If the Rich Getting Richer Created Jobs

[J.T]

How do you explain this?

2486



Where are all the jobs from all the extra Koch wealth?

[Missileman]

How do you explain this?

2486




Where are all the jobs from all the extra Koch wealth?

If the government spending money creates jobs, explain the current unemployment rate given the trillions of dollars spent in the last 3 years.

[ConHog]

If the government spending money creates jobs, explain the current unemployment rate given the trillions of dollars spent in the last 3 years.

If JT is anything more than a troll, explain the fact that he only posts troll posts.

Surely you don't expect this is going to be a serious discussion.

[BoogyMan]

How do you explain this?

2486



Where are all the jobs from all the extra Koch wealth?

Are you claiming that because they have an amount of accumulated wealth that such wealth must equate to jobs? If so, this is a clear and simple fallacy that is most likely based on the Marxist ideology that wealth accumulated by an individual or group is theft if not used in a redistributory fashion.

[Psychoblues]

There are millions of factors and considerations that prove without doubt that wealth nor tax levels create jobs on their own. The missing equations here are that there have been many millions of jobs created during the last decade or so. In India, Sri Lanka, China, etc. Good jobs that once belonged to Americans and could still be American jobs if not for the regulatory favoritism towards those that send work and material to foreign lands for whatever reasons. This cannot be sustained in the long run.

This is indeed a subject that deserves honest consideration and debate whether you like the op author or not. Slinging names and insults like shit sandwiches at a Heritage Foundation convention is not credible or intelligent discussion.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

How do you explain this?

Where are all the jobs from all the extra Koch wealth?

Who said that was the argument? Besides, there's no connection to jobs outside of Koch Industries.


There are millions of factors and considerations that prove without doubt that wealth nor tax levels create jobs on their own. The missing equations here are that there have been many millions of jobs created during the last decade or so. In India, Sri Lanka, China, etc. Good jobs that once belonged to Americans and could still be American jobs if not for the regulatory favoritism towards those that send work and material to foreign lands for whatever reasons. This cannot be sustained in the long run.

This is indeed a subject that deserves honest consideration and debate whether you like the op author or not. Slinging names and insults like shit sandwiches at a Heritage Foundation convention is not credible or intelligent discussion.

And? Where is that consideration and debate from you? BTW, the "regulatory favoritism" you mention is increasing regulations that cause those jobs to move; Eliminate the barriers and the jobs will be encouraged to come back.

[waits for j.t to post pictures of dumps in China] :rolleyes:

[J.T]

Who said that was the argument?

The GOP. Just ask one of them why they want to lower taxes.


Besides, there's no connection to jobs outside of Koch Industries.

Nobody's talking about jobs outside Koch-owned businesses, but keep on fighting that scarecrow.

[fj1200]

The GOP. Just ask one of them why they want to lower taxes.

Find the quote because I don't recall the reason for lower rates is for the rich to get richer.


Nobody's talking about jobs outside Koch-owned businesses, but keep on fighting that scarecrow.

Right, because to acknowledge that Koch wealth creates jobs outside of Koch is to lose the argument. Besides, do you even know where those numbers come from and what they represent?

[LuvRPgrl]

There are millions of factors and considerations that prove without doubt that wealth nor tax levels create jobs on their own. The missing equations here are that there have been many millions of jobs created during the last decade or so. In India, Sri Lanka, China, etc. Good jobs that once belonged to Americans and could still be American jobs if not for the regulatory favoritism towards those that send work and material to foreign lands for whatever reasons. This cannot be sustained in the long run.

This is indeed a subject that deserves honest consideration and debate whether you like the op author or not. Slinging names and insults like shit sandwiches at a Heritage Foundation convention is not credible or intelligent discussion.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues
nti
there is no loss of jobs due to outsourcing. THE ONLY thing preventing job creation is the govt.

[Missileman]

nti
there is no loss of jobs due to outsourcing.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. If a company moves any process that was being done by American workers to another country, American jobs are lost.

[ConHog]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. If a company moves any process that was being done by American workers to another country, American jobs are lost.

This is just my personal opinion, but I DO think that the government should impose tariffs on companies who import goods into the US which were produced in countries which don't have the same environmental rules, comparable wages, etc etc.

I don't even say that wholly to try to prevent job loss, but also to prevent companies from dumping cheap goods on the US market.

Yeah yeah I know that's not very small government of me, and certainly not very free market of me, but idealism ends where reality begins.

[J.T]

This is just my personal opinion, but I DO think that the government should impose tariffs on companies who import goods into the US which were produced in countries which don't have the same environmental rules, comparable wages, etc etc.

Good to see you come around...

[ConHog]

Good to see you come around...

Come around to what? I've always felt that way.

[Psychoblues]

This is just my personal opinion, but I DO think that the government should impose tariffs on companies who import goods into the US which were produced in countries which don't have the same environmental rules, comparable wages, etc etc.

I don't even say that wholly to try to prevent job loss, but also to prevent companies from dumping cheap goods on the US market.

Yeah yeah I know that's not very small government of me, and certainly not very free market of me, but idealism ends where reality begins.

And with that intelligent observation and attitude you have earned a great deal of admiration and respect from this ol' blue collar machinist.

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. If a company moves any process that was being done by American workers to another country, American jobs are lost.

Out sourcing goes both ways. In fact, if all outsourcing stopped, we would have a net loss of jobs, and the jobs we get from outsourcing are better paying jobs than the ones we outsource to others.

[Missileman]

Out sourcing goes both ways. In fact, if all outsourcing stopped, we would have a net loss of jobs, and the jobs we get from outsourcing are better paying jobs than the ones we outsource to others.

Have any links to support this claim?

[ConHog]

Out sourcing goes both ways. In fact, if all outsourcing stopped, we would have a net loss of jobs, and the jobs we get from outsourcing are better paying jobs than the ones we outsource to others.

I'd have to see the numbers to believe we would have a net loss in jobs if out sourcing stopped.

And your point about most of the jobs we out source are the lower paying jobs is well taken, BUT the fact remains some people are only qualified to do those lower paying jobs and so replacing lower paying jobs with higher paying , but more demanding, jobs isn't doing those people any good.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'd have to see the numbers to believe we would have a net loss in jobs if out sourcing stopped.

And your point about most of the jobs we out source are the lower paying jobs is well taken, BUT the fact remains some people are only qualified to do those lower paying jobs and so replacing lower paying jobs with higher paying , but more demanding, jobs isn't doing those people any good.

then they need to get the skills or education needed.

[ConHog]

then they need to get the skills or education needed.

Some people are unable to do so, and some of those people have been working at a job for years, decades even and suddenly their job is gone for no other reason than the company discovered they can save a few bucks by shipping those jobs overseas. And you have no problem with this? I'm sorry, but I do.


I completely believe that the US should require every item sold in the US to be produced under circumstances similar to what they would be in the US. In other words no more shoes built in a polluting Chinese factory by children who are being paid $1 a day (if that.) I mean you CAN sell them here, but only if you're willing to pay the tariff.

Imagine how much THAT would earn to help pay off the deficit.

Being a conservative doesn't have to mean being a heartless bastard you know.

