Email: 'Time to kill the wealthy'

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by sickofitall2012

 

In my view, this is not so much about them making all the money they can, it's about them buying out our government for their own gain. This is where the heart of the matter lies. If you or I had a business and took risks that put our business in jeopardy of going under, would the government give us a handout...bail out? NO! This is why people are so upset. Our policies have been crafted with those in control of our monetary system so they are the beneficiaries of those policies.

No conservative will ever talk about this. They fear the truth like cancer so they set out demonising the poor and calling them lazy, intentionally forgetting american corporations lobbied to be allowed to send jobs to asia, to overly automate, to have their poor decisions bailed out by the tax payer fool, etc.

Its disgusting to the core!!!

Please don't peddle your BS, as if you speak for any conservative.

The person who is a Conservative, does not believe nor want Govt bail out of companies. Success and failure are in your own hands.

Please get your talking points at least coherent.

Then you should be at the protests in downtown nyc against wall street and the government rather than giving people on ATS a hardtime herding them all as violent revolutionary socialists. Give me a break we are not maoists despite the effort of some people to make it look that way.

The email was fake and further to the point it had very little to do with the nation. It had more to do with new york state and its finances.

BTW your signature of "work hard because millions depend on you for welfare" is kind of disgusting and sidetracks from the bigger issues. People who demonise the poor live in fantasy land and probably haven't gotten their hands dirty in a long, long, long time.

Why would I go protest with the Group Think people that blame Banks as the sole problem?
Where are the protests on the White House Lawn?
I will not protest, hand in hand with the likes of Van Jones, Sorros, Code Pink and so on.
Even if you are duped into thinking they are against Govt, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
I don't have time to protest, I gotta work to provide for myself and my family, because others live off my earnings.

I never called them violent either, get your facts and your research straight.

And my signature must have struck a chord.
It is the truth. And a very sad truth at that.
The fact that you noticed, and took offense I will wear as a badge of honor.
It is disgusting. That I work so hard, to have a portion of my earnings go to others, by force at the hand of the Govt. Yes, disgusting indeed.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Your grasping for straws sir. Wall Street and the USA government is one and the same thing. For someone who calls protesters "retards" I would expect them to understand basic stuff like this.

For someone who claims to understand basics, I would expect a grasp of the difference between the possessive annotation of "you" and the contraction of "you are."

Wow, yeah...attack my english because that is all you can do.

Perhaps you could enlighten me. How is it that Wall Street and the Government are one in the same?

How are they not the same?

Did you register on ATS yesterday?

Even Ben Bernanke says people have a right to protest...watch the video!



Or greenspan......

By all means - tell me how share traders are the government. This should be entertaining. While you're busy with your comedy routine, I'll address your other comment:

Yes I am busy with YOUR comedy routine, and frankely ITS SILLY!

The so-called "socialists" are not seeking a civil war, they are meerily protesting against corruption!

Did we miss the title of this thread? Have you been paying attention to the Union rallies (who are now beginning to take advantage of this OWS movement)?

The problem is that they are protesting. They aren't actually doing anything - they don't have a goal or purpose.

Oh so its better to be an armchair general like you?

They are not looking for a civil war, no. However - it is not difficult to convince them that violent actions (a task they can accomplish simply by picking up bottles and throwing them at people... later to acquire more devastating weaponry such as incendiary devices and small arms) are the way to go.

Yeah I am SURE the government(who you work for) would LIKE that. And if that does not happen then just dress some teenagers with pimples on their face, as anarchists with hoods throwing molotov cocktails so the NAZI goon squads show up and have a ball.

You really have no concept of how this would go down. For starters - your peaceful protest would have to be not so peaceful any longer. Second - if I go to New York (or any other city) - I will be completely on the offensive from the moment boots hit the ground. It will not be "I hope they attack you" - the only notice you'll get that a response has been organized is precise small arms fire targeting identifiable leadership and area-effect weapons (may be fragmentation ordnance if it is available, or non-lethal crowd control weapons - kind of depends upon what is available).

Those who do not immediately disperse will be gunned down within seconds of their failure to comply. Those who do disperse will be pursued and any attempts to re-organize will be met with similar area-of-effect suppression and precision fire upon identifiable leaders.

You'll be hit hard and the pressure will not let up.

You think we'll show up like riot police and be nice. That's simply not the way it will go down. By the time we get involved - it's long gone past the point of a protest.

Your defintely on the wrong side of things. If I were you I would find another job BEFORE TSHTF but it seems you actually like your job. Ok good for you, I hope you can walk the walk, just like you can talk the talk.....

Edit to add: When you finish the "american civil war" then head out to syria and meet president assad. He needs more SS troops to keep the people down. Security is the only job in the near future with unlimited growth potential because the tyrants need protection.

Originally posted by macman

I never called them violent either, get your facts and your research straight.

Well its hard to keep track of exactly who said what when conservatives share the SAME IDEOLOGY and flagging each other like children.

And my signature must have struck a chord.
It is the truth. And a very sad truth at that.
The fact that you noticed, and took offense I will wear as a badge of honor.
It is disgusting. That I work so hard, to have a portion of my earnings go to others, by force at the hand of the Govt. Yes, disgusting indeed.

edit on 8-10-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Yes hypocrisy annoys me. You got that straight! Instead of looking at why we have less and less jobs and who lobbies for what, people like you pick on the weak and meager. Its anti-social and anti-christian as well...

