some of it will be passed onto my workers and my customers.

"Sure, that'd be nice. I seriously doubt though, that they would quit their jobs they HAVE to have any more than you would."

I'm sorry....WHAT????

People quit their jobs because they want more pay, better perks, different hours, etc all the time.
 
  2008-03-31 04:03:48 PM
dottedmint: I can easily disprove this by asking how many companies pay their workers MORE than the minimum wage required by law?

Not the point. And they wouldn't even pay minimum if they didn't have to.

How many companies provide insurance even though it is not required by law?


Not enough of them, and certainly not the mainstream. You still have to buy your own health coverage unless you've got one hell of a job. Clearly there is a low enough number that it's an issue, with millions of Americans without any health care or benefits.

How many companies provide sick and or vacation days without being required by law?

Again, clearly not enough of them or there wouldn't be an issue.

The answer is that many companies provide these because they feel they need to in order to attract quality employees.


I love how we've flip-flopped and you're the idealist here. I can't believe I have to tell you of all people that the real world isn't so accommodating.

IF I am going to be paying people what is equal to 30,000 days each year NOT TO WORK I am going to need to have extra people around to make sure that work is done when those people are getting paid NOT TO WORK.


I don't care. Those people deserve sick and vacation time the same as anyone, or maybe you should just go out of business if you can't compete.

HA! Now we've really flip-flopped.

Some of it will be passed onto my workers and my customers.

If you are a company that makes insane profits and you pull that crap, you should go out of business, just for the bad karma alone.

If you're a company that can show plainly that offering benefits to your employees hurts you substantially, then you should be eligible for some kind of tax break or subsidy.

Shirking the needs of your workers because you're feeling cheap isn't a very convincing argument. It never has been, and that's why regulation happened in the 20th century. You apparently forget this when it's convenient. If the private sector isn't going to take care of its own, government will step in. Every time. We'll make sure of it.

People quit their jobs because they want more pay, better
perks, different hours, etc all the time.


Again, that's a bit naive. Some do, some don't, some can't, some won't.
 
  2008-03-31 09:29:56 PM
Whidbey: "Not the point. And they wouldn't even pay minimum if they didn't have to."

Obviously since they already pay more than the minimum now they would pay more than the minimum if there was no minimum because they feel they need to pay that much in order to attract quality workers.

"Not enough of them, and certainly not the mainstream. You still have to buy your own health coverage unless you've got one hell of a job. Clearly there is a low enough number that it's an issue, with millions of Americans without any health care or benefits."

I know my brother does not have "one hell of a job" and his job provides insurance. (I know because he has been using it lately) The place he works for provides insurance because they are trying to attract good workers.

"I love how we've flip-flopped and you're the idealist here. I can't believe I have to tell you of all people that the real world isn't so accommodating."

The point Whidbey is that many companies out there provide some amount of insurance, sick and/or vacation time.

"I don't care. Those people deserve sick and vacation time the same as anyone, or maybe you should just go out of business if you can't compete."

I love how people deserve these perks.


"If you are a company that makes insane profits and you pull that crap, you should go out of business, just for the bad karma alone."

Well. To bad. As the owner of my widget company I decide what I am or am not going to do. IF the government is going to force me to have this huge increase in expenses I am going to pass it onto my customers and employees. I don't know of any company that would not do that.

"If you're a company that can show plainly that offering benefits to your employees hurts you substantially, then you should be eligible for some kind of tax break or subsidy."

OK.... SO instead of my passing the added expense onto my customers and workers directly you want to pass it onto them through taxes.

Either way my widget company is not paying for it.

"If the private sector isn't going to take care of its own, government will step in. Every time. We'll make sure of it."

The problem is that the standard for what is "needed" changes all the time.

First we needed to set the min pay for workers.

Then we need to make sure workers have paid sick time.

Then.... paid vacation time.

Then.... higher min pay.

Then.... more paid sick time.

