Perkins: The Rich Should Get More Votes

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

peck420

Krazysh0t
And you know this how?

What do you think would have happened to the cost of living in the US, in 2008, had they not had guaranteed access to a critical resource (like oil) at a guaranteed price?

Due to the immense diversity across NA, and the guarantees provided via NAFTA, Canada, Mexico, and the US have managed to weather multiple global 'problems' significantly better then most of the world.


Oh I can make suppositions and guesses, but that doesn't mean that those things would have worked out like that. For one, how do you know that there would have even BEEN a housing bubble in the 2000 decades? You are assuming that without NAFTA, every other event that happened since then would have happened exactly the same as they did in the 2000's, but you already recognize that that isn't true since you said that the outcome of the 2008 housing bubble crash would have played out differently. So what makes you think that as above?

Also, what multiple global problems have we been able to weather because of the NAFTA? NAFTA was instituted in 1993. I only count two recessions happening in that time period. 2000 and 2008.
edit on 14-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Chamberf=6
reply to post by teamcommander
 




I think a much better system would be to only allow those of "TRUE" American decent to vote. I am not wealthy but my family has been here since before the United States was formed. Actually, I can document members of the family who fought along side of Washington in the French-Indian wars.

If someone was here before America formed, doesn't calling them "TRUE" Americans seem a little oxymoronic?

If you mean peoples who were here before Europeans deserve more say instead of being repressed, then ok I'd agree.

Although throughout multiple generations, a hell of a lot of bad apples can fall off the branches of the family tree regardless of lineage.


The part of the family "from the old country" got here in 1653.
Later some married women from the native population.
We have been involved in every fist fight , battle, and war ever since.
I would think this alone should speak to the qualifications I have mentioned.
Of course, many others fit into this catagory as well.
I can't see making wealth a determining factor so far as voter rights go.
Just thought if we are going to set up qualifiers, what better place to start.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
Oh I can make suppositions and guesses, but that doesn't mean that those things would have worked out like that. For one, how do you know that there would have even BEEN a housing bubble in the 2000 decades? You are assuming that without NAFTA, every other event that happened since then would have happened exactly the same as they did in the 2000's, but you already recognize that that isn't true since you said that the outcome of the 2008 housing bubble crash would have played out differently. So what makes you think that as above?

Because that is a far better thought then what the most likely outcome of not signing would have entailed. As history has shown us...repeatedly, what happens when countries can't equitably trade for resources they require? Body bags get filled.



Also, what multiple global problems have we been able to weather because of the NAFTA? NAFTA was instituted in 1993. I only count two recessions happening in that time period. 2000 and 2008.


The formation of BRIC.
The formation of the Eurozone.
The emergence of China and India, separately from BRIC, as they are large enough to have caused a non-NAFTA block considerable headaches.
Etc.

Any one of those could have caused a substantial adjustment in world power, had not NAFTA created a single entity, with enough resource might to satisfy a very prolonged fight, economic or military.

Had NAFTA not backed the US's dominance, all of NA would have seen major devaluations during each of those events...



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 


Always be wary of a change to a system being put forth by someone that will benefit from it immensely. I notice that with your "credentials" that you would have quite a bit of seniority voting-wise.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

peck420

Krazysh0t
Oh I can make suppositions and guesses, but that doesn't mean that those things would have worked out like that. For one, how do you know that there would have even BEEN a housing bubble in the 2000 decades? You are assuming that without NAFTA, every other event that happened since then would have happened exactly the same as they did in the 2000's, but you already recognize that that isn't true since you said that the outcome of the 2008 housing bubble crash would have played out differently. So what makes you think that as above?

Because that is a far better thought then what the most likely outcome of not signing would have entailed. As history has shown us...repeatedly, what happens when countries can't equitably trade for resources they require? Body bags get filled.



Also, what multiple global problems have we been able to weather because of the NAFTA? NAFTA was instituted in 1993. I only count two recessions happening in that time period. 2000 and 2008.


The formation of BRIC.
The formation of the Eurozone.
The emergence of China and India, separately from BRIC, as they are large enough to have caused a non-NAFTA block considerable headaches.
Etc.

Any one of those could have caused a substantial adjustment in world power, had not NAFTA created a single entity, with enough resource might to satisfy a very prolonged fight, economic or military.