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman

I never called them violent either, get your facts and your research straight.

Well its hard to keep track of exactly who said what when conservatives share the SAME IDEOLOGY and flagging each other like children.

And my signature must have struck a chord.
It is the truth. And a very sad truth at that.
The fact that you noticed, and took offense I will wear as a badge of honor.
It is disgusting. That I work so hard, to have a portion of my earnings go to others, by force at the hand of the Govt. Yes, disgusting indeed.

edit on 8-10-2011 by macman because: (no reason given)

Yes hypocrisy annoys me. You got that straight! Instead of looking at why we have less and less jobs and who lobbies for what, people like you pick on the weak and meager. Its anti-social and anti-christian as well...

edit on 10/8/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: fixed quotes

Well, aren't you just BS wrapped up in Hypocrisy?

You yell down anyone with opposing view points, and untruthfully state things that are shown.......untruthful. Instead of saying "Yeah, sorry about that", your typical Liberal Knee Jerk reaction is basically "Well, that is what others think".

You really have no clue, except what the Daily Kos sends to your inbox.

I have yet to pick on the weaker person (except I guess you, in debate).
My Signature line is truth. I have to work harder and more. Because more and more is taken from me to give to others.

And spare me the Anti-Christian Crap, as I could care less.
I choose to help others in my way. When I think it is appropriate, and how I want to.

Typical Liberal though. Can't handle a truth, or several for that matter. So you resort to calling people names, or stating that they hate the poor, or want kids to starve. All I hear from you is "Wah wah waah wahh wahhha".
Charlie Brown doesn't live here. Sorry.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Wow, yeah...attack my english because that is all you can do.

Because my whole post consisted of me pointing out the irony in you claiming I lacked an understanding of the basics while failing in your use of contractions.

How are they not the same?

Did you register on ATS yesterday?

I was here long before you, young tree-hugger.

I can't help but realize that you have not demonstrated what share traders have to do with banks. Nor have you demonstrated how banks are the government.

I'll return to this point in a bit.

Even Ben Bernanke says people have a right to protest...watch the video!

Of course people have a right to peacefully assemble and a right to free speech.

Oh so its better to be an armchair general like you?

Who or what I am has little to do with the lack of efficacy inherent in protesting. For your information - I've already developed a solution to the problem.

Yeah I am SURE the government(who you work for) would LIKE that. And if that does not happen then just dress some teenagers with pimples on their face, as anarchists with hoods throwing molotov cocktails so the NAZI goon squads show up and have a ball.

Ah, there's your real attitude.

You're clearly demonstrating yourself, here, as anti-government. "If violence breaks out - it is the government's fault!" "The government would LIKE there to be violence."

So... let me ask you... what's the point of the protest, again? What is the goal?

You're obviously going to mistrust any action taken by the government... so what purpose could you have other than to try and create some kind of revolution?

Your defintely on the wrong side of things. If I were you I would find another job BEFORE TSHTF but it seems you actually like your job. Ok good for you, I hope you can walk the walk, just like you can talk the talk.....

You don't really get what side I'm on, do you?

Look through my post history and where I stand on government, if you need to. I'm about as close as you can get to an anarchist while still recognizing the role of government in society. Look at where I stand on the issue of corporations and their involvement in the government.

More on this later.

However, what I also do not support is the idea that we can simply form mobs of angry people and begin a witch-hunt. I am also not a socialist - what quite a few (difficult to tell if it is a majority or not) of these OWS supporters are (and the policies they want to see put in place). I also have a basic amount of respect for another human being.

The Bill of Rights was drafted and passed to guarantee individuals rights that could not be abridged by government or otherwise denied to individuals. When you want to form mobs and attack people (which is what started this thread - and a sentiment that is growing stronger within the demonstrator groups), you are going against the very concept of protected rights. "You are protected... unless we just don't like you... then you're #ed, dude."

That sort of mentality will not create anything compatible with the way of life that founded America - or the way of life that people have attempted to preserve (admittedly with limited success these past several decades).

Edit to add: When you finish the "american civil war" then head out to syria and meet president assad. He needs more SS troops to keep the people down. Security is the only job in the near future with unlimited growth potential because the tyrants need protection.

I suppose it's time I hand you the solution.

It's really quite simple. First - the Federal Reserve needs to be dissolved. Institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have their own amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids such a relationship from existing ever again. Within this - the National Government needs to be stripped of its ability to directly regulate business. Income tax should be abolished, as should all corporate taxes. This needs to come with a reinforcement of the illegality of multiple taxes. A sales tax with a prebate for sustenance expenses should be instated. National healthcare and income security programs need to be abolished. Another amendment should be passed prohibiting Congress from accepting a national debt for more than 3 consecutive years without a vote from the State legislatures, and 7 years without a national poll; with similar restrictions placed upon debt-ceiling adjustments. Under this - on the 4th year of a deficit budget, a vote of the States would have to support extending it, and every year thereafter.

This addresses virtually all of the problems that led to our current situation and seals a majority of the loop holes. There's more detail - but I'm running out of room.

reply to post by Aim64C


Holy Crap. You just made a new friend here.

Great retort.

I was here long before you, young tree-hugger.

I can't help but realize that you have not demonstrated what share traders have to do with banks. Nor have you demonstrated how banks are the government.

I'll return to this point in a bit.