Then.... more paid vacation time.

Then.... Well.... When does it end?

When do we get to the point where my widget company will be required to provided housing and a car to all of my workers?

"Again, that's a bit naive. Some do, some don't, some can't, some won't."

I'm sorry....

Who "don't"?

Who "can't"?

Who "won't"?

I've changed jobs several times ALMOST always on my own. (I've been fired only once in my life and I am now friends with that old boss)

I have changed jobs because I wanted ...

better pay...

better perks...

more stable hours...

I have also changed jobs because I moved...

Nobody gets the job that they are going to keep through out their entire life.

They always try to find jobs that pay better, have better perks, etc at least until they find what they want.

BTW....

Should my widget company provide my PART TIME workers 60 days each year where I pay them for not working?

Also......

Why would it be wrong for me to pay my workers twice the min wage and not have insurance or sick/vaction time?

What if I wanted to pay my workers 3 times min wage...

4 times....

5 times....

What if I decided I wanted to calculate the exact cost all of your perks would cost me and paid my workers that amount instead of providing the other perks?

I could pay my workers the same amount of money that it would cost them to provide insurance and have 60 days off.

Why would that be wrong?
 
  2008-03-31 10:44:34 PM
Look, I'm not going to waste time debating your every point.

If you're a business owner who believes in taking care of your workers, fine. I'm not talking about you, really. "Many businesses" doesn't mean the majority.

There's a thing called "reality" where people are DEMANDING fair workplace practices. Things are going to have to change.

I'm throwing you a bone here by agreeing to tax breaks or subsidies.

My gut feeling is to tell some huge profiteering corporation to "suck it up" and pass the laws to make sure they do. If they fire workers and go overseas, tax the everliving hell out of them. Tax them out of business. They are no benefit to the community they left behind.

Again, I'm sick of treating big corporations like they're something special--they're not. They're comprised of people, flesh and blood like you and me. We give them billions of dollars in welfare so they can do what you're suggesting: act like cheapskates and cry "poorhouse" all while making tons of money.

Then.... Well.... When does it end?

When people are satisfied enough that it stops. As long as business has the mindset that profits are more important than people, there's going to be demand for change.

And I'm not surprised you have zero empathy for people who can't switch jobs because they're trapped by the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck, won't because there are no opportunities better than what they're working, and don't because they're discouraged with their place in life.

Again, you live in a dream world where everyone pulls themselves up by their bootstraps. This is not reality. You simply need to understand that people in all walks of life have different needs.
 
  2008-04-01 07:07:58 AM
"My gut feeling is to tell some huge profiteering corporation to "suck it up" and pass the laws to make sure they do. If they fire workers and go overseas, tax the everliving hell out of them. Tax them out of business. "

Nice.....

And we wonder why the business climate in this country sucks....

"Again, I'm sick of treating big corporations like they're something special--they're not."

Right....

This country would be so much better if we only got rid of each and every big corporation out there.

Life would be great...

"When people are satisfied enough that it stops. As long as business has the mindset that profits are more important than people, there's going to be demand for change."

So when people start demanding that my widget company provide each and every one of my workers with a home and a car, I'm just going to have to (as you put it) "suck it up" and provide all my workers with a home and car.

And then when they start asking why I don't provide them all with food....

"Again, you live in a dream world where everyone pulls themselves up by their bootstraps. This is not reality. You simply need to understand that people in all walks of life have different needs."

Not true.

I completely understand that people have "different needs".

And not all of them need their boss to provide health insurance...

Not all of them need 60 days where they get paid to not work.

Also.... I have lived in "the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck," and yet have been able to change jobs.

And when you say, "won't because there are no opportunities better than what they're working,"

I can only guess you must be talking about Bill Gates because I don't know of anyone other than maybe him that could not find better opprotunities.

"and don't because they're discouraged with their place in life. "

WOE (freaking) IS ME.....