Had NAFTA not backed the US's dominance, all of NA would have seen major devaluations during each of those events...


I bolded two words that conflict with each other. Stop talking in absolutes when speaking about what COULD have been, you have no idea how the 21 years since NAFTA was signed into law would have gone down. Alternate laws, procedures, and events would have occurred that would have put us into a far different situation then we are in now. Heck, we may not of even had the dot com crash and the housing bubble may not of even happened. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, but somehow you seem to think that things would go down just like they did with NAFTA being in effect.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

derfreebie
reply to post by jtma508
 


Forget the wood chipper, it needs an external power source...
Let's go old school, and immediately is too late. Nine Inch Haircut, gravity's a bitch.
"The French had it right." Lewis Black. I knew there was a reason I liked that guy...

EDIT:: This crap is starting to back up in the toilet we call DC enough to actually warrant some severe and decisive intervention. Maybe Gerry Celente is right with that 'Off With Their Heads Version 2.0' ...
edit on 14-2-2014 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)


When it comes right down to it, I'm all for organ harvesting afterwards to allow others who wouldn't otherwise be able to live.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by teamcommander
 




The part of the family "from the old country" got here in 1653. Later some married women from the native population. We have been involved in every fist fight , battle, and war ever since. I would think this alone should speak to the qualifications I have mentioned. Of course, many others fit into this catagory as well. I can't see making wealth a determining factor so far as voter rights go. Just thought if we are going to set up qualifiers, what better place to start.

So basically whoever got here first, then? (and those who have gone through their ancestry that far back or more, in the first place...)

Kind of like "discovering" a continent or country already peopled and saying "I got here first, I lay claim and should have more power"?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
The Perkins way: ATS members who have the most stars should decide what topics can and can not be discussed on ATS, how's that?
edit on 14-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Krazysh0t

I bolded two words that conflict with each other. Stop talking in absolutes when speaking about what COULD have been, you have no idea how the 21 years since NAFTA was signed into law would have gone down. Alternate laws, procedures, and events would have occurred that would have put us into a far different situation then we are in now. Heck, we may not of even had the dot com crash and the housing bubble may not of even happened. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, but somehow you seem to think that things would go down just like they did with NAFTA being in effect.

Yawn..

Fine, here is what would have happened within 5 years of NAFTA not being signed.

US would have seen a 15-20% cost of living increase as world oil prices skyrocketed and they were forced to purchase oil from the pure and open global market...whoops, I mean OPEC derived prices. How do we know this? Because that is what happened to every country that did not have a guaranteed supply between 1993-2000.

US would have lost 30-40% of manufacturing as business fled due to the rising costs of transportation, energy, and materials. How do we know this? It has happened to every country that has seen rapid energy cost increase. Not some, not even most...every.

Now, how about you explain how NAFTA hurt the USA?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


This might have some credence where there was public evidence of the amount of tax paid and I don't mean the amount claimed by the payer or by the IRS. I means actual evidence of the amount accepted by the IRS which is openly accessible by the public.

Moreover, this idea may have some credence where the number of votes is also related to the amount of tax paid is comparable to the gross earnings of the tax payer expressed in terms of cents in the dollar.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

doubletap

Unity_99
The rich are the evil ones, who are running filthy technology, exhortion, abusing workers, ie they believe they're allowed slaves, the business is their dream and makes them enough for homes and wealth, but in reality it would only be a small middle class business if they weren't exhorting the energies of others and shorting their wage. That is the whole way business works. Its slavery and just being like that, dealing with the other criminals makes you a very dark hat unless you're buying land for the homeless and working for everyone's own ethical businesses, and setting up businesses for the poor and handicapped run by ethical real family or adopted mentors of the community that will raise them above the poverty line, ie putting your money into others. If you're not doing really good things for people and equalizing in your community and running a completely ethical clean advanced hero type business that pays profit sharing, ie everyone makes a good wage, like a team, then you're not someone who can talk about votes at all.

I think they should be prohibited from voting and a good spot of jail in store myself.
edit on 14-2-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


I'm guessing youre about 19 and in college currently, is that correct?

Your post reeks of nothing but class envy and is indicative you have zero actual experience in the business world.


