I am watching F-911 tomorrow

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. VG, you didn't address the Christian aspect of the Repblican Party in your post.


    Plus, as far as tax breaks go, ultimately there shouldn't be ANY income tax. However if you are cutting taxes you have to have a purpose in mind. If the purpose is to stimulate the economy, you cut it for the lowest bracket. Why? Because they SPEND their money whereas those in the top save it. Economies are stimulated when people spend money. Giving money to people in the top tax bracket will just wind up sitting in the economic equivilient of "in a box under the mattress."

    As for the rich paying taxes, that's a lie. The upper 10% tax bracket payed 50% of the tax income, correct. However, the upper 5% INCOME bracket in the US was actually in the lower 90% of the tax bracket. Do you know why? Tax loopholes. You say there is no incentive for making more money? Bull****. Once you start to recieve most of your income from your own business, capital gains, real estate, etc. you can get away with bloody murder when it comes to taxes. Just as an example, Bill Gates last year received 3 billion dollars in shares from a special dividend Microsoft paid to shareholders. Bill Gates paid quite literally 0% taxes on that 3 billion. Not so much as a red cent. How? Using a Charitable Remainder Trust. The long and the short of it is that he used a fake charity and a type of trust fund specifically designed as a tax shelter to avoid capital gains to completely avoid paying any taxes on his money.


    If you want to talk about fairness, is it fair that Christy Todd Whitman paid less in property taxes on her $20+ million estate than a friend of mine paid on his $300,000 1 bedroom house in New Providence? Is it fair that Teresa Heinz Kerry only paid taxes on 5 million last year when her gross income was in the hundreds of millions? Is it fair that the middle class pay over 40% in taxes on their gross income while the top most in society pay less than 5% in taxes on their gross income? Is it fair that several CEOs in fortune 500 companies haven't had to pay ANY taxes at all in the past 10 years? Don't talk about disincentive to increase income. That's the biggest load of horse**** I ever hear. Rich people do not pay taxes. My great uncle is a perfect example. When he started his business as much as 45% of his profits went straight to the government. However the larger his business grew, the les taxes he had to pay because of all the loopsholes that became available. You know how much he pays in taxes now? None. Zip. He's worth hundreds of millions and he pays nada to the government.

    If you want to be fair, demand a flat tax. A flat tax that removes ALL loopholes and simplifies tax law. It's real simple to make things fair. For one thing, remove deductions for charities. Remove classification of income source; income should be taxed evenly, not 15% for capital gains, 43% for employee income, etc. A flat tax would mean everyone get's hit with something like 15% across the board. You know who opposes a flat tax though? The rich. The extremely wealthy oppose it. Why? Because for them it means a horribly drastic increase in the amount of taxes they will have to pay.

    As for you claiming I'm a Liberal, all you did was call me a name. You didn't say anything to support that statement or back it up in any way. Anyone can do that. Heck I can call you a Nazi but that doesn't mean you are one and it doesn't mean I have anything to back it. You know what news source I get my daily dose from? The BBC; the only neutral source still in existance. Everything in the US media is so tainted by sensationalism it disgusts me. Half of it is propaganda, and the other half is just schlock. I'm sick of seeing Christian this and Jesus that. It's always crap like "Video games that teach children how to kill cops! ... news at 11".

    The current state of this nation is a disgrace to our founding fathers.


  2. ummm, I thought this thread was about f 9-11.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Plus, as far as tax breaks go, ultimately there shouldn't be ANY income tax. However if you are cutting taxes you have to have a purpose in mind. If the purpose is to stimulate the economy, you cut it for the lowest bracket. Why? Because they SPEND their money whereas those in the top save it. Economies are stimulated when people spend money. Giving money to people in the top tax bracket will just wind up sitting in the economic equivilient of "in a box under the mattress."
    This is flat out wrong. Saving and investment are what cause economic growth. Without saving and investment there's no way for any large pools of capitol to form because all rescources and investments in society are geared towards satisfying immediate demands. With no capitol to invest, there are no new jobs, no new products, no new development in the infrastructure, etc. There is not optimal ratio at which people spend vs save, but it's the saving of money, and thus its allocation towards future consumption, that causes growth. All spending does is justify already existing investments. Saving and investment creates new opportunities for profit and exchange. And the rich, like it or not, are more likely to try and use capital productively than the poor or middle class.