Why exactly should they not be discouraged when people like you think it is wrong to expect them to improve their own life.


I"m stil curious if you think it would be OK if I paid my workers $50/hr but not provide insurance.
 
  2008-04-02 06:53:08 AM
Look guys....

The bottom line is....

Any increase in expenses to a company (beit taxes, wages, perks or any other cost) will be mostly (if not completely) passed onto the workers or the customers of that company.

You may not think that is fair but life is not fair no matter how many laws you pass.

Now.....

What other stance by Obama do you feel like defending?
 
  2008-04-02 11:20:23 PM
dottedmint: ["Sure, that'd be nice. I seriously doubt though, that they would quit their jobs they HAVE to have any more than you would."]

I'm sorry....WHAT????

People quit their jobs because they want more pay, better perks, different hours, etc all the time.


I just quit my job to do the exact same thing for the competitor for $15k more with better benefits and a shorter work week, so I'm really getting a kick out of this reply.

/the worker bees can leave
//even drones can fly away
///the queen is their slave
 
  2008-04-02 11:59:12 PM
I think this "Obama" guy might have a real shot.
 
  2008-04-03 07:42:42 PM
I had an argument with an economist friend of mine the other day about the feasibility of using licensing fees to allow for smoking in establishment that are currently precluded from allowing such actions, we also bled into pigovian taxes. His argument was that we need to show the real cost to the consumer and the whole externality aspect of the issue. He contested this would change peoples actions when they would have to take an economic hit. I lost the economic discussion because well I am a civil libertarian at heart and would rather let people have freedom from economic coercion than to try to correct the "problem" through taxing. I believe that freedom of association should negate the harm blame because the harm was caused associating yourself with environments that harm you thus no externalities caused by the smokers. My basis was that any undue pressure to correct what some think is wrong, even though it is still legal, is wrong on so many levels. Let me say that was not a good economic argument.

That said, I was reading the thread (new window) today about McCain not being liberal enough to garner any bleed over from the schism of the Obama and Clinton fiasco. Somehow the thread devolved into an abortion thread. Seeing the back and forth in it, I started to see some correlation with the conversation I had. Some people think abortion is wrong and most agreed that the total number of abortions should at least be lowered. Well how about using a tax/fee to make it economically unfeasible for such actions. There is a social cost associated with abortion, so why not use the power of economics to minimize the cost to society and ultimately make abortions less common? Also would this be legal?

For the record I do not want this done, it is just an interesting academic idea.
 
  2008-04-03 08:58:24 PM
Well Saiga410....

"smoking in establishment": IF smoking is allowed in an "establishment" or not should be left up to the owner of that "establishment".

IF I owned a bar it should be my choice if smoking is allowed or not....

"garner any bleed over"": Well... According to a gallop poll 28% of Clinton supporters would vote for McCain over Obama and 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Clinton.

I suspect that the longer the fighting goes on between the two of them the more support McCain will get.

"economically unfeasible for such actions": While I am pro-life and think abortions should be reduced as much as possible, I realize that there is no way that you would tax abortions abortions to a point where they were "unfeasible" because the left would be telling us that taxing abortions would be unfair to the "poor" and I would not be surprised if someone tried to say taxing abortion was somehow racist.

Now I Said...

I'm not sure how much of a shot Obama has when he has one of the most liberal records out there as well as very liberal plans for this country.

And MusicMakeMyHeadPound that company has better pay/perks because they are trying to attract quality employees.

And yet they ended up with you?????

*****KIDDING*****
 
  2008-04-04 04:45:24 PM
Same Cause, 41 years later...

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Iraq. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Iraq. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.

--Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. (Excerpted from Beyond Vietman, Time to Break Silence...substitution Iraq for Vietnam).
 
  2008-04-04 09:17:37 PM
dottedmint: What other stance by Obama do you feel like defending?