[LuvRPgrl]

Some people are unable to do so, and some of those people have been working at a job for years, decades even and suddenly their job is gone for no other reason than the company discovered they can save a few bucks by shipping those jobs overseas. And you have no problem with this? I'm sorry, but I do.


I completely believe that the US should require every item sold in the US to be produced under circumstances similar to what they would be in the US. In other words no more shoes built in a polluting Chinese factory by children who are being paid $1 a day (if that.) I mean you CAN sell them here, but only if you're willing to pay the tariff.

Imagine how much THAT would earn to help pay off the deficit.

Being a conservative doesn't have to mean being a heartless bastard you know.

If you want to bother READING about the issue rather than just blathering about it, you will find a positive overall effect for the US due to outsourcing.

http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/Policy%20Papers/JEP_Outsourcing_Final.pdf

[ConHog]

If you want to bother READING about the issue rather than just blathering about it, you will find a positive overall effect for the US due to outsourcing.

http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/Policy%20Papers/JEP_Outsourcing_Final.pdf

I haven't read your link, yet (but I will) but I want to point out that reasonably posting the link when all I said was I'd like to see the link would have been okay to.

[LuvRPgrl]

I haven't read your link, yet (but I will) but I want to point out that reasonably posting the link when all I said was I'd like to see the link would have been okay to.

First you give an anecdotal example of the harm it does, then ask if Im ok with that, and then you go on to give your opinion how the govt needs to solve it.

So,to say ALL I SAID WAS....... is entirely not accurate. (liar?) Try not to make my job so easy:laugh:

[Missileman]

If you want to bother READING about the issue rather than just blathering about it, you will find a positive overall effect for the US due to outsourcing.

http://www.columbia.edu/~ap2231/Policy Papers/JEP_Outsourcing_Final.pdf

Positive effect only in profit margins for the companies that use overseas labor.

From the article:


But even if outsourcing and trade are unlikely to reduce total employment, specific types of jobs can certainly be lost, like jobs in telephone call centers or in routine tax preparation. The interesting question is whether the new jobs that workers displaced by outsourcing will find are going to be "better" jobs that pay more or "worse" jobs that pay less. Are computer programmers earning $60,000 going to be bumped down into $15,000 jobs stocking shelves and bagging groceries at Wal-Mart?


The answer to the interesting question is "No, the computer programmer winds up on unemployment for 3 years"

[ConHog]

First you give an anecdotal example of the harm it does, then ask if Im ok with that, and then you go on to give your opinion how the govt needs to solve it.

So,to say ALL I SAID WAS....... is entirely not accurate. (liar?) Try not to make my job so easy:laugh:



You need to see a doctor post haste. I think you're turning into JT right before our eyes. You KNOW I meant all I said about a link was that I'd like to see one. I never said shit about all I said in this thread.

[fj1200]

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. If a company moves any process that was being done by American workers to another country, American jobs are lost.

It's more of a net jobs issue. We focus on our competencies and foreign countries focus on theirs. Ours being capital intensive jobs, their's being labor intensive.


Some people are unable to do so, and some of those people have been working at a job for years, decades even and suddenly their job is gone for no other reason than the company discovered they can save a few bucks by shipping those jobs overseas. And you have no problem with this? I'm sorry, but I do.


I completely believe that the US should require every item sold in the US to be produced under circumstances similar to what they would be in the US. In other words no more shoes built in a polluting Chinese factory by children who are being paid $1 a day (if that.) I mean you CAN sell them here, but only if you're willing to pay the tariff.

Imagine how much THAT would earn to help pay off the deficit.

Being a conservative doesn't have to mean being a heartless bastard you know.

Any tariff wouldn't come close to paying off the deficit, protectionism is bad economic policy and counterproductive to those who institute it. Unless you like depressions and such.

I happen to think it's a good idea when companies look to become more competitive and/or have the ability to respond to other countries becoming more competitive. It's good overall policy, the problem becomes when government rules/regulations/taxes raise the economic barriers to becoming competitive domestically and forcing the outsourcing.

[ConHog]

Any tariff wouldn't come close to paying off the deficit, protectionism is bad economic policy and counterproductive to those who institute it. Unless you like depressions and such.

I happen to think it's a good idea when companies look to become more competitive and/or have the ability to respond to other countries becoming more competitive. It's good overall policy, the problem becomes when government rules/regulations/taxes raise the economic barriers to becoming competitive domestically and forcing the outsourcing.

Oh I wasn't suggesting it would pay off the debt, just that it would contribute.

I think you would be right IF all other countries played on a level playing field, but they do not.

[Psychoblues]

Oh I wasn't suggesting it would pay off the debt, just that it would contribute.

I think you would be right IF all other countries played on a level playing field, but they do not.

I've been watching this game play out for a very long time, ch. Take Allis hydro turbines for instance. They employed machinists, riggers and metal workers of the highest caliber. They closed up shop and went to Japan. Their workers struggled, some went to stocking shelves, others regained employment in the machinery field and others just never worked again or took jobs flipping hamburgers. The Japanese plant eventually closed up and went to South Korea. For several years there was a quality discrepancy but most of that was eventually resolved. Lo and behold, the greed once again took hold, the South Korean plant closed up and moved to China. Between their lying about materials and poor technical quality now some of that work is returning to the USA. I hope this is the beginning of a trend. Don't you?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Oh I wasn't suggesting it would pay off the debt, just that it would contribute.

I think you would be right IF all other countries played on a level playing field, but they do not.

It won't even contribute. And for all the "contribution" that it might provide you would just pay for it in higher prices. As heartless as it may sound, even though the playing field may not be "level" the consumer is benefited by lower prices. This is not to say of course that there are not displacements, there are but overall the benefit is there.

I'll reiterate that the policies that we institute that force/encourage business to move is obviously counterproductive. I remember a study that says one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate income tax is foreign labor; so not only do you get to pay more for goods but those jobs are more likely to move overseas. Not helpful of course as our statutory corporate rate is the highest in the world. Good for lobbyists and tax accountants though.


Lo and behold, the greed once again took hold...

Yes, I'm sure that was the sole reason. :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

It won't even contribute. And for all the "contribution" that it might provide you would just pay for it in higher prices. As heartless as it may sound, even though the playing field may not be "level" the consumer is benefited by lower prices. This is not to say of course that there are not displacements, there are but overall the benefit is there.

I'll reiterate that the policies that we institute that force/encourage business to move is obviously counterproductive. I remember a study that says one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate income tax is foreign labor; so not only do you get to pay more for goods but those jobs are more likely to move overseas. Not helpful of course as our statutory corporate rate is the highest in the world. Good for lobbyists and tax accountants though.

All other things being equal, I'm willing to pay a bit more for US built products. Nothing crazy of course, but if it's a bit higher, so be it.

[Psychoblues]

Yes, I'm sure that was the sole reason. :rolleyes:

If you have another I'm open for at least listening.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

All other things being equal, I'm willing to pay a bit more for US built products. Nothing crazy of course, but if it's a bit higher, so be it.

You usually have that option.


If you have another I'm open for at least listening.