50 year old mother of 5 boys, living in her home and working out business's for the older ones over the next few years, with hard working family, grew up with family farm, farmer's market, my grandfather owned logging company and camp grounds, and my relatives are teachers and my uncle a physicist. I am a mother. And all of my family agree to varying degrees with what I said, because we all think deeply about the world. I knew since I was born and was outside preschool asking if kids had to change the world because after these generations, the adults didn't get it yet, and met my Higher Self that day, she said I chose to come. I've noted all the horrible events on the news and in my teenage years couldn't sleep at night having to go through every horrible murder or tragedy that everyone went through as if happening to me and hold candles for everyone here because they count so much.

I know you can't go home if you buy into these programs and actively harm or enslave others, or do so with votes. When I say know, some things are inner knowing always with me, but also memories and contact.

If you don't get things and take advantage of the corruption here to pad your nest at the expense of the world, you aren't higher grade and dont get the pass mark into the next.

If you can't grasp equality you're a jungle dog eat dog mentality, and in the testing ground game of snakes and ladders, thats the big slide down to lower primitive dog eat dog unequal pyramidal fascist realms. There are lots of winterlands. They're NOT home!
edit on 14-2-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

peck420

Krazysh0t

I bolded two words that conflict with each other. Stop talking in absolutes when speaking about what COULD have been, you have no idea how the 21 years since NAFTA was signed into law would have gone down. Alternate laws, procedures, and events would have occurred that would have put us into a far different situation then we are in now. Heck, we may not of even had the dot com crash and the housing bubble may not of even happened. This is what I've been trying to get through to you, but somehow you seem to think that things would go down just like they did with NAFTA being in effect.

Yawn..

Fine, here is what would have happened within 5 years of NAFTA not being signed.

US would have seen a 15-20% cost of living increase as world oil prices skyrocketed and they were forced to purchase oil from the pure and open global market...whoops, I mean OPEC derived prices. How do we know this? Because that is what happened to every country that did not have a guaranteed supply between 1993-2000.

US would have lost 30-40% of manufacturing as business fled due to the rising costs of transportation, energy, and materials. How do we know this? It has happened to every country that has seen rapid energy cost increase. Not some, not even most...every.

Now, how about you explain how NAFTA hurt the USA?


OPEC doesn't set the price we pay for oil the oil speculators do and you can than the Koch brothers for that.

NAFTA has cost America nearly 700K jobs and it paved the way for many manufacturing jobs to move to Mexico. This wouldn't have happened if it weren't for NAFTA.
US economy lost nearly 700K jobs



Jobs continue to be lost to NAFTA today. In the years 2007-2010, the U.S. economy has lost 116,400 as a result of the trade deficit created by NAFTA. And last year, the growth of Mexican auto exports to the United States alone created more Mexican jobs -- 30,400 -- than the entire U.S. auto industry.It's the U.S. manufacturing sector that has suffered most mightily from NAFTA, alone accounting for 60.8 percent -- 415,000 total -- of the jobs lost to the agreement. Specifically, those making computer of electronic parts have accounted for 22 percent of all job losses, and motor vehicle and parts workers accounted for 15 percent of job losses.



posted on Feb, 15 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   
edit on 15-2-2014 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

buster2010
OPEC doesn't set the price we pay for oil the oil speculators do and you can than the Koch brothers for that.

You may want to do a little more research into who the primary holders are in most oil speculation...give me an O. O! Give me a P. P!



NAFTA has cost America nearly 700K jobs and it paved the way for many manufacturing jobs to move to Mexico. This wouldn't have happened if it weren't for NAFTA.
US economy lost nearly 700K jobs

700K loss in jobs for a tripling in trade volume...let's do the math on who won that transaction?

Hmm...700,000 @ (I'll be generous) $100,000/yr = $700,000,000,000 income @ approx 30% rate = $2,450,000,000...$2.45 Billion lost.

VS

A tripling of trade volume...$337 Billion (1993) to $1.2 Trillion (2011) @ 9.6% (avg sales tax) = $82.8 Billion gained.

Ah! The travesty! The US only garnered and extra $80 Billion in income...give or take...and, that is on trade volume vs lost jobs. The investment growth makes both of these look like small potatoes.



new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join