He's overall a better choice than McCain. McCain is going to carry on the failed policy of the Bush administration. An Obama Presidency would be welcomed stability and we could spend the next four years allowing for more progressive ideas.

Bush's legacy is failure, there's no reason to continue it.

And Obama definitely reaches out to more Americans than either Hillary or McCain. I don't think he's a "miracle candidate" by any means, but we really should give him a chance. At least one term.
 
  2008-04-04 10:34:49 PM
It is not the same cause rnatalie.

We are not the ones causing the suffering in Iraq.

IF we leave Iraq before we should the amount of suffering in Iraq will be alot more than we have seen so far.

Now....

Whidbey....

Bush doesn't really have failed policies....

Also McCain is not Bush.

"An Obama Presidency would be welcomed stability and we could spend the next four years allowing for more progressive ideas."

I'm curious how you think an Obama presidency would have more stability than a McCain presidency....

Also when you say "more progressive ideas" you are talking about more "liberal ideas" (right?) since Obama has some very liberal plans.
 
  2008-04-04 10:55:33 PM
dottedmint: Bush doesn't really have failed policies....

You're simply wrong. We've argued it, and you haven't learned from any of our conversations.

I really wonder if you're capable of it.

I don't want to waste the time arguing it anymore. It's up to you to realize that the Bush administration has done evil things. Yes, evil. It's your shortcoming, not mine.

I'm curious how you think an Obama presidency would have more stability than a McCain presidency....

Pretty obvious, really. One believes in the continued military failures like Iraq, and the other believes we need to explore more realistic peaceful options. Any President that turns focus to this country instead of somewhere in Asia is working for stability. Any President who continues to tow the line that we're the Big Bad United States STFU is inviting the same continued instability we've had to suffer through the past eight years.

Also when you say "more progressive ideas" you are talking about more "liberal ideas" (right?) since Obama has some very liberal plans.

So what?

You're so afraid of change, aren't you? And there's nothing wrong with professing liberal philosophies, except the word itself doesn't go far enough. "Progressive" is a much better term to describe the attitude of people that really care about this world and its future.
 
  2008-04-05 02:28:18 AM
dottedmint: Bush doesn't really have failed policies....

I laughed until there were tears.

Mission accomplished!
 
  2008-04-05 10:45:55 AM
whidbey: you haven't learned from any of our conversations.

Only because he had a lousy teacher......
 
  2008-04-05 05:00:33 PM
MusicMakeMyHeadPound the banner that said "Mission Accomplished" was not a policy. It was an accurate description of the status of the USS Abraham Lincoln after a 290 day deployment. It also was something that the Navy wanted to put up, not something Bush came up with.

Whidbey: "It's up to you to realize that the Bush administration has done evil things."

You must be getting Bush mixed up with Saddam because Saddam is the one who did truely evil things... Not Bush...

"One believes in the continued military failures like Iraq,"

Based one what reasonable measurement is Iraq a "failure"????

Defeat Saddam --- Check

Establish Democracy --- Check

Have free elections --- Check

Start training Iraqi military/police --- Check

Encourage the Iraqis to turn against the terrorists --- Check

Have we taken out each and every terrorist over there? No, but that does not make the war a "failure".

Have we gotten all the different groups in Iraq to put aside all of their differences? No, but again that does not make the war a "failure".

Have we brought all of our troops home? No, and even that does not make the war a "failure".

The ONLY way the Iraq war could end in "failure" would be if we pull out of Iraq before the Iraqi government is ready for us to pull out and all of our VERY REAL GAINS are lost.

"Any President that turns focus to this country instead of somewhere in Asia is working for stability."

No. Any President that ignores the very real threats that face this country invites attacks against this country.

Putting our heads in the sand is not going to make the terrorists go away.

"Any President who continues to tow the line that we're the Big Bad United States STFU is inviting the same continued instability we've had to suffer through the past eight years."

Actually McCain has said that he wants to work with our allies more.....

"You're so afraid of change, aren't you?"