Competition.

[Psychoblues]

All other things being equal, I'm willing to pay a bit more for US built products. Nothing crazy of course, but if it's a bit higher, so be it.

All other things being equal, ch. you'll be paying the same on any level playing field. I'll never forget Jacque Nasser saying in 1986 that moving Ford Escort production to Brazil would save approximately $800 per unit (labor costs). When questioned whether he thought the American consumer would appreciate the price reduction as an offset for the loss of jobs he coldly remarked, "Ford Motor Company is in no way obligated to reduce retail prices". I hope that remark is not over the heads of many that entertain themselves reading through these threads.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

^They're not. And I must say what an amazing anecdote. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Competition? Even though I agree to a very small extent, most American manufacturers move overseas to positively effect their profit margins and for NO other reason. And they are unapologetic and without shame about it. Yep, greed moves them around for profit considerations, period. They are sure as hell not interested in economically and industrially developing Manchuria or anywhere else. And they are sure as hell not interested in whether or not they destroy American towns, jobs, and cheat on taxes till the very end. Competition for what? To see just who can be the most evil and destructive to America?

Psychoblues

Let's assume for a moment that everything you just wrote is correct. What is the answer to the problem? You failed to address that while positing your hypothesis. If greed is the motivating factor, what can be done?

Lowering wages to third world?

Implementing tariffs?

Response to retaliatory tariffs?

[NightTrain]

Over your head, uh?


Psychoblues

Do explain it, O Wise One.

[fj1200]

Competition? Even though I agree to a very small extent, most American manufacturers move overseas to positively effect their profit margins and for NO other reason. And they are unapologetic and without shame about it. Yep, greed moves them around for profit considerations, period. They are sure as hell not interested in economically and industrially developing Manchuria or anywhere else. And they are sure as hell not interested in whether or not they destroy American towns, jobs, and cheat on taxes till the very end. Competition for what? To see just who can be the most evil and destructive to America?

Psychoblues

Your entire premise is wrong. Business is not there to create a utopia, they're not there to advance patriotism, or whatever other ideal you want to put on their back, businesses do what they do to make money. They need to hire people to get it done, they will pay back investors, lenders, etc. The problem is that the government is in the position of mandating social policy on the backs of business which is going to make it more expensive to do business. At some point, in an increasingly global world, they are going to go where they need to make money. Of course they are going to positively effect their profit margins; what if they had zero profit margin domestically? Of course they're going to look at ways to remain competitive.

I know where you're coming from but the bad news is labor, or government for that matter, doesn't make the world go 'round. Greed; such a nebulous term that means nothing, any profit to you is "greed." If you really want labor to join in on the "greed" you need to support any measure that increases the opportunity for labor to find work. Once we get to a point where there is high demand for labor, i.e. low unemployment rate, then labor can demand more or go somewhere else. You can't just legislate and mandate advancement you need to create the environment where it will happen.


Over your head, uh?

Nope, I almost stepped in that kind of thinking on my way to the park today.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, I'm sure that was the sole reason. :rolleyes:

amazing how libs are so opposed to discrimination/profiling, except when judging ceo's, and of course a litany of others they hate.

[Psychoblues]

Let's assume for a moment that everything you just wrote is correct. What is the answer to the problem? You failed to address that while positing your hypothesis. If greed is the motivating factor, what can be done?

Lowering wages to third world?

Implementing tariffs?

Response to retaliatory tariffs?

Please keep up, Kath. Creating and maintaining a level playing field was brought up by ConHog. That is an argument I have made for many years and that generally flies right over the heads of most of those that claim to be conservatives. I beg to differ. They are NOT intellectual conservatives on any subject and their collective ignorance is defeating not only for their own self interests but also to the best interests of our wonderful country, the United States of America.

btw, I've dried up once again and I am living one day at a time. It sure is great to see you, Kath!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Please keep up, Kath. Creating and maintaining a level playing field was brought up by ConHog. That is an argument I have made for many years and that generally flies right over the heads of most of those that claim to be conservatives. I beg to differ. They are NOT intellectual conservatives on any subject and their collective ignorance is defeating not only for their own self interests but also to the best interests of our wonderful country, the United States of America.

Funny, I see the every piling of social mandates on business as destroying the "best interest of our wonderful country." The rest of your post? Blitherful.

[NightTrain]

btw, I've dried up once again and I am living one day at a time. It sure is great to see you, Kath!!!!!!!

Psychoblues


It's been my theory for 5 years that you jump back into DP when you're in the midst of another 2-week bender. You start off okay like you are now, but quickly devolve into blithering nonsense interlaced with nonsensical profanity to hammer home some point known only to you in your stupor that leaves everyone baffled except you.

Prove me wrong.

[Psychoblues]

Your entire premise is wrong. Business is not there to create a utopia, they're not there to advance patriotism, or whatever other ideal you want to put on their back, businesses do what they do to make money. They need to hire people to get it done, they will pay back investors, lenders, etc. The problem is that the government is in the position of mandating social policy on the backs of business which is going to make it more expensive to do business. At some point, in an increasingly global world, they are going to go where they need to make money. Of course they are going to positively effect their profit margins; what if they had zero profit margin domestically? Of course they're going to look at ways to remain competitive.

I know where you're coming from but the bad news is labor, or government for that matter, doesn't make the world go 'round. Greed; such a nebulous term that means nothing, any profit to you is "greed." If you really want labor to join in on the "greed" you need to support any measure that increases the opportunity for labor to find work. Once we get to a point where there is high demand for labor, i.e. low unemployment rate, then labor can demand more or go somewhere else. You can't just legislate and mandate advancement you need to create the environment where it will happen.

Uh, yeash. Just like it seems that you would oppose a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Your argument is so full of holes and misunderstandings and assumptions that I have no idea where to start with your intentional ignorance other than to say, carry on and good luck to you. You'll be needing it.

Of course businesses exist to make money. I have NO quarrel with that other than I also expect them to provide high quality goods and services with some moral compass and conscience in the environment where they exist. That, fj2000, is just another raw meat sound bite for the already brain damaged dogs that want to listen to your kind of completely false horseshit. Got more of that? I know you do!!!!!!!!!!! I've always thought much higher of you than that

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Please keep up, Kath. Creating and maintaining a level playing field was brought up by ConHog. That is an argument I have made for many years and that generally flies right over the heads of most of those that claim to be conservatives. I beg to differ. They are NOT intellectual conservatives on any subject and their collective ignorance is defeating not only for their own self interests but also to the best interests of our wonderful country, the United States of America.

btw, I've dried up once again and I am living one day at a time. It sure is great to see you, Kath!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

It's good to see a sober pb and I hope it's just the beginning. Really. :2up:

Now onto the topic. When have 'conservatives' argued for less than a level playing field? That's part of the problem with unions, they don't allow for competition, i.e. a level playing field. Once a real level is reached, perhaps then the time for punitive tariffs come into play, but with eyes wide open. Tariffs will always be met with the same, in retaliation. Gotta be willing to pay that price. With China? Easy, they've blocked so many imports, but the rest of the world markets?

[Psychoblues]

Nope, I almost stepped in that kind of thinking on my way to the park today.