Demonstrate the #ing obvious? I am not here to teach people business administration. If you have been here long enough AND PAID ATTENTION you should know what the hell is going on. Banks are corporations, the government is a corporation, the FED is a corporation. Some are publiclly traded while others are not. Corporations lobby government with unlimited funds because the republicans made it easy on them via the last supreme court ruling.

Of course people have a right to peacefully assemble and a right to free speech

So... let me ask you... what's the point of the protest, again? What is the goal?

You just explained what the purpose is/was with your contradictory stance.

However, what I also do not support is the idea that we can simply form mobs of angry people and begin a witch-hunt. I am also not a socialist - what quite a few (difficult to tell if it is a majority or not) of these OWS supporters are (and the policies they want to see put in place). I also have a basic amount of respect for another human being.

What witchunt are you talking about? EVERYONE IS CLAIMING ITS FAKE or taken out of context in relation to the wall street protests.

Look through my post history and where I stand on government, if you need to. I'm about as close as you can get to an anarchist while still recognizing the role of government in society. Look at where I stand on the issue of corporations and their involvement in the government.

Fine your a libertarian. Good for you!

The Bill of Rights was drafted and passed to guarantee individuals rights that could not be abridged by government or otherwise denied to individuals. When you want to form mobs and attack people (which is what started this thread - and a sentiment that is growing stronger within the demonstrator groups), you are going against the very concept of protected rights. "You are protected... unless we just don't like you... then you're #ed, dude."

And WHY would you care so much about this alleged "witchunt" unless you have something to hide? If the governemnt has become a monopolistic, self-serving oligarchal parasitic entity then who other than the people can help change things?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


And WHY would you care so much about this alleged "witchunt" unless you have something to hide? If the governemnt has become a monopolistic, self-serving oligarchal parasitic entity then who other than the people can help change things?

Ah, the old "If you having nothing to hide" argument.
And I bet you are the first to cry foul when a cop uses that same statement.

I just remembered the oldest mantra of every Liberal. "But, that's different".

I suppose it's time I hand you the solution.

It's really quite simple. First - the Federal Reserve needs to be dissolved. Institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have their own amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids such a relationship from existing ever again. Within this - the National Government needs to be stripped of its ability to directly regulate business. Income tax should be abolished, as should all corporate taxes. This needs to come with a reinforcement of the illegality of multiple taxes. A sales tax with a prebate for sustenance expenses should be instated. National healthcare and income security programs need to be abolished. Another amendment should be passed prohibiting Congress from accepting a national debt for more than 3 consecutive years without a vote from the State legislatures, and 7 years without a national poll; with similar restrictions placed upon debt-ceiling adjustments. Under this - on the 4th year of a deficit budget, a vote of the States would have to support extending it, and every year thereafter.

This addresses virtually all of the problems that led to our current situation and seals a majority of the loop holes. There's more detail - but I'm running out of room.

Wow, thanks for giving me "a solution" after pretending I was talking chineese for so long.

First you pretend not to know how government and business work together and then you throw me this pitiful piece of trash you call "a solution".

Sorry I like neither libertarians nor anarchists. They are more right wing than republicans and democrats combined. I want a peoples party aka market socialism. Go ahead and hate me just like others dislike you!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Demonstrate the #ing obvious? I am not here to teach people business administration.

Business administration? Please, you're hardly qualified.

If you have been here long enough AND PAID ATTENTION you should know what the hell is going on. Banks are corporations, the government is a corporation, the FED is a corporation. Some are publiclly traded while others are not. Corporations lobby government with unlimited funds because the republicans made it easy on them via the last supreme court ruling.

I almost forgot I had pictures to enhance this debate.



Tell you what. I've got an assignment for you. Look into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Google it. Should provide you with a lot of amusement. Note that the Bush Administration warned (in 2001) of the danger of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (granted, he also boasted that housing rates were at an all time low during his administration - so he's not entirely off the hook). Republicans have also long been critical of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - even many Democrats have (though party-line took preference).

You just explained what the purpose is/was with your contradictory stance.

I know what the purpose is. I was merely asking you to gain a better understanding of your malfunction.

There really is no purpose behind the protests. That doesn't mean there aren't agendas who will give a bunch of upset people a purpose.

What witchunt are you talking about? EVERYONE IS CLAIMING ITS FAKE or taken out of context in relation to the wall street protests.

Everyone... except the people who say "it may be necessary."

Not that there's much context to it.

It should be asked, however... when does violence become necessary? What demands must be met to avoid it? You, yourself, stated that violence may be necessary. What conditions would satisfy your "if necessary" requirement?

When it becomes evident that your protest is doing little/nothing to change the way things work?

And WHY would you care so much about this alleged "witchunt" unless you have something to hide? If the governemnt has become a monopolistic, self-serving oligarchal parasitic entity then who other than the people can help change things?

Both of my parents were dead by time I was 22. I live in a trailer (granted - this is to save money so we can build later).

I quake in my boots at the idea that someone may come knock down my door and take all of the $20 in my wallet.

Wow, thanks for giving me "a solution" after pretending I was talking chineese for so long.

I'm not quite sure what language you are speaking. Chinese makes more sense to me, to be honest.

First you pretend not to know how government and business work together and then you throw me this pitiful piece of trash you call "a solution".

You still have not demonstrated competency in this regard.

Sorry I like neither libertarians nor anarchists. They are more right wing than republicans and democrats combined. I want a peoples party aka market socialism. Go ahead and hate me just like others dislike you!