No. It isn't being "afraid of change". It is being afraid of the wrong kind of change.

"And there's nothing wrong with professing liberal philosophies,"

I strongly disagree....

""Progressive" is a much better term to describe the attitude of people that really care about this world and its future."

Call it what you want.

Doesn't make it good...

See....

I think it is alot better to try to get people to provide for themselves instead of making them dependent on the governmnet.

I think taking guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't help anyone except the bad guys.

I think being soft on crime makes crime harder on all the rest of us.

I think allowing Iraq to fall apart at this point is far more dangerous and a bigger mistake than any mistake that we have made up to this point.

And as I have pointed out to you many many times.... any increase in costs to a company will be mostly passed onto either the customers or employees of that company.
 
  2008-04-05 05:38:38 PM
dottedmint: Bush doesn't really have failed policies....

I laughed. But on second thought, if his policies involved historic assaults on civil liberties, expanding debt and governmental bureaucracy exponentially, then yes, he doesn't really have failed policies.

"Defeat"ed Saddam? So he invaded the US, eh?
 
  2008-04-05 06:36:01 PM
Same old crap. You never learn, dottedmint. You've gotten nothing out of our conversations.

You think we've done good in Iraq. Fine. That's a delusion. We are failures there. They want us OUT there. Yes, I know you don't believe it. What's sad is that our leaders share your delusion, that no matter how many Iraqis raise their voices to tell us they want us out, we're staying. So score for your thinking. Of course, it's extremely wrong-headed, but I suppose whoever has the guns makes the rules? Nevermind that we have no business being there and there is nothing Constitutional backing up our actions.

It's just so easy to address your remarks. Why do you keep defending them?

Establish Democracy --- Check

Failure. It's anarchy over there without our top-heavy security force in place, and even it's ineffective.
Have free elections --- Check

Free elections that mean nothing. The majority wants an Islamic theocracy. Where is it?

Start training Iraqi military/police --- Check

Yeah right. "Start." We've been "starting" for awhile, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to think that this effort is a success. It's a failure, along with the whole policy.

Encourage the Iraqis to turn against the terrorists --- Check

We've done a far better job of encouraging the Iraqis to join the terrorists. See, once again, your mindset is practically identical to Cheney's, and he's still in office, not on trial as a war criminal. Cheney, Bush and whomever drafted this war policy share a portion of the responsibility for a country in ruins and hundreds of thousands of dead civilians.

Any President that ignores the very real threats that face this country invites attacks against this country.

There is no evidence that anyone is planning on attacking this country. This is not only propaganda, but sheer paranoia. This is is the instability I'm referring to. Dishonesty, secrecy and abuses of the military.


I think it is alot better to try to get people to provide for themselves instead of making them dependent on the governmnet.


That's a nice philosophy. It only works to a point. Right now there is a demand that reforms take place in this country, right now. Using our resources to blow up countries on the other side of the globe doesn't serve our needs.


And as I have pointed out to you many many times.... any increase in costs to a company will be mostly passed onto either the customers or employees of that company.


You keep saying that, yes. But you ignore that we have the right to demand fair labor practices, and crying "poorhouse" when you're making billions of dollars in profit doesn't cut it.

Subsidies should be offered to companies that can prove they're being hurt by having to play fair, or they can go out of business and be sued by their former employees.

Yes, justice and fair practice is "the wrong kind of change" you're afraid of, it sounds like. An overall better standard of living for everyone and less stress for families sounds like "the wrong kind of change."

I've got it figured out: You want to keep this country in the dark, dottedmint, full of hate, class envy, misplaced patriotism, turning a blind eye to military abuses and continued respect for big business over citizenry. There's no room for a word like "hope" in your vision for this country.
 
  2008-04-05 10:34:27 PM
It is anything but crap Whidbey.

As I have said many times IF you want to question the reasons for going into Iraq.... Fine.