    You have points regarding taxation in this post, but this one is wrong.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Everything in the US media is so tainted by sensationalism it disgusts me. Half of it is propaganda, and the other half is just schlock. I'm sick of seeing Christian this and Jesus that. It's always crap like "Video games that teach children how to kill cops! ... news at 11".
    Exactely what stations are you watching. Either the stations you watch do have a lot to say about Christian this Jesus that or you are selective about what you here.

    About the only thing I agree with you about is a flat tax and this nation would be a disgrace to our founding fathers

  5. VG, you didn't address the Christian aspect of the Repblican Party in your post.
    I did but I'll clarify it. There is a Christian wing of the republican party. However, my point was I can think of several moderate to liberal senators in the republican party. I can only think of two moderate to conservative democratic senators. So while there is a religious wing of the party the notion that the republicans have been high jacked by Christians is false IMO. The front runners for the republicans in 08 are all liberal republicans. Both Rudy and McCain aren't very conservative. At the other side you have Hillary who is very liberal despite her attempt to reinvent herself.


    Plus, as far as tax breaks go, ultimately there shouldn't be ANY income tax.
    I agree with that. Certain people have made a pretty good case that the income tax wasn't properly ratified.

    However if you are cutting taxes you have to have a purpose in mind. If the purpose is to stimulate the economy, you cut it for the lowest bracket. Why? Because they SPEND their money whereas those in the top save it. Economies are stimulated when people spend money. Giving money to people in the top tax bracket will just wind up sitting in the economic equivilient of "in a box under the mattress."
    That is simply not true and fails to address my questions in my previous post. Why should people be penalized for making money?

    As for the rich paying taxes, that's a lie. The upper 10% tax bracket payed 50% of the tax income, correct. However, the upper 5% INCOME bracket in the US was actually in the lower 90% of the tax bracket. Do you know why? Tax loopholes. You say there is no incentive for making more money? Bull****. Once you start to recieve most of your income from your own business, capital gains, real estate, etc. you can get away with bloody murder when it comes to taxes. Just as an example, Bill Gates last year received 3 billion dollars in shares from a special dividend Microsoft paid to shareholders. Bill Gates paid quite literally 0% taxes on that 3 billion. Not so much as a red cent. How? Using a Charitable Remainder Trust. The long and the short of it is that he used a fake charity and a type of trust fund specifically designed as a tax shelter to avoid capital gains to completely avoid paying any taxes on his money.
    Actually the top 5 % pay around 50 % of the taxes and the top 10 % pay about 65%. Try running a business null and see how much you pay in taxes. I don't know how much Microsoft paid in taxes this year but my bet is it's a hell of allot more than what both we made combined. As far as the other things........... I don't care. Bill Gates is a smart guy , he worked hard, was very innovative, and he deservers to keep what he earns.