You want government control over business and markets (which is what socialism is).

Which is exactly what we have in America. That is what we have with Healthcare. That is also what we have with the banks.

You claim that business and government are the same thing... but you want to instate socialism as a solution to business and government hybridization.

I am running a petition to ban DiHydrogen Monoxide - a very dangerous substance polluting our water supply. Will you sign?

This is the only part of your post worth debating..........

Originally posted by Aim64C

You want government control over business and markets (which is what socialism is).

Not only is that what I want, its the way it should be. Government currently does not control business and markets, rather business and markets control government.

Which is exactly what we have in America. That is what we have with Healthcare. That is also what we have with the banks.

No sir. What we have is state capitalism. The state is acting on behalf of corporations and is the opposite of facism in germany and italy.

You claim that business and government are the same thing... but you want to instate socialism as a solution to business and government hybridization.

They work closely together at the detriment of average citizens and the federal government itself has become incorporated. What more needs to be said here? Either you see day as day or you can make things up along the way.

The solution is to nationalise the fed and regulate corporations so they do not have more rights than people. Then start cutting down on the black budget of dod and cia, cut down on welfare waste, keep social service funds seperate from general funds, stop borrowing unnecessarily, less wars, more tariffs on imports, less automation, etc.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I suppose it's time I hand you the solution.

It's really quite simple. First - the Federal Reserve needs to be dissolved. Institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should have their own amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids such a relationship from existing ever again. Within this - the National Government needs to be stripped of its ability to directly regulate business. Income tax should be abolished, as should all corporate taxes. This needs to come with a reinforcement of the illegality of multiple taxes. A sales tax with a prebate for sustenance expenses should be instated. National healthcare and income security programs need to be abolished. Another amendment should be passed prohibiting Congress from accepting a national debt for more than 3 consecutive years without a vote from the State legislatures, and 7 years without a national poll; with similar restrictions placed upon debt-ceiling adjustments. Under this - on the 4th year of a deficit budget, a vote of the States would have to support extending it, and every year thereafter.

This addresses virtually all of the problems that led to our current situation and seals a majority of the loop holes.

Hey, I have an even easier solution for you and those few who think like you.

Leave.

Seriously. Why not? This nation isn't the kind of society that you want to live in, and you've been very clear that you resent having to share with the rest of us, so just go. There are banana republics in Central America, where they do things just the way you like them to be done, and I'm sure you'll do fine in those places. You obviously don't need anyone or anything to help you be successful, so it's not as if you'd lose anything by just taking your big success and moving it on out of here. Hell, as awesome as you are, you'd probably have your own plantation, or manufacturing plant up and running in no time.

Its seems like the perfect solution. Especially since you're just never going to be happy in a society that will continue to suck you dry - as ours has ever since you can remember. Imagine the wonder of it all - no health, safety, or environmental regulations to pester you as you build and process (or whatever it is that you'd be doing to add to your unbeatable achievements); no worry about cheap and eager labor (hell, you could dry up everyone's ability to earn for hundreds of miles in every direction, and have them working for bread and water in no time); and best of all, no pesky bleeding hearts to make your stomach swim with their pathetic crying about the poor and oppressed all the time. You could even buy the local media, and run John Wayne movies 24/7. Gosh, wouldn't that be swell?

I'm serious, this could be the best idea ever. Sure, it'd take you a few months to get settled in, and there'd be a few challenges, but you've got to look decades down the road here. This is your future we're talking about here Break a few eggs and get that dynasty of yours on its way to being more than just a fantasy.

Let's face it, the good ol' USA isn't ever going to be your kind of place, and we both know it. It never was, and it never will be, and just like moving from your quiet hometown to the big city, it's going to take a little of that pioneer spirit to make your version of paradise a reality for you and your loved ones. There are several business groups that can help you get on your feet. They know how to "clear the brush" for your new business venture, and if you've got a track record of success, why they'll be eager to help you realize your vision of true capitalism, where one man + hard work = big money (minus those greedy hands of lazy "poor" people pawing all over everything)

Your Choice - Fight to redirect nearly 100 years of social development that's currently embraced by an 81% majority of an entire nation, or walk (don't run) to a nation that's just waiting to agree with everything you believe to be true about the way a man should be allowed to live.

To me the right choice (for you) is obvious.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Not only is that what I want, its the way it should be. Government currently does not control business and markets, rather business and markets control government.

So... what you want is for people to have the power to decide, not only how you will work - but also what you can buy and what the laws will be.

Again - I already know all about you. You're a run of the mill liberal, not much to it. I'm walking you through this for your benefit.

So, let's recap. You want the same people who govern your work place to also be able to establish the laws of your society.

No sir. What we have is state capitalism. The state is acting on behalf of corporations and is the opposite of facism in germany and italy.

This is merely an illusion. The Government was in complete control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Representatives expanded the powers of those institutions in order to "provide homes to the less fortunate."

The government completely regulates and controls the automobile industry. Prices have considerably raised outside the margin of inflation since the EPA and various safety agencies began regulating the industry.

Medicare and Medicaid have contributed substantially to the increase in healthcare costs and are responsible for about 60 billion dollars in fraudulent payments and another 60-120 billion in unnecessary treatments (it's a wide range and estimates vary based on what is considered necessary).