We are in Iraq NOW and need to decide what our next steps should be. What action that we take would have the best result? We have had successes in Iraq. You want to ignore them but they are still there.

Is everything in Iraq perfect?

No. Of course not but that does not make the war a failure.

"There is no evidence that anyone is planning on attacking this country. This is not only propaganda, but sheer paranoia. This is is the instability I'm referring to. Dishonesty, secrecy and abuses of the military."

sigh


IF we put our heads in the sand as you seem to think we should we would never be able to see any threats until they are too late.

"That's a nice philosophy. It only works to a point. Right now there is a demand that reforms take place in this country, right now. Using our resources to blow up countries on the other side of the globe doesn't serve our needs."

It actually works more than you want to admit. But of course when you tell people that the government will provide for them whatever they want why should they bother to try to provide for themselves?

"But you ignore that we have the right to demand fair labor practices, and crying "poorhouse" when you're making billions of dollars in profit doesn't cut it.

Subsidies should be offered to companies that can prove they're being hurt by having to play fair, or they can go out of business and be sued by their former employees."


And as I said before you will just keep demanding more and more and more because people exposed to liberalism would rather have something handed to them than provide it for themself.

What you can't seem to understand is that there is no "free lunch". You want companies to provide all these wonderful perks to their workers? Fine. It will cost us somewhere. Either the workers and customers will pay for those costs or if you wish to use subsidies taxpayers will pay for those perks.

And I find it sickening that you seem to have no problem with US Companies being driven out of business.

Oh and....how would you decide what companies are passing these new expenses onto their customers/workers and deserve to be driven out of business?

And how exactly would you drive them out of business?

"An overall better standard of living for everyone and less stress for families sounds like "the wrong kind of change.""

Hardly.....

You and I simply disagree on how to improve the sandard of living for people.
 
  2008-04-06 01:37:44 AM
dottedmint: As I have said many times IF you want to question the reasons for going into Iraq.... Fine.

We are in Iraq NOW and need to decide what our next steps should be. What action that we take would have the best result? We have had successes in Iraq. You want to ignore them but they are still there


That's called moving the goalposts. And you're also very much in denial as there are no successes there.

How about admitting the policy was/is a failure? How about assigning some blame and making a commitment never to support such policy again? I don't think you're capable of that. You simply cannot bring yourself to admit a policy you supported is a total failure. That's beyond puzzling, five years after the invasion.

It actually works more than you want to admit. But of course when you tell people that the government will provide for them whatever they want why should they bother to try to provide for themselves?

I told you, I've got it figured out: Don't try to improve people's lives. Just keep them in the dark and force them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And never ever give anyone any kind of opportunity. Except big business.


And as I said before you will just keep demanding more and more and more because people exposed to liberalism would rather have something handed to them than provide it for themself.


Now you're raving. You have nothing to base this on.

What you can't seem to understand is that there is no "free lunch". You want companies to provide all these wonderful perks to their workers? Fine. It will cost us somewhere. Either the workers and customers will pay for those costs or if you wish to use subsidies taxpayers will pay for those perks.

They are not "perks." They are basic rights every worker should have. And I don't care if it "costs" us. I'd rather spend our money making this a better country instead of wasting it on pointless military operations overseas.

You and I simply disagree on how to improve the sandard of living for people.

It's not mere disagreement. Trickle-down style economics only benefits the rich. You're defending an oligarchy.

And no, I don't expect Obama to be a knight in armor striking at Goliath. But he does appear to have the working man and middle class citizenry in mind, and McCain represent the old guard, the political and social failures.

Seriously, you'd do well to start questioning the things you defend so much. Militarism and oligarchy by the rich are so 20th Century. Your way didn't work, ultimately benefited a small percentage of this country, and has the world very pissed off at us in 2008.
 
  2008-04-06 08:01:21 AM
ever hear of earmarks? That's the same as: govn't wastes. Namely, millions & millions of $ 24/7/356. Any surprise why the media never talks about it...let alone, the politicians we vote for?
 