    If you want to talk about fairness, is it fair that Christy Todd Whitman paid less in property taxes on her $20+ million estate than a friend of mine paid on his $300,000 1 bedroom house in New Providence? Is it fair that Teresa Heinz Kerry only paid taxes on 5 million last year when her gross income was in the hundreds of millions? Is it fair that the middle class pay over 40% in taxes on their gross income while the top most in society pay less than 5% in taxes on their gross income? Is it fair that several CEOs in fortune 500 companies haven't had to pay ANY taxes at all in the past 10 years? Don't talk about disincentive to increase income. That's the biggest load of horse**** I ever hear. Rich people do not pay taxes. My great uncle is a perfect example. When he started his business as much as 45% of his profits went straight to the government. However the larger his business grew, the les taxes he had to pay because of all the loopsholes that became available. You know how much he pays in taxes now? None. Zip. He's worth hundreds of millions and he pays nada to the government.
    And how many people do these evil corporations and big business provide jobs for? At what point is taxes too high? Many people who make a 6 figure income tax rate is 50%. That is too high regardless of how much money you make. Most people pay between 30 to 40 %. That is too high as well. Which goes back to my original point. The money you makes is yours and the money Bill gates makes is his not the governments. It's not fair that the government takes 30 % off my paycheck and it's not fair that the government takes 50 % from someone who makes more than me.

    If you want to be fair, demand a flat tax. A flat tax that removes ALL loopholes and simplifies tax law. It's real simple to make things fair. For one thing, remove deductions for charities. Remove classification of income source; income should be taxed evenly, not 15% for capital gains, 43% for employee income, etc. A flat tax would mean everyone get's hit with something like 15% across the board. You know who opposes a flat tax though? The rich. The extremely wealthy oppose it. Why? Because for them it means a horribly drastic increase in the amount of taxes they will have to pay.
    I think you buying into the class warfare garbage. The rich do pay enough in taxes. Why is being rich a crime? In fact I think this detracts from the real issue here, which is the size of government is out of control and government spending is out of control.

    As for you claiming I'm a Liberal, all you did was call me a name. You didn't say anything to support that statement or back it up in any way.Anyone can do that. Heck I can call you a Nazi but that doesn't mean you are one and it doesn't mean I have anything to back it.
    That's not true I pointed out that in prior debates you consistently post links to extremely left wing websites and don't hold the same standard to democrats as you do to republicans. In fact I don't recall you ever criticizing a democrat.

    You know what news source I get my daily dose from? The BBC; the only neutral source still in existance.
    That's not true at all.

    Everything in the US media is so tainted by sensationalism it disgusts me. Half of it is propaganda, and the other half is just schlock. I'm sick of seeing Christian this and Jesus that. It's always crap like "Video games that teach children how to kill cops! ... news at 11".
    I don't seem to recall on CNN the tag lines............. O.J Simpson being chased followed by a reporter saying praise Jesus. What channel do you watch? Actually if I recall there have been a few studies that have shown that video games aren't that healthy for developing children.

    The current state of this nation is a disgrace to our founding fathers.
    Another area where we agree. Again this is not about F 9-11 if you want to continue this start another tread about taxes.
    •   
       