Was that a private park or a public one? Were there any tollways on the way or were the roads public as well?

Sheesh.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Uh, yeash. Just like it seems that you would oppose a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Your argument is so full of holes and misunderstandings and assumptions that I have no idea where to start with your intentional ignorance other than to say, carry on and good luck to you. You'll be needing it.

Of course businesses exist to make money. I have NO quarrel with that other than I also expect them to provide high quality goods and services with some moral compass and conscience in the environment where they exist. That, fj2000, is just another raw meat sound bite for the already brain damaged dogs that want to listen to your kind of completely false horseshit. Got more of that? I know you do!!!!!!!!!!! I've always thought much higher of you than that

Psychoblues


3

[Psychoblues]

Funny, I see the every piling of social mandates on business as destroying the "best interest of our wonderful country." The rest of your post? Blitherful.

I like clean air and water and plenty of them. Today's conservatives either don't or are ambivalent about them. I like a safe workplace, safe highways and bridges, and I like to feel safe getting on board a train or an airplane. I want a fair shake at the check out counter and at the labor negotiating table. I want to think that no one in my country would torture anyone in my name as I was taught to great length and emphasis the tenets of the Geneva Convention in Basic Training in 1968. We just don't act like our enemies do, or so I was taught. I could write you a book on the things I love about being an American and another book about how much I am offended by those that would deny me my freedoms and considerations that I have by birthright, citizenship and my military service in the United States of America. Some take all these things quite lightly. I don't.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

I like clean air and water and plenty of them. Today's conservatives either don't or are ambivalent about them. I like a safe workplace, safe highways and bridges, and I like to feel safe getting on board a train or an airplane. I want a fair shake at the check out counter and at the labor negotiating table. I want to think that no one in my country would torture anyone in my name as I was taught to great length and emphasis the tenets of the Geneva Convention in Basic Training in 1968. We just don't act like our enemies do, or so I was taught. I could write you a book on the things I love about being an American and another book about how much I am offended by those that would deny me my freedoms and considerations that I have by birthright, citizenship and my military service in the United States of America. Some take all these things quite lightly. I don't.

Psychoblues


6.1

[fj1200]

I like clean air and water and plenty of them. Today's conservatives either don't or are ambivalent about them. I like a safe workplace, safe highways and bridges, and I like to feel safe getting on board a train or an airplane. I want a fair shake at the check out counter and at the labor negotiating table. I want to think that no one in my country would torture anyone in my name as I was taught to great length and emphasis the tenets of the Geneva Convention in Basic Training in 1968. We just don't act like our enemies do, or so I was taught. I could write you a book on the things I love about being an American and another book about how much I am offended by those that would deny me my freedoms and considerations that I have by birthright, citizenship and my military service in the United States of America. Some take all these things quite lightly. I don't.

Bullshit. Half (all?) of your crap list is completely unrelated to the discussion. I don't need any flowery posts of all these wonderful things that you did/do/love all I need you to do is explain how all of the "social engineering" (for lack of a better term right now) has NOT made the country uncompetitive in the global markets.

You just said that my "argument is so full of holes and misunderstandings and assumptions..." so feel free to identify them specifically rather than more posts of pandering nothingness.

[Kathianne]

I like clean air and water and plenty of them. Today's conservatives either don't or are ambivalent about them. I like a safe workplace, safe highways and bridges, and I like to feel safe getting on board a train or an airplane. I want a fair shake at the check out counter and at the labor negotiating table. I want to think that no one in my country would torture anyone in my name as I was taught to great length and emphasis the tenets of the Geneva Convention in Basic Training in 1968. We just don't act like our enemies do, or so I was taught. I could write you a book on the things I love about being an American and another book about how much I am offended by those that would deny me my freedoms and considerations that I have by birthright, citizenship and my military service in the United States of America. Some take all these things quite lightly. I don't.

Psychoblues
I don't disagree with your 'wants.' Problem is that you 'want' the most ineffective body to help in regards to that. The US government. I choose a different path, one which you seem ignorant of.

[Psychoblues]

It's good to see a sober pb and I hope it's just the beginning. Really. :2up:

Now onto the topic. When have 'conservatives' argued for less than a level playing field? That's part of the problem with unions, they don't allow for competition, i.e. a level playing field. Once a real level is reached, perhaps then the time for punitive tariffs come into play, but with eyes wide open. Tariffs will always be met with the same, in retaliation. Gotta be willing to pay that price. With China? Easy, they've blocked so many imports, but the rest of the world markets?

Since time began, Kath, those that today claim propensities towards a rightwing or conservative political bent strictly oppose a level playing field. They do support human and material exploitations to the extent of complete using up of those resources. Some say I shouldn't care, it's only business. I say that I can't feel that way. I was in the work force for 45 years. I ain't no dummy. I looked and looked hard for redeeming factors regarding the Repub Party. I only occasionally found a glimmer of hope only to be later totally disappointed. I've been disappointed by Democrats as well but at least they have a demonstrable record towards propensities of promoting and protecting many of the things that I find most important and great about living in the USA. Hell, most Repubs resent ME even living in the US and that is not an exaggeration.

Back to level playing fields. Without them we are doomed to play off one anothers words and play gotcha when gotcha isn't the game. President Obama is correct when he calls for a leveling of the playing field. I wonder how many repubs will support him? Still wondering when 'conservatives' may argue for less than a level playing field? Pay close attention for the next 14 months. I've been paying close attention for the last 45 years.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

Pandering nothingness...

Psychoblues

:420:

[Psychoblues]

I don't disagree with your 'wants.' Problem is that you 'want' the most ineffective body to help in regards to that. The US government. I choose a different path, one which you seem ignorant of.

You hate and resent the government, Kath. Even if I showed you in absolutely no uncertain terms the tens of thousands of things that the government has turned over to private interests and the costs spiraled upward until the government simply had to re-assume the interests of the people I don't think you would understand. The government now has tens of thousands more things to re-assume total control and responsibilities for. Just in the cases of one Halliburton the fraud and abuse is and has been devastating. Municipal Water companies all over the nation and world have been sold out to private interests only to be later returned to municipal control. Clean and potable water in the interest of the people is a governmental responsibility. Let the private interests sell their bottled tap water for $1.89 a bottle to those a lot more gullible than me.

I am ignorant in many respects, kath, but the path of which you speak and seek is not part of that ignorance. Are you OK?

Psychoblues


:420:

Why do you write something on your own, put it in a quote box from me and walk away as if I had made that ridiculous remark? I worry about you, fj2000!?!?!?!

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Why do you write something on your own, put it in a quote box from me and walk away as if I had made that ridiculous remark? I worry about you, fj2000!?!?!?!

Psychoblues

2.

[logroller]

You hate and resent the government, Kath. Even if I showed you in absolutely no uncertain terms the tens of thousands of things that the government has turned over to private interests and the costs spiraled upward until the government simply had to re-assume the interests of the people I don't think you would understand. The government now has tens of thousands more things to re-assume total control and responsibilities for. Just in the cases of one Halliburton the fraud and abuse is and has been devastating. Municipal Water companies all over the nation and world have been sold out to private interests only to be later returned to municipal control. Clean and potable water in the interest of the people is a governmental responsibility. Let the private interests sell their bottled tap water for $1.89 a bottle to those a lot more gullible than me.