In Germany and Italy - there is no difference. Political figures are similarly influenced by corporations (although this has mostly led to super-monopolies that dominate their respective industries and have nearly absolute authority over the legislation impacting their business sector). The difference is merely that of perception and circumstance. Germany and Italy have few competing businesses left - and the competition for corporate control over the legislature is not really present (which makes the whole sham much less obvious).

The solution is to nationalise the fed and regulate corporations so they do not have more rights than people.

By your own admission - you can't regulate business. Doing so sets the precedent that a representative (or group of people) has the power to control what happens in businesses. This inherently breeds corporate interest in control of the legislature.

Then start cutting down on the black budget of dod and cia, cut down on welfare waste, keep social service funds seperate from general funds, stop borrowing unnecessarily,

You will still be running a $400B dollar National Deficit if you were to -eliminate ALL- military spending (that's all DoD and Defense related expenses to include Domestic Security). Socialism is completely unsustainable: See Europe.

more tariffs on imports, less automation,

And who decides what is necessary automation and what isn't? A robot welder is not just for raw, mechanical, clock-work scheduling - they can also freely manipulate weldments several times the mass that a human can. However - that same welding robot can also weld a much smaller part that can be welded by a human.

Who decides? The legislature, obviously. However - that robot welder is cheaper and more reliable (in many cases) than a human welder. Less automation means increased production costs and higher prices to the consumer (who are not always in the U.S. and 'benefiting' from tariff protection). Manufacturing for foreign sale is where the U.S. industry has always had its strongest seat - decreased competitive edge against non-socialist countries (or countries who are just not the same socialism as our own) - means less market share - means less volume - means less income (even if you take away the ability of individuals and companies to profit).

Which translates to: "Business has an incentive to seek control over what the legislature does, and the resources to do so." Worse - it means foreign businesses have even more weight in the arena, as they are not able to be operationally regulated but can seek control over tariffs and control over the regulations governing domestic manufacturers.

You really haven't thought this through.

reply to post by NorEaster

Hey, I have an even easier solution for you and those few who think like you.

Leave.

Problem: You have no authority to make me leave - or the "few" who think like me (who, realistically, comprise about 50% of the population - give or take).

Seriously. Why not? This nation isn't the kind of society that you want to live in, and you've been very clear that you resent having to share with the rest of us, so just go.

I have no problem sharing with people. What I do have a problem with is people telling me that they -deserve- a cut of what another person makes. If I am hosting a meal for my friends, I am openly sharing with them - but I will bite you if you come up and try to grab a piece of food off of my plate (seriously).

It is rude and inconsiderate to presume you have domain over another person's affairs.

Your Choice - Fight to redirect nearly 100 years of social development that's currently embraced by an 81% majority of an entire nation, or walk (don't run) to a nation that's just waiting to agree with everything you believe to be true about the way a man should be allowed to live.

It's called secession in the face of insanity.

Look, sport - the rest of your post is garbage. South America is currently enjoying an improving standard of living as the drug cartels lose power to organized industry and agricultural endeavors that pay better with far less risk. This will continue to improve as time goes on.

This "progress" you are talking about with socialism is exactly what led to the current situation where the "poor are oppressed." It was National Legislation facilitated by the Federal Reserve that encouraged sub-prime lending in an effort to "give everyone their own house."

The banking industry is, in fact, not privatized in America. The only private facet of the banking industry is the building you walk into. Everything else is all pretty much part of a single national banking system owned and operated by the National government. There is no difference in choosing to bank with one building or choosing to bank with another - spare for the people who say hello to you.

The inflation of healthcare costs is also directly related to the increased regulation of the medical/pharmaceutical fields as well as the founding and subsequent expansions of Medicare and Medicaid.

I have nothing against helping people or participating in a willful and honest exchange of goods and services.

What I do have something against is the idea that we are all entitled to a standard of living. I am not entitled to a house of my own. I, certainly, would like one. I do not have one. I live in a trailer that is not properly leveled and has been trashed by the junkies that lived here before we moved in and cleaned it up.

I would love, nothing, more than to have my own damned room that doesn't have a hole gushing cold/hot air (depending upon the season) where I could have my hobby desk and a proper bedding arrangement. Words cannot describe how much I want that.

But - I am a reservist. I wash dishes for less than 30 hours a week. I am not entitled to it. I am not selfish enough to look at the nicely built houses across the road and say: "Hey, I deserve that... or at least some of it." And I'm a pretty damned egotistical guy with a very high opinion of my own intellect and capabilities.

I sit and try to figure out whether or not I am going to have enough money to put gas in the car or whether or not I can afford such luxuries as hamburger (I've got a car payment that was designed for a much less constricted budget).

Your post attempts to make me out to be some kind of ass - but at the end of the day, I don't make the presumption I am deserving of some material asset.

I will dig through dumpsters to find food before I go on food stamps, to be honest. I have friends who would not allow me to do that, but they would, literally, have to coerce me into eating food that I did not buy. For all of my boasting of being intellectually superior and other forms of arrogance; I would rather starve to death than live off of the 'homage' 'paid' to me.

So, yes, in my eyes - there is nothing more revolting than a person who presumes entitlement to something (or a share of it). It is self-centered and inconsiderate to a degree that words can simply not describe.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Not only is that what I want, its the way it should be. Government currently does not control business and markets, rather business and markets control government.

So... what you want is for people to have the power to decide, not only how you will work - but also what you can buy and what the laws will be.