  6. What ever happened to the movie Moore Hates America which was supposed to come out?
  7. Exclamation


    Saving and investment creates new opportunities for profit and exchange. And the rich, like it or not, are more likely to try and use capital productively than the poor or middle class.
    This is an inaccurate statement because savings do not create potential of anything. Net worth means a lot when you're talking about the United States' net worth, but otherwise it's useless unless it involves investment and moving capital. Savings is just that. Savings. The word suggests stability and lack of capital movement. If capital is not moving, it is not contributing to the economy. Perhaps years later such money might be reinvested into the economic system. For now, it's stagnant. The middle and lower classes can't afford to save much and are typically the group with the greatest amount of insolvent debt. Large businesses can often write off debts and expenses to an extent that would strangulate most middle class earners. The lower half of the earning public provides the backbone of the economy. They are the day-to-day spenders, the check-to-check savers, the common consumer upon which most large businesses depend to provide a steady source of income. The Wal Mart and supermarket shopper. The Home Depot do-it-yourselfer. That is where the money that is steadily flowing into the economy originates, and that is why tax breaks should focus more on the middle class. More individual spending power = stronger economy. How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?
    Trade tariffs. We removed them, which is why we stopped being able to be competitive in manufacturing goods. We used to tax imports extensively and thus it was cheaper to buy an American made product than a foreign one. This kept a HUGE domestic job pool in manufacturing. The tariffs over time were reduced lower and lower, and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary) to compensate for the loss in government revenue. As the tariffs decreased more and more manufacturing plants of various types closed down. For some it took many years, others it was nearly instantaneous.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Trade tariffs. We removed them, which is why we stopped being able to be competitive in manufacturing goods. We used to tax imports extensively and thus it was cheaper to buy an American made product than a foreign one. This kept a HUGE domestic job pool in manufacturing. The tariffs over time were reduced lower and lower, and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary) to compensate for the loss in government revenue. As the tariffs decreased more and more manufacturing plants of various types closed down. For some it took many years, others it was nearly instantaneous.
    Once more, wrong. Tariffs are just an offshoot of mercantilism. Imports don't hurt the economy, nor do they steal jobs. What they do is stop others from providing goods and services in our economy more efficiently that we can. Stopping those imports offers the illusion of saving jobs when all it really does is force people to pay higher prices for goods that should be cheap, and stops money from being freed up to be spent on other items or invested. Constantly pushing a price higher is the opposite of what the market does and what policies should be doing. It's basic comparitive advantage, and the problem arises because people don't realize that just because an American isn't making a car and a foreigner is, that there isn't anything else that American could be doing. Nor do we need to enforce tariff's to offset those enacted by other countries, as they'll be hurting themselves more than anyone else. If other people can do something good enough for us and cheaper than we can, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Good article on trade deficits and fallacies of protectionism: http://www.mises.org/story/1762

    As for not being able to compete in manufacturing, look to wage laws, unions and their general tendency to push the price of labor far above the market price with government help of course, and a devalued currency for the cause of that.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    This is an inaccurate statement because savings do not create potential of anything.
    Then where does the investment capitol come from? Economists tend to try to make things more complex than they are. Money is a commodity, and like anything else its price is largely determined by its availability measured against its demand. Banks don't just hold on to the money in savings, especially in our near zero reserve system. It's loaned out to others to use, hopefully productively.

    Net worth means a lot when you're talking about the United States' net worth, but otherwise it's useless unless it involves investment and moving capital. Savings is just that. Savings. The word suggests stability and lack of capital movement. If capital is not moving, it is not contributing to the economy. Perhaps years later such money might be reinvested into the economic system.
    Which is why I said savings and investment. Higher savings means more money in the banks and thus a higher availability for loands, that is if the interest rates weren't manipulated but a genuine reflection of the market. Higher savings also means a longer term time preference on the part of consumers, meaning they're interested in future consumption as opposed to present consumption. Yes the capitol has to move, but first it has to be available, which it won't be if people are spending like crazy. Unless of course the government injects it into the system, which brings with it its own set of problems.

    For now, it's stagnant. The middle and lower classes can't afford to save much and are typically the group with the greatest amount of insolvent debt. Large businesses can often write off debts and expenses to an extent that would strangulate most middle class earners. The lower half of the earning public provides the backbone of the economy. They are the day-to-day spenders, the check-to-check savers, the common consumer upon which most large businesses depend to provide a steady source of income. The Wal Mart and supermarket shopper. The Home Depot do-it-yourselfer. That is where the money that is steadily flowing into the economy originates, and that is why tax breaks should focus more on the middle class. More individual spending power = stronger economy. How did this country get by before income taxes existed, anyway?
    Easy. A smaller but just as misguided government. As Null said, tariffs were a big part of it, as was inflationary banking though not to the point it's reached today.

  11. and the income tax was raised (income tax was introduced during the Depression and was meant to be temporary)
    Actually, income tax predated the depression, but it was expanded enormously by none other than socialist FDR. I disagree that it was intended to be temporary. FDR pushed his New Deal legislature with the intent for it to be permanent (Closed banks, Social Security, land redistribution, wide-scale government employment) but it failed in almost every way. FDR's goal was redefining the United States as a communist country in disguise. Heavy Federal income taxes are part of the communist platform.