I am ignorant in many respects, kath, but the path of which you speak and seek is not part of that ignorance. Are you OK?

Psychoblues

I understand your frustration, but many of those things government has control of were, originally, exclusively provided for privately, both for profit and non- (healthcare, social welfare, education etc)-- now perverted by government provision and market manipulation. You can't say private markets are solely to blame when they have been forced to adapt to unnatural conditions of supply and demand created by government.

I realize clean water and air are important; these things were forsaken by private interests who operated under a cloak, being free from public scrutiny, which led to many heinous actions. These market failures have brought about changes in the degree of government control, at the behest of the public in their own best interests. I have no problem with this; not many do. But to say all private interests are destructive to society is blatantly false. Most great accomplishments have been achieved, thanks in full, to the freedom of private market activities. Coal mines kill people, factories pollute the air, mines' effluent runoff wipes out forests and aquatic habits-- bad things I realize; but you ever tried living without heat or electricity? (Many in the USSR did) Government serves a simple purpose-- protection-- not to be construed as provision.

[red states rule]

You hate and resent the government, Kath. Even if I showed you in absolutely no uncertain terms the tens of thousands of things that the government has turned over to private interests and the costs spiraled upward until the government simply had to re-assume the interests of the people I don't think you would understand. The government now has tens of thousands more things to re-assume total control and responsibilities for. Just in the cases of one Halliburton the fraud and abuse is and has been devastating. Municipal Water companies all over the nation and world have been sold out to private interests only to be later returned to municipal control. Clean and potable water in the interest of the people is a governmental responsibility. Let the private interests sell their bottled tap water for $1.89 a bottle to those a lot more gullible than me.

I am ignorant in many respects, kath, but the path of which you speak and seek is not part of that ignorance. Are you OK?

Psychoblues

You left out Solyndra, billions of wasted taxpayer money for "green" jobs, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mountain of regulations the government has imposed on business. Just to name a few examples of government interference in the private sector

As people wonder why the economy is sinking and companies are not hiring

and now the Obama drones want to sue employers for NOT hiring unemployed people

Yea, like that will bring the economy back PB

[fj1200]

Why do you write something on your own, put it in a quote box from me and walk away as if I had made that ridiculous remark? I worry about you, fj2000!?!?!?!

I was summarizing; it was a public service to all of the other board members. Besides, I'm waiting for you to respond to my other post, you know the one with the false assumptions, etc. that you don't know where to start. I'm more thinking you can't as opposed to won't.

[fj1200]

Even if I...

But the question is can​ you? And would you put any stock into a list that shows how government has perverted private interests and acted in counterproductive manner? I'm guessing no.

[Kathianne]

I'm not the only one with problems regarding the government:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149678/Americans-Express-Historic-Negativity-Toward-Government.aspx


September 26, 2011
Americans Express Historic Negativity Toward U.S. Government Several long-term Gallup trends at or near historical lows by Lydia Saad


This story is the first in a weeklong series on Gallup.com on Americans' views on the role and performance of government.



PRINCETON, NJ -- A record-high 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the country is being governed, adding to negativity that has been building over the past 10 years...

[Psychoblues]

But the question is can​ you? And would you put any stock into a list that shows how government has perverted private interests and acted in counterproductive manner? I'm guessing no.

I can just feel the desperation in your voice, fj2000.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

:laugh: Now that's comedy baby.

[Psychoblues]

I understand your frustration, but many of those things government has control of were, originally, exclusively provided for privately, both for profit and non- (healthcare, social welfare, education etc)-- now perverted by government provision and market manipulation. You can't say private markets are solely to blame when they have been forced to adapt to unnatural conditions of supply and demand created by government.

I realize clean water and air are important; these things were forsaken by private interests who operated under a cloak, being free from public scrutiny, which led to many heinous actions. These market failures have brought about changes in the degree of government control, at the behest of the public in their own best interests. I have no problem with this; not many do. But to say all private interests are destructive to society is blatantly false. Most great accomplishments have been achieved, thanks in full, to the freedom of private market activities. Coal mines kill people, factories pollute the air, mines' effluent runoff wipes out forests and aquatic habits-- bad things I realize; but you ever tried living without heat or electricity? (Many in the USSR did) Government serves a simple purpose-- protection-- not to be construed as provision.

Thank you for your well reasoned sounding answer and apparent seriousness to the subject, lr. Our society is incredibly complex moreso now than ever before, our industries are global in nature and moreso now than ever before, our government and laws must keep up with the demands for justice, fairness, general protections bestowed upon them and formulated by the people with their collective votes and expectations for good governance.

To reduce the purpose of Government to a single purpose of protection and not to be construed as provision is fallacy/bullshit on it's face. And it's a different topic. Corporations and the rich should pay a fair share for their expectations (containing trillions in provisions) and protections from government. I can give you a litany of examples but what good would it do? If you are open for conversation I stand ready but if all you have is more unthinking advancement of an agenda like some others here I would rather just swab jabs with you. Comprende'?

Psychoblues

[logroller]

Thank you for your well reasoned sounding answer and apparent seriousness to the subject, lr. Our society is incredibly complex moreso now than ever before, our industries are global in nature and moreso now than ever before, our government and laws must keep up with the demands for justice, fairness, general protections bestowed upon them and formulated by the people with their collective votes and expectations for good governance.

Your not-so-subtle modifiers speak volumes on your contempt. I DO seek to reason on this very serious subject-- I respectfully demand the same in return.




To reduce the purpose of Government to a single purpose of protection and not to be construed as provision is fallacy/bullshit on it's face. And it's a different topic. Corporations and the rich should pay a fair share for their expectations (containing trillions in provisions) and protections from government. I can give you a litany of examples but what good would it do? If you are open for conversation I stand ready but if all you have is more unthinking advancement of an agenda like some others here I would rather just swab jabs with you. Comprende'?

Psychoblues

Simply calling something bullshit does not make it so-- that, sir, is a fallacy. My mission is to create a better society, and I can reason through our differences on the best way to accomplish such, an agenda, if you will; but I reject wholly, any assertion founded purely on opinion. To dismiss the varied missions of society (government, individuals et al) as a different subject is foolish and unproductive. I could easily paint this as so many conservatives do; making it about how much the rich already pay while the poor pay negatives taxes-- but I do not, not because it is not true, but because it is unproductive. The status of our People, the political climate and the economy speak volumes to the mislaid goals which have failed to fulfill the govt's mission of protection. I know you served our country, and I am grateful. It infuriates me that so many great men as yourself have served a government which has failed to provide the protection and security we demand. That doesn't mean government is bad, just not that good at some things-- provision, for one.

There are situations where provisioning is necessary; but they are far fewer than what what many are led to believe. (Social welfare, education, energy, healthcare-- not best provided by government) To dismiss goods, services and their provision as a different topic is to ignore the defined status of one "being rich." The industrial revolution served, first and foremost to raise the standard of living among all people. Yes, some more so than others, but all benefited--therein lies an inconvenient truth which continually goes unmentioned by those who call for progressive government intrusion into markets. It's not that market capitalism is perfect, its just the best mankind has discovered.