  2008-04-06 09:51:51 PM
Whidbey "That's called moving the goalposts."

No. That is called looking to the future since that is what we can influence.

We need to decide what action will have the most positive effect for us as well as the Mid-East.

IF we pulled all of our soldiers out of Iraq tomorrow would things get better for us and that region or would things get worse?

I STRONGLY feel that things would get worse for Iraq, that region and also for this country.

"I told you, I've got it figured out: Don't try to improve people's lives. Just keep them in the dark and force them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

So the whole idea of providing for yourself is alien to you???

We just can't expect anyone to actually improve their own lives.

"They are not "perks." They are basic rights every worker should have. And I don't care if it "costs" us. I'd rather spend our money making this a better country instead of wasting it on pointless military operations overseas."

I don't really care if you want to call them "perks" or "rights". They are costs to companies that will be passed onto customers and workers.

But you are going to get it so that these "perks"/"rights" are not passed on by providing Subsidies to companies that were paid for by taxpayers.

"It's not mere disagreement. Trickle-down style economics only benefits the rich. You're defending an oligarchy."

And your plan would not help the poor/middle class as much as you may think.

Fine.... You give workers all the perks [sorry] "rights" that you feel they should have. As a result of those "rights" everything gets more expensive. That does not help the poor/middle class.

People think that by simply raising the min wage that you can somehow combat poverty but economics does not work that way. All you do with that is simply raise the income level that is considered poverty.

Imagine....

Tomorrow the min wage is raised to $20/hr. Sounds great because everyone would suddenly make $20/hr. The problem is that suddenly everything would cost more money so any increase in the min wage would be eaten up by the increase in costs.

Oh and to top it off there would still be the "evil rich".
 
  2008-04-07 02:15:01 PM
Dottedmint,you moved the goalposts. You refuse to admit Iraq was a mistake, so you changed the subject. This is intellectually dishonest. I wasn't talking about what we should do now. I want you to realize the entire thing was a mistake, that it's hurt our world image and a trillion dollars has been wasted over there.

We just can't expect anyone to actually improve their own lives.

I can't deal with this broadbrush thinking, either. You ignore that there is a DEMAND to improve conditions in this country. This includes forcing BIG corporations to provide for their workers basic needs, job security being one of them.

But you are going to get it so that these "perks"/"rights" are not passed on by providing Subsidies to companies that were paid for by taxpayers.

I don't even want to do that. I said I'd compromise. I'd rather corporations realize that keeping their workers happy is part of the cost of doing business. I don't want to give them corporate welfare.

"It's not mere disagreement. Trickle-down style economics only benefits the rich. You're defending an oligarchy."

And your plan would not help the poor/middle class as much as you may think.


So you admit you that the very thing you've been defending doesn't benefit the most people?

As a result of those "rights" everything gets more expensive. That does not help the poor/middle class.

Things get "expensive" no matter what. I'd rather people have security in their jobs. And I would punish any company that deliberately raised prices because they were forced to accommodate their workers. Especially if they were a company making record profits.

Tomorrow the min wage is raised to $20/hr. Sounds great because everyone would suddenly make $20/hr. The problem is that suddenly everything would cost more money so any increase in the min wage would be eaten up by the increase in costs.

I doubt if that would happen "tomorrow," but yes, the minimum wage is going to be raised to adjust for inflation, absolutely.

Oh and to top it off there would still be the "evil rich".

Nothing is going to change for the better in this country until the top 1% who owns most of this country willingly give up some of their economic power. Bottom line.

I would suggest the ones that have the means to do so pay the people that make their fortunes possible a real living wage, or there will be continued challenges to their economic power structure. And it's only going to get worse.
 
  2008-04-07 08:26:57 PM
Whidbey "Dottedmint,you moved the goalposts. You refuse to admit Iraq was a mistake, so you changed the subject."