Again - I already know all about you. You're a run of the mill liberal, not much to it. I'm walking you through this for your benefit.

And your a run of the mill conservative. I know all about you and lecture you. Government is SUPPOSED to manage a country just like a principle runs schools, a general runs the army and a CEO runs a business.

Do you prefer if the employees run the business. THAT is the assinine message I keep getting from people like you. Government has no business here or there. Fine go to greenland then but I heard the eskimo chief runs operations there.

So, let's recap. You want the same people who govern your work place to also be able to establish the laws of your society.

Did you make it past 5th grade? I have rellatives that at the age of 10 are much smarter then you! Sorry to be insulting. Actually no I am not!!!!

Originally posted by Aim64C

By your own admission - you can't regulate business. Doing so sets the precedent that a representative (or group of people) has the power to control what happens in businesses. This inherently breeds corporate interest in control of the legislature.

Damm no! The only thing that allows corporations the freedom to lobby is the 1st amendment that was extended by a supreme court rulling to allow for unlimited "donations" of any kind and amount. You NEED to get your facts straight!

Then start cutting down on the black budget of dod and cia, cut down on welfare waste, keep social service funds seperate from general funds, stop borrowing unnecessarily,

You will still be running a $400B dollar National Deficit if you were to -eliminate ALL- military spending (that's all DoD and Defense related expenses to include Domestic Security). Socialism is completely unsustainable: See Europe.

And where did you dig that up? Please provide a link so I can verify to see if what you say has ANY credibility whatsover. Last time I heard the DOD runs a 1 trillion dollar budget PER YEAR and that is without the 4-5 conflicts we are currently engaged in. The black budget alone is massive.

more tariffs on imports, less automation,

And who decides what is necessary automation and what isn't? A robot welder is not just for raw, mechanical, clock-work scheduling - they can also freely manipulate weldments several times the mass that a human can. However - that same welding robot can also weld a much smaller part that can be welded by a human.

Who decides? The legislature, obviously. However - that robot welder is cheaper and more reliable (in many cases) than a human welder. Less automation means increased production costs and higher prices to the consumer (who are not always in the U.S. and 'benefiting' from tariff protection). Manufacturing for foreign sale is where the U.S. industry has always had its strongest seat - decreased competitive edge against non-socialist countries (or countries who are just not the same socialism as our own) - means less market share - means less volume - means less income (even if you take away the ability of individuals and companies to profit).

Which translates to: "Business has an incentive to seek control over what the legislature does, and the resources to do so." Worse - it means foreign businesses have even more weight in the arena, as they are not able to be operationally regulated but can seek control over tariffs and control over the regulations governing domestic manufacturers.

You really haven't thought this through.

A conservative thinks only about the bottom line of corporations because he considers himself to be part of the elite. The hell with the unemployment rate which IS NOT 9 percent(more like 20%) and the hell with minimum wages, healthcare coverage, etc.

The fact the american government refuses to raise tariffs means they could not give a monkeys behind about workers while bush and obama play lip service to the wall street shareholders. The problem is the cheap labor in asia is causing companies TO FLOCK LIKE GEESE there TO EXPLOIT THE LOCAL WORKFORCE.

Typical SELFISH conservative. Cares ONLY for his pocket! Sickening!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And your a run of the mill conservative. I know all about you and lecture you. Government is SUPPOSED to manage a country just like a principle runs schools, a general runs the army and a CEO runs a business.

*sigh* Government is supposed to be an established code of conduct and processes that promote cooperation and conflict resolution for the member parties.

I realize you don't actually understand how that is different from what you said - but what it condenses to is that the government is not intended to have power over people, only facilitate and provide a standard for their interaction and exchanges.

Do you prefer if the employees run the business. THAT is the assinine message I keep getting from people like you. Government has no business here or there. Fine go to greenland then but I heard the eskimo chief runs operations there.

So, why are you supporting the OWS movement? I believe someone commented on you being hypocrisy wrapped in BS (or vice-versa).... or maybe they were talking about someone else. Regardless, I'm reminded of the statement when reading your post.

Did you make it past 5th grade? I have rellatives that at the age of 10 are much smarter then you! Sorry to be insulting. Actually no I am not!!!!

The funny thing about stupid people is their inability to differentiate between stupidity, intelligence, and preference... yet their insistence on being able to do so.

Let's recap: You want socialism - that is government control over the markets. Under socialism (in all forms), the government dictates wages, business standards, and has the ultimate authority on what products appear on your shelves.

This only strengthens the "in bed with each other" relationship between business and government, and is only going to lead to further corruption. And that doesn't even get into how socialism is economically impractical and always results in hyper-inflation....

Damm no! The only thing that allows corporations the freedom to lobby is the 1st amendment that was extended by a supreme court rulling to allow for unlimited "donations" of any kind and amount. You NEED to get your facts straight!

I'm doing to detract for a moment and point a couple things out, before directly addressing your point. You are pointing out a fact - corporations have been allowed to make unlimited contributions to campaigns. However, you mistake your ability to recall facts as the capacity to think. Unfortunately for you - I am superior to you in both regards.

So, let's think on this fact. Corporations can make unlimited donations, yes? Let's say we limit them. What does that change? Nothing. Special Interest groups routinely receive donations from unions and other social and financial entities - AND routinely support candidates. What stops corporations from fielding or backing a special interest group that can make unlimited donations?