You keep harping on the existence of examples, but neglect to specify them. I don't doubt there are market failures you can find, I could probably name more than you, but at least let me hear what they are and allow me to explain the vast majority of those failures are nothing new, and were once dealt with privately through NPOs, only to be overtaken by government and made worse. You and I, alone, are incapable of changing this society for better-- but in the spirit of harmony we can--United WE stand, divided we fall.

[Psychoblues]

Your not-so-subtle modifiers speak volumes on your contempt. I DO seek to reason on this very serious subject-- I respectfully demand the same in return.




Simply calling something bullshit does not make it so-- that, sir, is a fallacy. My mission is to create a better society, and I can reason through our differences on the best way to accomplish such, an agenda, if you will; but I reject wholly, any assertion founded purely on opinion. To dismiss the varied missions of society (government, individuals et al) as a different subject is foolish and unproductive. I could easily paint this as so many conservatives do; making it about how much the rich already pay while the poor pay negatives taxes-- but I do not, not because it is not true, but because it is unproductive. The status of our People, the political climate and the economy speak volumes to the mislaid goals which have failed to fulfill the govt's mission of protection. I know you served our country, and I am grateful. It infuriates me that so many great men as yourself have served a government which has failed to provide the protection and security we demand. That doesn't mean government is bad, just not that good at some things-- provision, for one.

There are situations where provisioning is necessary; but they are far fewer than what what many are led to believe. (Social welfare, education, energy, healthcare-- not best provided by government) To dismiss goods, services and their provision as a different topic is to ignore the defined status of one "being rich." The industrial revolution served, first and foremost to raise the standard of living among all people. Yes, some more so than others, but all benefited--therein lies an inconvenient truth which continually goes unmentioned by those who call for progressive government intrusion into markets. It's not that market capitalism is perfect, its just the best mankind has discovered.

You keep harping on the existence of examples, but neglect to specify them. I don't doubt there are market failures you can find, I could probably name more than you, but at least let me hear what they are and allow me to explain the vast majority of those failures are nothing new, and were once dealt with privately through NPOs, only to be overtaken by government and made worse. You and I, alone, are incapable of changing this society for better-- but in the spirit of harmony we can--United WE stand, divided we fall.

You perhaps hide your disrespect and contempt a bit better than myself but I never intended to hide anything. And I don't give a damn about your "respectful demands".

We go around in circles talking the same things just changing the words and never bringing forth anything that might harmonize and better embrace the United We Stand cliche'. We both think that we do but in the long run we don't. Your purpose here seems to be to simply disagree and I must say that you present your disagreements very well. I've told you before that I am impressed. You don't, however, present information that I find valuable in deciding which side of an issue that I may embrace. Blathering on and on while accusing me of failing to provide examples of the issues that we discuss daily is ridiculous. Do you really want examples or just to argue senselessly? Take just an elementary look around you, lr. The examples abound all around you here and elsewhere.

I go about my life doing many things to improve our society just as I have since my late teens. Perhaps together we might better pool our resources and improve even more and more efficiently!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[logroller]

You perhaps hide your disrespect and contempt a bit better than myself but I never intended to hide anything. And I don't give a damn about your "respectful demands".

We go around in circles talking the same things just changing the words and never bringing forth anything that might harmonize and better embrace the United We Stand cliche'. We both think that we do but in the long run we don't. Your purpose here seems to be to simply disagree and I must say that you present your disagreements very well. I've told you before that I am impressed. You don't, however, present information that I find valuable in deciding which side of an issue that I may embrace. Blathering on and on while accusing me of failing to provide examples of the issues that we discuss daily is ridiculous. Do you really want examples or just to argue senselessly? Take just an elementary look around you, lr. The examples abound all around you here and elsewhere.

I go about my life doing many things to improve our society just as I have since my late teens. Perhaps together we might better pool our resources and improve even more and more efficiently!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues


"respectful demands" Your response illustrates my point-- nobody likes being forced to do something---that's why government fails to provide anything but protection--- unless forcibly stopping someone from doing something bad--- contempt will undermine any good intentions. For a case in point, consider Iraq. We should have dethroned the dictator during Desert Storm, we/ our government is good at kicking ass. Operation Enduring Freedom has been more like an operation in enduring contempt. Why? because our mission was not protection by punishing the bad, but an attempt to encourage certain behaviors-- Freedom-- well, mission accomplished, it brought every pissed off extremist within a thousand miles there to express his contempt.

I need not hide my contempt, I have none. I seek only to understand and be understood--one begets the other.
Disagreement is a good thing. I present my arguments well because I wish others to understand, refute and/or accept them. That's DOING something. Argument is a means to end, not the end itself.

"Blathering on and on...providing examples" I mentioned this one time PB, you have mentioned the existence of examples multiple times. If you don't want me to blather on and on--give me some direction. If you don't wish to present them, specifically, that's fine; but don't then accuse me of blathering nonsensically. You wanna talk theories, I can do that too; I don't necessarily need to know the examples to know what, exactly, to respond to-- but at least designate a topic, not just talking points like "The rich are rich/ the poor are poor--- it's unfair and the evils corporate capitalism are to blame." I could write a ten page post and still not explain why they are poor. It's frustrating because I don't necessarily disagree, but I need some tangible evidence beyond general assumptions. If not, my elementary response would be- the poor are, by definition, poor! Not really helpful, is it? As such, I prefer something beyond elementary discussions; but I am compelled to understand the foundations by which you have arrived at your perspective; examples help me to do this, elementary or cliche' as you may see it.

Looking around on this site for examples???? OK, let's see what I DISCUSS here: administrative and legal infringement of Constitutional Rights, markets neglecting to provide a good or service, external environmental costs, government vs personal responsibility, corporate person hood, lobbying and political alliances, progressive tax reform, capital gains and short- vs long-term growth models, spending and revenue allocation, media as a mechanism for promoting ignorance and public derision-- all policy debates to which I respond to regularly...Where shall I begin to explain the many intricacies of capital production and the propensity for concentrated wealth as it relates to public policy, economic behaviors and social development???

[Missileman]

When have 'conservatives' argued for less than a level playing field?

The problem is the liberal definition of a "level playing field". To liberals, it means everyone gets paid the same whether they're competent and productive or not. For that matter, liberals want everyone to get paid the same, without regards to whether they are even working.

[ConHog]

The problem is the liberal definition of a "level playing field". To liberals, it means everyone gets paid the same whether they're competent and productive or not. For that matter, liberals want everyone to get paid the same, without regards to whether they are even working.

And THAT my friend is why they like unions so much. A union employee gets their wage increases no matter what, AND they are nearly impossible to fire. No matter their incompetence.