    Imports don't hurt the economy, nor do they steal jobs. What they do is stop others from providing goods and services in our economy more efficiently that we can. Stopping those imports offers the illusion of saving jobs when all it really does is force people to pay higher prices for goods that should be cheap, and stops money from being freed up to be spent on other items or invested.
    It's great to be able to say that with impunity, but if you're laid off because your job got outsourced to India or anywhere with cheaper labor standards than here, would you feel the same? The fact is that, like it or not, the U.S. has been on a free ride as far as prices go and on a wage scale vastly distorted in contrasts. Paying more in order to keep jobs in America is a bad thing? Inflating prices amounts to greed, and calls for government regulation, because fully free markets tend to fail due to monopolizing. Investing in this country is the best investment an American can make. That is a sense of pride in your country. That is patriotism in its truest form.

    The Germans have it right when they make the quality of what they build, the quality of their work a matter of pride. They are proud to have quality workmanship be associated with their country. Made in America used to mean something. It was only when the obsession with foreign competition became a struggle for rock bottom prices that quality here began to suffer. And it's only gotten worse. Sure, there are some companies that carve out a niche market by being established, long-lasting quality American corporations, but most of what is sold here is cheaply imported from countries with rates of exchange far lower than our own and labor rates and conditions which are often appalling. The obsession with a "global economy" is killing our pride, killing our economy, and trickling down in places we least expect it, like the ingredients now added to our foods, or the giant pharmaceutical companies that don't care if their products are safe as long as they sell. It took a German automaker (Daimler) to revitalize Chrysler. Maybe it's time we started looking at why there was ever a discrepancy.

    Higher savings means more money in the banks and thus a higher availability for loands, that is if the interest rates weren't manipulated but a genuine reflection of the market.
    Ah, but they aren't. That's idealism, not reality. Idealism makes for a pretty picture, but doesn't save American jobs at the end of the day.

    Higher savings also means a longer term time preference on the part of consumers, meaning they're interested in future consumption as opposed to present consumption.
    ...Which is a killer to a global-based capitalist economic system, because again, it's money that's moving which is necessary when you run a shoddy economic ship such as the U.S. does.

    but first it has to be available, which it won't be if people are spending like crazy. Unless of course the government injects it into the system, which brings with it its own set of problems.
    Now you're discussing the issue of revolving credit. Most banks are so large and well-funded by now that the amount of capital they have on hand or through their "net worth" credit is great enough as to take the focus off of savings and onto daily spending as the actual means by which the current economy is fueled. The dollar is how devalued now? Our bonds are worth what? Our deficit is where?

    Easy. A smaller but just as misguided government. As Null said, tariffs were a big part of it, as was inflationary banking though not to the point it's reached today
    Well, my question on how we got by, as in the case of those I similarly posed above, was rhetorical. But yes, smaller Federal government. The trademark of a Republic, as opposed to a communist government. No, it wasn't perfect. But then, America didn't rely on Korea and Pakistan to make our clothing, either.

  12. Taxes, economics, dogs or cats we can all argue about, but one thing we can all agree on.

    Mr. Moore is a fat ass doody head.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn
    It's great to be able to say that with impunity, but if you're laid off because your job got outsourced to India or anywhere with cheaper labor standards than here, would you feel the same?
    Yes, because it has happened to me and the world didn't end. I got another job, the company that outsourced my job is in better shape and more productive. Appealing to the emotion of the situation doesn't negate the facts of the situation. Life can suck sometimes, it's no reason to screw the economy.

    The fact is that, like it or not, the U.S. has been on a free ride as far as prices go and on a wage scale vastly distorted in contrasts. Paying more in order to keep jobs in America is a bad thing?
    Yes. You ignore the costs of not keeping the jobs in America, not the least of which is a skyrocketing cost of living in the face of a consistently debased currency.