Let's say you write a hundred pages of legislation making it illegal for any corporate-sourced monies over a certain amount to make it to candidates' campaigns. What stops the corporation from simply hiring a group of people to go around and campaign with the approval of the candidate? "I am Running For Office and I support this message!" ... or do you begin abridging the first-amendment rights of -individuals- running for office?

There are "many ways to skin a cat."

Instead - you must look at why it is that businesses care who is in office so much. It is because those offices are powerful enough for those representatives to radically change the economic landscape for no reason other than they got a hand-full of people to agree and sign-off.

If you take away the power of government to so freely and radically interfere with business - then you inherently remove the incentive for businesses to lobby for candidates. The reason businesses lobby so hard is for two reasons - to control the markets they are involved in, and to improve their odds of being awarded contracts.

Dealing with business contracts is more a matter of overhauling the contracting process than anything - but you are also talking about a system that involves people. I will always prefer an AMD device over an Intel (at least, for the foreseeable future - they would have to pull a real douchebag maneuver to put me off). I also have experience and contacts with manufacturing - I know some of the bad practices of some businesses (and, thus, would never support a contract to them) - and I also have family in others (and would be unreasonably biased). ... That's before dealing with those corporations as a representative would - where they roll out the red carpet and try to give you every reason to award contracts to them.

Best way to handle it? Requiring a balanced budget and removing national social services.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

And where did you dig that up? Please provide a link so I can verify to see if what you say has ANY credibility whatsover. Last time I heard the DOD runs a 1 trillion dollar budget PER YEAR and that is without the 4-5 conflicts we are currently engaged in. The black budget alone is massive.

motorgasm.com... lection-reform-and-other-programs/

The federal deficit for 2011 was 1.6 Trillion dollars. Even if you completely removed the military, you would be running about 600 billion over budget (I was working off of the projected values back in March and April - which were at a federal deficit of 1.4 Trillion - apparently that has changed).

www.nytimes.com...

Now, if you want a peek at the proposed 2012 budget:

www.whitehouse.gov...

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Look at healthcare grow by about 10% each fiscal year!

The interesting thing is how, in 2013, we are suddenly going to halve our deficit spending while still increasing our total spending.... I'm sure that reality is going to pan out that way, however....

A conservative thinks only about the bottom line of corporations because he considers himself to be part of the elite. The hell with the unemployment rate which IS NOT 9 percent(more like 20%) and the hell with minimum wages, healthcare coverage, etc.

It is not the employer's responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for anything other than work-place related incidents. It is, also, not the employer's responsibility to determine what wage is reasonable for you. They determine what wage is appropriate for the job. You do not have to take a job that is below the wage necessary to support your lifestyle.

Further, minimum wage is a falsehood. Cost of living goes up proportionately to minimum wage - negating any advantages. Sure - I make more, now, at $7.25 than I did at $5.25 back in high-school - but I could buy a 2-liter for $0.80 (Brand name; now it's about $1.40), a combo-meal for $4 (now it's about $7), and canned goods for about $0.45 a can (average) (now it's at or over $1.00).

Further - the higher paying jobs "of the day" cannot afford to grade according to the increase in minimum wage. A factory job that paid $8.50 an hour still pays the same as it did back when minimum was $5.25. Why? Because an increase in wages translates to an increase in the price of the product - translates to lower volume, revenue, and a deficit.

Yes - sensible people are focused on the bottom line and realize when they are behaving in an unsustainable manner.

The fact the american government refuses to raise tariffs means they could not give a monkeys behind about workers while bush and obama play lip service to the wall street shareholders. The problem is the cheap labor in asia is causing companies TO FLOCK LIKE GEESE there TO EXPLOIT THE LOCAL WORKFORCE.

And this is the reason why you can afford half the products that you can. China, actually, is tapped-out. They are going to be the next big market bust in about five years... maybe ten. Their own population control is going to be to blame for that. The rest is due to the increased standard of living being brought about by the many businesses that have come and paid workers and the lack of America's forward industrial growth to support it.

Americans have better things to do than make bowls, spoons, folding chairs, etc. Sure - there is room for such businesses, here - but there is a reason many businesses had their eyes on space stations, highly-advanced cars, and other technologically and industrially advanced applications that would require massive supporting industry capable of such complex and precise manufacturing. Why didn't it happen? Reality was a little more rigid than we'd like, and we've been destroying the value of our dollar with deficit spending while engaging in class warfare.

Typical SELFISH conservative. Cares ONLY for his pocket! Sickening!

How is it selfish to live within one's own means and to reduce the net cost of operating, producing, and selling a product? It's like if I were to set up a hydroponic greenhouse and quadruple production from a yard-garden and halve my prices and being called selfish.

Would you, instead, like to rationalize how it is not selfish to look at another person's belongings and declare that you (and others) have a right to it? It is inherent, in liberal perspectives, to focus on the difference between another and one's self.

I find your comments quite humorous, though, considering how I am of a lower income than yourself, more than likely.

Originally posted by Aim64C
*sigh* Government is supposed to be an established code of conduct and processes that promote cooperation and conflict resolution for the member parties.

I realize you don't actually understand how that is different from what you said - but what it condenses to is that the government is not intended to have power over people, only facilitate and provide a standard for their interaction and exchanges.