[Psychoblues]

"respectful demands" Your response illustrates my point-- nobody likes being forced to do something---that's why government fails to provide anything but protection--- unless forcibly stopping someone from doing something bad--- contempt will undermine any good intentions. For a case in point, consider Iraq. We should have dethroned the dictator during Desert Storm, we/ our government is good at kicking ass. Operation Enduring Freedom has been more like an operation in enduring contempt. Why? because our mission was not protection by punishing the bad, but an attempt to encourage certain behaviors-- Freedom-- well, mission accomplished, it brought every pissed off extremist within a thousand miles there to express his contempt.

I need not hide my contempt, I have none. I seek only to understand and be understood--one begets the other.
Disagreement is a good thing. I present my arguments well because I wish others to understand, refute and/or accept them. That's DOING something. Argument is a means to end, not the end itself.

"Blathering on and on...providing examples" I mentioned this one time PB, you have mentioned the existence of examples multiple times. If you don't want me to blather on and on--give me some direction. If you don't wish to present them, specifically, that's fine; but don't then accuse me of blathering nonsensically. You wanna talk theories, I can do that too; I don't necessarily need to know the examples to know what, exactly, to respond to-- but at least designate a topic, not just talking points like "The rich are rich/ the poor are poor--- it's unfair and the evils corporate capitalism are to blame." I could write a ten page post and still not explain why they are poor. It's frustrating because I don't necessarily disagree, but I need some tangible evidence beyond general assumptions. If not, my elementary response would be- the poor are, by definition, poor! Not really helpful, is it? As such, I prefer something beyond elementary discussions; but I am compelled to understand the foundations by which you have arrived at your perspective; examples help me to do this, elementary or cliche' as you may see it.

Looking around on this site for examples???? OK, let's see what I DISCUSS here: administrative and legal infringement of Constitutional Rights, markets neglecting to provide a good or service, external environmental costs, government vs personal responsibility, corporate person hood, lobbying and political alliances, progressive tax reform, capital gains and short- vs long-term growth models, spending and revenue allocation, media as a mechanism for promoting ignorance and public derision-- all policy debates to which I respond to regularly...Where shall I begin to explain the many intricacies of capital production and the propensity for concentrated wealth as it relates to public policy, economic behaviors and social development???

"Respectful demands" is what you are saying that you want for yourself. Go back and re-read your own post. I've already told you that I respect and am impressed with your ability to at least demonstrate a reasonable looking opinion. That said, I am disappointed with your insistence on using what I consider unnecessary flamboyance and hyperbole. Others here note the same but simply can't put a finger on what to call it. We'll make it, lr, and I hope we make it rather well and well understood. I do have much faith in you. I hope you can say the same.

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

And THAT my friend is why they like unions so much. A union employee gets their wage increases no matter what, AND they are nearly impossible to fire. No matter their incompetence.

If dictator for a day, unions would be made permanently illegal...immediately!

[Psychoblues]

As an aside and as a Union member for life and now for about 43 years I can honestly say I have never seen a Union or a Union member want something for nothing. Fairness is their objective. Nothing more and nothing less. There may be very isolated instances that would reflect poorly on Unions or Union members but I can assure you that Union members desire to deliver the highest quality and quantity of work and only for a fair and generally prevailing wage, benefit, and safety package. Just why would they want any more than that and possibly jeopardize their own industries/jobs? It would take only a hater or an idiot to believe otherwise.

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

If dictator for a day, unions would be made permanently illegal...immediately!



Don't forget the lobbies. ILLEGAL.

[ConHog]

As an aside and as a Union member for life and now for about 43 years I can honestly say I have never seen a Union or a Union member want something for nothing. Fairness is their objective. Nothing more and nothing less. There may be very isolated instances that would reflect poorly on Unions or Union members but I can assure you that Union members desire to deliver the highest quality and quantity of work and only for a fair and generally prevailing wage, benefit, and safety package. Just why would they want any more than that and possibly jeopardize their own industries/jobs? It would take only a hater or an idiot to believe otherwise.

Psychoblues


yeah right. NO ONE believes that bullshit.

[Psychoblues]

yeah right. NO ONE believes that bullshit.

Damned right!!!!!! Go Union!!!!!! Go American!!!!!

:salute:

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Damned right!!!!!! Go Union!!!!!! Go American!!!!!

:salute:

Psychoblues

I agree. Go unions. go away.

[Psychoblues]

I agree. Go unions. go away.

Too much trouble for you to support fairness, ch? See what I mean about cons being fascists? Go American, too, for you?

Psychoblues

[ConHog]

Too much trouble for you to support fairness, ch? See what I mean about cons being fascists? Go American, too, for you?

Psychoblues


Odd that MILLIONS of American employees seem to be being treated fairly sans union assistance.

[Missileman]

Too much trouble for you to support fairness, ch? See what I mean about cons being fascists? Go American, too, for you?

Psychoblues


What's fair exactly about a PoS employee making the same as a model one simply because they share a union? While you're trying to spin an answer for that, answer these too.

Of what benefit to anyone have been the teacher's union that make it impossible to get rid of useless teachers? A union should have standards and ENFORCE them. Instead, the teacher's unions are directly responsible for the US'd dismal ranking in education.

If union employees are so great, explain the numerous UAW workers smokin dope and getting loaded before going to work and during a lunch break.

[ConHog]

What's fair exactly about a PoS employee making the same as a model one simply because they share a union? While you're trying to spin an answer for that, answer these too.

Of what benefit to anyone have been the teacher's union that make it impossible to get rid of useless teachers? A union should have standards and ENFORCE them. Instead, the teacher's unions are directly responsible for the US'd dismal ranking in education.

If union employees are so great, explain the numerous UAW workers smokin dope and getting loaded before going to work and during a lunch break.

You got that right, every and I mean EVERY time a school gets new revenue here comes the teacher's union sticking their dirty grubby hands out wanting "their share." Then when you have an issue with a teacher you can't simply fire them , oh no not even if they physically strike a student. Fuck the kids, unions only care about THEIR SELVES. Then morons like PB wanna turn around and act like the unions are out fighting the greedy people................. LOL yeah right

[logroller]

"Respectful demands" is what you are saying that you want for yourself. Go back and re-read your own post. I've already told you that I respect and am impressed with your ability to at least demonstrate a reasonable looking opinion. That said, I am disappointed with your insistence on using what I consider unnecessary flamboyance and hyperbole. Others here note the same but simply can't put a finger on what to call it. We'll make it, lr, and I hope we make it rather well and well understood. I do have much faith in you. I hope you can say the same.

Psychoblues

I read it, and just to clarify-- Reason, as opposed to posturing, was what I demanded. Flamboyant hyperbole? I shall try to refrain. If you ask me a simple question, and I shall give you a simple answer.

[Psychoblues]

I read it, and just to clarify-- Reason, as opposed to posturing, was what I demanded. Flamboyant hyperbole? I shall try to refrain. If you ask me a simple question, and I shall give you a simple answer.

Coward.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

Coward.

Psychoblues

Insults have little effect on me PB. :beer:

[SassyLady]

trying to have an intelligent conversation with PB is like trying to herd cats......

[logroller]

What's fair exactly about a PoS employee making the same as a model one simply because they share a union? While you're trying to spin an answer for that, answer these too.
"I got rights man."