    Inflating prices amounts to greed, and calls for government regulation, because fully free markets tend to fail due to monopolizing.
    Um, no. Look at the price indexes of all the trusts and corps that later in the 19th century were accused of monopolization. They were falling faster than anyone elses'. The only way people can monopolize and inflate prices is with government help, either by imposing tariffs or other such regulations to make competitor's goods cost more, or by outright banning competition. The truth is without government collusion every attempt at monopolization failed because of competition, both externally and internally. When you look at the speeches by senators and congressmen in the first days of antitrust law they were basically complaining that larger companies were, for various reasons, able to sell the same goods as smaller companies in their home states, but at lower prices. This was driving a large number of their local supporters out of business because they couldn't compete. This pissed them off.

    The Germans have it right when they make the quality of what they build, the quality of their work a matter of pride. They are proud to have quality workmanship be associated with their country. Made in America used to mean something. It was only when the obsession with foreign competition became a struggle for rock bottom prices that quality here began to suffer. And it's only gotten worse. Sure, there are some companies that carve out a niche market by being established, long-lasting quality American corporations, but most of what is sold here is cheaply imported from countries with rates of exchange far lower than our own and labor rates and conditions which are often appalling. The obsession with a "global economy" is killing our pride, killing our economy, and trickling down in places we least expect it, like the ingredients now added to our foods, or the giant pharmaceutical companies that don't care if their products are safe as long as they sell. It took a German automaker (Daimler) to revitalize Chrysler. Maybe it's time we started looking at why there was ever a discrepancy.
    Not quite sure what you're driving at here. As far as labor conditions in other countries being appalling, sometimes they are. By my standards and your standards. But then again, our only other option isn't prostitution or crime. Those people take those jobs because they are better than their other alternatives. And as they increase their productivity they will be able to demand better and better conditions, and they will get them. No economy develops over night, especially if the government is working dilligently to help it develop. People here in America used to work in **** too until they could demand better conditions.

    Ah, but they aren't. That's idealism, not reality. Idealism makes for a pretty picture, but doesn't save American jobs at the end of the day.
    I'm not interested in saving American jobs, nor anyone else's jobs. I'm interested in the economy being allowed to move itself toward more and more efficient means of production so everyone can be better off.

    Now you're discussing the issue of revolving credit. Most banks are so large and well-funded by now that the amount of capital they have on hand or through their "net worth" credit is great enough as to take the focus off of savings and onto daily spending as the actual means by which the current economy is fueled. The dollar is how devalued now? Our bonds are worth what? Our deficit is where?
    Our deficit is the fault of the government's over spending, which is necessary for the regulations you seem to love so much to be enforced. Our dollar is devalued because we've been in a terminal state of inflation for a long, long time. Once more, the fault of the government.

    Well, my question on how we got by, as in the case of those I similarly posed above, was rhetorical. But yes, smaller Federal government. The trademark of a Republic, as opposed to a communist government. No, it wasn't perfect. But then, America didn't rely on Korea and Pakistan to make our clothing, either.
    Hate to break it to you pal, but a healthy import export market has always been a stapple of the American market.

  14. CDB, relatively speaking, we don't export much of anything anymore. Any goods that is. We export services; that's all.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    CDB, relatively speaking, we don't export much of anything anymore. Any goods that is. We export services; that's all.
    And...

    I've yet to see one economist of any stripe explain why too much or too little exporting, or too much or too little importing is good or bad, depending on what stripe of economist of course. There is no optimal level of either.

  16. Life can suck sometimes, it's no reason to screw the economy.
    Yet you don't think outsourcing our jobs and corporations is screwing our economy? What is Michael Moore always complaining (you would say whining) about? Flint, Michigan, and how GM taking its factory south crippled the town. Now, maybe GM saves some money on labor by building in Mexico. But maybe that hurts the U.S. more than it helps us by GM making a bigger profit. Maybe NAFTA wasn't such a good idea. Bringing our wages down to comensate for the lack of foreign solvency is not a solution. It's "global thinking." The kind of global thinking employed in a communist economic system.