I'm not admitting it is a mistake because I don't think it was a mistake. I will galdly admit that I think they have made mistakes in how they ran the war but that does not make the whole war a "failure". IF that was the standard then every war we have ever been in would be a "failure" because we have made mistakes in all of them.


"This is intellectually dishonest. I wasn't talking about what we should do now. I want you to realize the entire thing was a mistake, that it's hurt our world image and a trillion dollars has been wasted over there."

There is nothing dishonest about focusing on the future and what we are going to do next.

IF you want to call it a mistake to go into Iraq. Fine. I really don't care if you think it was a mistake. It is utterly pointless at this time if you feel it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

What either Obama or McCain [let's face it...Hillary is done] need to do is decide what actions we are going to take in Iraq from this point on.

"This includes forcing BIG corporations to provide for their workers basic needs, job security being one of them."

WOW

Not only do you think I need to provide each of my workers with 60 days where they get paid to not work but you also now seem to be saying that I couldn't fire any of them if it gets too expensive for me to keep them?

Of course nobody would have any "job security" if you drive my widget company out of business.

Could I fire them at that point?

BTW... How exactly would you ensure this new "right" of "job security"? Make it illegal for me to fire my own workers?

"I'd rather corporations realize that keeping their workers happy is part of the cost of doing business. I don't want to give them corporate welfare."

Look Whidbey if you don't want corporate welfare.... Fine. But that does not change the economic fact that any cost that you place on a company will be passed primarily onto either the customers or the workers. You can't legislate that away.

Another group that these costs could be passed along to would be any investors in a company. This would include a large portion of Americans. I forget the %tage at this time but a large portion of Americans invest in the stock market.

"So you admit you that the very thing you've been defending doesn't benefit the most people?"

Nice try but no.

Your plan would actually cause more harm to more people.

As I said before simply increasing the min wage does nothing but make things more expensive for everyone.

You simply increase the income of a person who is in poverty. They are still poor but just make more money.

"I'd rather people have security in their jobs. And I would punish any company that deliberately raised prices because they were forced to accommodate their workers. Especially if they were a company making record profits."

So how exactly would you "punish" me if I laid off 50 of my workers at my widget factory?

And what exactly do you consider to be "record profits"? Do you have a % in mind?

"I doubt if that would happen "tomorrow," but yes, the minimum wage is going to be raised to adjust for inflation, absolutely."

Is it too hard for you to understand that by raising the min wage you also drive inflation.

Raising the min wage doesn't actually fix anything.

"I would suggest the ones that have the means to do so pay the people that make their fortunes possible a real living wage, or there will be continued challenges to their economic power structure. And it's only going to get worse."

First I have to say that I really love the totally meaningless term of "a real living rage". It sounds nice but doesn't actually mean anything.

Also this whole class envy stuff is getting old.

I don't want to make Bill Gate pay for my health insurance. At some point I would like to be Bill Gates.

Liberals think ----- Gimme some of your money because you have too much.

Conservatives think ---- Get out of my way so I can make my own money.
 
  2008-04-07 11:53:08 PM
dottedmint: So when people start demanding that my widget company provide each and every one of my workers with a home and a car, I'm just going to have to (as you put it) "suck it up" and provide all my workers with a home and car.

And then when they start asking why I don't provide them all with food....


But you DO provide them with them with a home, car and food. That's the point. If you don't they have to sleep under a tree, walk to work and function on an empty stomach. And you wonder why the lazy bastards are unproductive?
 
  2008-04-08 06:54:59 AM
Not really rainforest.....

I provide my workers with a paycheck.

It is up to them to decide what they want to do with that paycheck.

IF one of my workers spend all of his money on srippers and booze it is not my fault that he doesn't have insurance, a home, car or enough food to eat.
 
Displayed 50 of 2653 comments

First | « | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | » | Last | Show all


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Remember me Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report