Only according to a libertarian. I understand what you are saying and I am not stupid. The problem with this approach is that if government is not above everyone else, then it cannot pass judgement on anyone nor can it moderate disputes. The latter is done by the judiciary branch.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Let's recap: You want socialism - that is government control over the markets. Under socialism (in all forms), the government dictates wages, business standards, and has the ultimate authority on what products appear on your shelves.

No. Unlike capitalism and communism which are rather rigid, there are various forms of socialism. Above all I believe in free markets, that is supply and demand setting the price. Goverment sets the basic regulations and enforces them.

It seems your one of those people that CONSTANTLY CONFUSES soviet union "socialism"(COMMUNISM) with western european and canadian socialism. I have no doubt the confusion is intentionally perpetuated. Lets give americans no other choice other than capitalism and communism.

Originally posted by Aim64C

This only strengthens the "in bed with each other" relationship between business and government, and is only going to lead to further corruption. And that doesn't even get into how socialism is economically impractical and always results in hyper-inflation....

Again your confusing communism with socialism and further you don't know the difference between public and private central banking.

Originally posted by Aim64C

So, let's think on this fact. Corporations can make unlimited donations, yes? Let's say we limit them. What does that change? Nothing. Special Interest groups routinely receive donations from unions and other social and financial entities - AND routinely support candidates. What stops corporations from fielding or backing a special interest group that can make unlimited donations?

Actually NO ONE should make "donations" to government. The campaign money should be raised from current taxation or an additional campaign tax to pay for the campaign process of candidates. Unions, corporations and individuals all contributing their share. Addditionally the proceeds should be EQUALLY SPLIT among all registered political parties therefore GUARANTEEING equal advertising coverage throughout the media.

You might say but what about the potential for "under-the-table" deals? Well people are corrupt by nature, but at least when such donations become illegal, the criminals can be tracked and prosecuted afterwards.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Instead - you must look at why it is that businesses care who is in office so much. It is because those offices are powerful enough for those representatives to radically change the economic landscape for no reason other than they got a hand-full of people to agree and sign-off.

If you take away the power of government to so freely and radically interfere with business - then you inherently remove the incentive for businesses to lobby for candidates. The reason businesses lobby so hard is for two reasons - to control the markets they are involved in, and to improve their odds of being awarded contracts.

Then why are 99% of the regulations made in favor of BIG BUSINESS? By big business I mean multi-national corporations. There seems to be many double standards as what seems ethical and enforceable by government in relation to big business versus small business. If your big you can do as you please and if your small you get penalised for the smallest of infractions.

"My friend" this is called STATE CAPITALISM, where the governemnt intervenes in favor of big business all the time. People like you want "small government" only because it is easier TO BUY AND MAINTAIN in relation to "big government". Sure I would like less beuracracy and a smaller budget if possible, but above all is who is being represented the most. It becomes a matter of loyalty/allegiance! The people are hardely represented at all because corporations are more powerful, because they have more money in a free for all no holds bar "donation" raiser. Thus a perpetuating cycle of corporate dominance. Remember capitalism is not all about corporatism BUT corporatism is the main branch of capitalism.

Originally posted by Aim64C

It is not the employer's responsibility to provide healthcare coverage for anything other than work-place related incidents. It is, also, not the employer's responsibility to determine what wage is reasonable for you. They determine what wage is appropriate for the job. You do not have to take a job that is below the wage necessary to support your lifestyle.

Minimum healthcare coverage by the employer should be mandatory in all cases. Enforcement of the minimum wage laws and the prevention of illegals from getting a job is also necessary.

Originally posted by Aim64C

Further, minimum wage is a falsehood. Cost of living goes up proportionately to minimum wage - negating any advantages. Sure - I make more, now, at $7.25 than I did at $5.25 back in high-school - but I could buy a 2-liter for $0.80 (Brand name; now it's about $1.40), a combo-meal for $4 (now it's about $7), and canned goods for about $0.45 a can (average) (now it's at or over $1.00).

Cost of living goes up due to many factors, but business will use any excuse under the sun to justify raising prices. Remember all companies need to show an ANNUAL GROWTH IN PROFITS to make their stock attractable for investors/speculators. Having a steady bottom line is not good enough for the speculators who like to hedge their money.

A secondary reason for increase in cost of living is inflation brought on by banks making credit too easily available. This creates boom-bust cycles where you buy cheap and sell expensive. Wall street takes full advantage of these cycles!

Originally posted by Aim64C

And this is the reason why you can afford half the products that you can. China, actually, is tapped-out. They are going to be the next big market bust in about five years... maybe ten. Their own population control is going to be to blame for that. The rest is due to the increased standard of living being brought about by the many businesses that have come and paid workers and the lack of America's forward industrial growth to support it.

So instead of the government taking the bull by the horns, such as setting tariffs at an appropriate level to discourage people from buying foreign goods/services, we should encourage global capitalism at the hands of OUR OWN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS? Does this not create bigger and bigger companies, who can spend more and more lobbying and thus compromise not only our government but many other governments integrity as well?

Do you not see this is corporate plutocracy? "Ok sam, I see your point but you can invest your hard earned money in these firms and become wealthy too...just like the millionares and billionares do." And I say WITH WHAT??? My meager $7.25/hour where I can barely afford to have a trailer and piece of # car??

Get real man!! I have been calling people out for their BS a long time and your no exception. Only a small percentage of investors can spare enough cash to buy enough stock to make a comfortable living and not need government to help them.