    Yes. You ignore the costs of not keeping the jobs in America, not the least of which is a skyrocketing cost of living in the face of a consistently debased currency.
    What? First it's good for companies to outsource because it saves them money, which helps somebody in the economy (though I'm not sure who) and now you're telling me that they should complain of LOSING money by sending our jobs to Pakistan? Our currency is "debased" (Well, it goes back to coming off the gold standard, really) because we don't invest heavily enough in our own country, instead we send our jobs elsewhere, borrow and print more money and generally dig ourselves into a hole.


    The only way people can monopolize and inflate prices is with government help, either by imposing tariffs or other such regulations to make competitor's goods cost more, or by outright banning competition.
    Wow, Microsoft and Wal Mart don't seem to be doing too bad of a job without the government's help. "Name any other big multimerged company here." Government collusion merely indicates corruption, not the actual role of the government. I sure wonder how much the economy would suffer if antitrust regulations were more strictly enforced. Wow, we might have to pay a bit more, which would only illustrate how far wage scales have fallen for the general populace and how great a discrepancy there is. Minimum wage isn't livable wage. Start there.

    But then again, our only other option isn't prostitution or crime. Those people take those jobs because they are better than their other alternatives. And as they increase their productivity they will be able to demand better and better conditions, and they will get them. No economy develops over night, especially if the government is working dilligently to help it develop.
    Well, considering the extent of our non-millitary foreign aid is about 0.01% of the economy here, maybe we should be aiding those countries in other ways to help them build their economies. You know, other than by taking American jobs in what you are characterizing as a "charitable measure." We should feel good that they're taking our jobs. What a country!

    People here in America used to work in **** too until they could demand better conditions.
    And if we keep exporting labor, what will we be working in exactly here? Or will we just not be working? If the American public built this country and this economy to where they could demand better conditions, should they then abandon their ambition? Did we conquer the world or something?

    I'm not interested in saving American jobs
    That, sir, is obvious.

    nor anyone else's jobs. I'm interested in the economy being allowed to move itself toward more and more efficient means of production so everyone can be better off.
    What you mean is you are knee-deep in global capitalism. The problem is that we don't run the globe. We barely run this country. More efficient means of production in your definition is "cheap labor, and plenty of it." How is an American better off because someone else is doing his job cheaper? Oh yeah, you don't care about American jobs. Where exactly will most Americans have left to work when everything is outsourced? McDonalds?

    Our deficit is the fault of the government's over spending, which is necessary for the regulations you seem to love so much to be enforced.
    No, government inefficiency is what leads to overspending. The ineffiency can be decreased. It's like in New Jersey, where the NJ Turnpike has never made a profit. Does it make any sense, considering that the Turnpike was established to make money to pay for the road, and it takes in huge sums of money? No. That's why you establish independent boards to oversee large scale projects. That way you're more likely to see your money's worth, rather than it ending up in executive pockets. Trusting corporations to oversee themselves as opposed to government intervention, I might add, is laughable. Remember Enron?

    Our dollar is devalued because we've been in a terminal state of inflation for a long, long time. Once more, the fault of the government.
    OK, so let's look at your suggestion to solve it- send our jobs elsewhere and punish the evil American middle class for making too much money. CEOs and upper management deserve that hard-earned cash for figuring out that they could make a bigger profit elsewhere. After all, it's "a more efficient means of production"! What better way to stimulate the American economy than by having fewer jobs here!

    Hate to break it to you pal, but a healthy import export market has always been a stapple of the American market
    Uh.. hate to break it to you, pal, but about the only thing we've been exporting lately are Big Macs and our jobs.

  17. hate bush, love america. he is a retart that didnt even really win the fisrt time and had the contry so cracked out with "its a red day, no its ok now its only yellow" to even vote with a clear mind the second time. oh and his side kicks are are real winners too! alot of brave men and women are over seas being orderd to **** with scape goat nations that may not like us but sure as hell didnt start with us and over seeing it all you got bush jr. looking down like some 8 year old kid playing with his army men in the sand box. PULL OUR TROOPS OUT NOW! cause there are few reasons in this world to give up your life and getting killed so the bush`s have more of a say in the oil bizz is NOT one of them.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by goldylight
    yeah and hold an affirmative action bake sale after. whites pay 1 dollar for a cookie, asians and mexicans pay 50 cents and black only have to pay 25 cents........that always pisses of the libs at the universities.
    OMG that is hilarious. I'm still laughing about that one. Thanks for that
  19. Thumbs up


    [QUOTE=VanillaGorilla]Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?


    Facts are facts. Moore doesn't report facts he reports propaganda. He distorts, omits, and flat out lies. For example the scene were he says Bush did nothing at the school for 7 minutes. It turns out it was 5 minutes and Bush was writing notes and passing notes to the people around him. Moore had to of watched that footage but deliberately left it out to make Bush look bad. Moore is also being sued by a newspaper because he doctored the front page of the paper to say that Gore won the election when it never appeared on the front page.



    Moore is not trying to help anyone. He is a propagandist. There is a huge monumental difference between lying , distorting, and omitting and reporting who, what where and when. You can not compare or even mention in the same sentence Moore and any news channel. The guy has done a great job is presenting himself as Mr.. average crusader for the working man but he is not. He didn't grow up in Flint, he lives in a million dollar condo in Manhattan, he sends he kids to private school and he is a socialist. Nothing in that movie is designed to help the American people. The movie is design to make Moore a boat load of money (I don't have a problem with that but it makes him a hypocrite when he whines about capitalism and evil corporations) and make Bush look Bad.
    Vanilla Gorilla - I wish I could express myself the way you do. You're right on Bro. Now I got a problem - Im gonna be up for the next couple of days reading the other 700 something posts you've done. I love the way you write. If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
  20. Thumbs down


    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Is that why Moore said on national television that the U.S Government knows where Bin Laden is?
    Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005

    Cheney knows where bin Laden is hiding, but not exact 'address' - Yahoo! News


    Quote Originally Posted by AGELESS
    If I didnt know any better I'd think you were my man, Dick Chaney.
    Cheney is almost as bad as Rumsfeld. This administration is more about pandering to corporate interests than anything I've ever seen. Score another contract for Halliburton.

  21. Uh, Brooklyn.....there is a "slight" difference in that those guys are ...hmmm, what is the word I am searching for here ....starts with the letter "q"...oh yeah....

    QUALIFIED to say those things. Being some dumb**** fatass movie director does NOT make one qualified to make analysis of our intelligence and security agency, sorry.

    And Moore said it in the context of some global conspiracy to keep him hidden.

  22. Uh.... hello?

    CNN.com - CIA chief has 'excellent idea' where bin Laden is - Jun 20, 2005
    Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.

  23. Moore said that right after 9-11 not a week ago.
    And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.

  24. And we had a good idea of where he was then. In fact, we've often had a very good idea of where he was and let him slip through our fingers. This goes back to the Clinton administration.
    Nope............... Moore said he believed we knew exactly were he were doing nothing about it shortly after 9-11. In Moore speak this means that Bush and Bin Laden are connected and we are purposfully not finding him because he believes we went to war for oil and Hillburton. It's funny how the fact Clinton blew a few chances to get him didn't make it into his movie.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-02-2015, 01:47 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-13-2011, 02:00 AM
  3. So who is gonna watch I am Legend ?
    By ReaperX in forum General Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-23-2007, 05:31 AM
  4. Stupid AM.com Heisman Watch 2006-2007
    By CEDeoudes59 in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-10-2006, 08:16 PM
  5. I AM SICK.. of feeling over loaded with info
    By WanaKnowMore in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2002, 08:34 PM
Log in
Log in