Of what benefit to anyone have been the teacher's union that make it impossible to get rid of useless teachers? A union should have standards and ENFORCE them. Instead, the teacher's unions are directly responsible for the US'd dismal ranking in education.
In all sincerity, the upward shift of government involvement, from local to federal, shares some of the blame. (chicken or the egg perhaps)


If union employees are so great, explain the numerous UAW workers smokin dope and getting loaded before going to work and during a lunch break.

Creative healthcare plan for cataracts?

[Gunny]

How do you explain this?

2486




Where are all the jobs from all the extra Koch wealth?

Easy. Anything you post can be explained as lying in a field cattle inhabit.

[fj1200]

If dictator for a day, unions would be made permanently illegal...immediately!


Don't forget the lobbies. ILLEGAL.

Unions AND lobbies should have the right to assemble and petition the government.

They should NOT have the requirement that they be listened too.

[fj1200]

Insults have little effect on me PB. :beer:

Don't worry, he's just projecting. :thumb:

[Missileman]

Unions AND lobbies should have the right to assemble and petition the government.

They should NOT have the requirement that they be listened too.

The members of unions and lobbies already have that right as individuals...the same as any citizen. Unions and lobbies can throw money at the politician and unfairly effect policy in a manner most individuals cannot.

[ConHog]

The members of unions and lobbies already have that right as individuals...the same as any citizen. Unions and lobbies can throw money at the politician and unfairly effect policy in a manner most individuals cannot.

Absolutely, and even more disgusting they can , and DO, influence politicians in underhanded ways that certainly does not benefit the nation.

[fj1200]

The members of unions and lobbies already have that right as individuals...the same as any citizen. Unions and lobbies can throw money at the politician and unfairly effect policy in a manner most individuals cannot.

Then I suppose we'll need to ban political parties as well. I don't have a problem with individuals getting together to voice their concerns to their elected officials. Do you expect that a group of people with little money is going to have the same pull as one wealthy individual?


Absolutely, and even more disgusting they can , and DO, influence politicians in underhanded ways that certainly does not benefit the nation.

Then you need to limit the powers of the central government and define the limits of their power... oh wait, we tried that. Given that the government is expanding, the freedom of the people to combine their voices has to grow as well.

[Missileman]

Then I suppose we'll need to ban political parties as well. I don't have a problem with individuals getting together to voice their concerns to their elected officials. Do you expect that a group of people with little money is going to have the same pull as one wealthy individual?

Voicing concerns and buying legislation that benefits a few, to the detriment of the majority, are two different matters,. The first is acceptable, not so much the second.

[fj1200]

Voicing concerns and buying legislation that benefits a few, to the detriment of the majority, are two different matters,. The first is acceptable, not so much the second.

No question but that's a matter of opinion. The problem is not in lobbying to me but that Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid).

[Missileman]

No question but that's a matter of opinion. The problem is not in lobbying to me but that Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid).



:beer:

[ConHog]

No question but that's a matter of opinion. The problem is not in lobbying to me but that Congress as an Institution... is Stupid (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30097-Congress-as-an-Institution...-is-Stupid).

No doubt about that, Congress is stupid, as are most of its members.

To me though what I especially don't like about lobbyists is that they are allowed to get WAY too cozy to politicians to the exclusion of them being available to the people. Your congressmen doesn't answer to you, he answers to a lobby.

That's why I advocate sending Congressperson back home to their own districts. Let them use secure internet connections to conduct debates and or votes. In today's age there is NO reason why they should be Washington DC nearly year round. I can see when important things come up that face to face discussions might be preferred, but the everyday business of this nation could be performed over the net.

[LuvRPgrl]

No doubt about that, Congress is stupid, as are most of its members.

To me though what I especially don't like about lobbyists is that they are allowed to get WAY too cozy to politicians to the exclusion of them being available to the people. Your congressmen doesn't answer to you, he answers to a lobby.

That's why I advocate sending Congressperson back home to their own districts. Let them use secure internet connections to conduct debates and or votes. In today's age there is NO reason why they should be Washington DC nearly year round. I can see when important things come up that face to face discussions might be preferred, but the everyday business of this nation could be performed over the net.

you can call congress, congressman alot of things, but stupid isnt really one of them. The people are sstupid for re eleccting them.

Rather than creating more laws, that they will find a way to circumvent, as they have shown they can and will, fight fire with fire.
....You seem to have a temendous amount of time on your hands, considerig how much posting you do here. Why not just take a fraction of that and start a group to countermand the lobbbyists. Enough people togther should create a sizable pie of money, in congres MONEY TALKS. Be your own lobbyist. Dont just bitch, do something about it

[ConHog]

you can call congress, congressman alot of things, but stupid isnt really one of them. The people are sstupid for re eleccting them.

Rather than creating more laws, that they will find a way to circumvent, as they have shown they can and will, fight fire with fire.
....You seem to have a temendous amount of time on your hands, considerig how much posting you do here. Why not just take a fraction of that and start a group to countermand the lobbbyists. Enough people togther should create a sizable pie of money, in congres MONEY TALKS. Be your own lobbyist. Dont just bitch, do something about it

How do you know I don't.

[Missileman]

you can call congress, congressman alot of things, but stupid isnt really one of them. The people are sstupid for re eleccting them.

Rather than creating more laws, that they will find a way to circumvent, as they have shown they can and will, fight fire with fire.
....You seem to have a temendous amount of time on your hands, considerig how much posting you do here. Why not just take a fraction of that and start a group to countermand the lobbbyists. Enough people togther should create a sizable pie of money, in congres MONEY TALKS. Be your own lobbyist. Dont just bitch, do something about it

We the people should not have to bribe congressman to do what's best for the country.

[fj1200]

No doubt about that, Congress is stupid, as are most of its members.

To me though what I especially don't like about lobbyists is that they are allowed to get WAY too cozy to politicians to the exclusion of them being available to the people. Your congressmen doesn't answer to you, he answers to a lobby.

That's why I advocate sending Congressperson back home to their own districts. Let them use secure internet connections to conduct debates and or votes. In today's age there is NO reason why they should be Washington DC nearly year round. I can see when important things come up that face to face discussions might be preferred, but the everyday business of this nation could be performed over the net.

I argued that Congress was institutionally stupid even though it may have smart members. I agree that there would be ways around the lobbyists influence, rules at transparency for example, rather than banning lobbyists.

[LuvRPgrl]

How do you know I don't.

Seriously?
I thought that would be pretty obvious.

First, you are advocating something else, all kinds of controls which isnt even do able.
Second, you havent said you are in fact putting together a peoples lobby.
Third, if you were putting together a people lobby, you would have asked some here to join, if not everyone.
Four, its in your nature to try and prevent people from doing things, and not propose alternate solutions on what we should do, but rather how we can stop people from doing what is wrong.

An example, I feel confident you think drugs should be illegal. Stop the problem by telling people they cant. This leads to policing, cars, borders, going into peoples homes, etc, etc.

I advocate making drugs legal, it illiminates drug cartels, less work for border patrol so they can focus more on terrorists, gangs & drug dealers here and all the crime associated with it will go down, since the price of drugs will go down radically, black kids wont be so tempted to join gangs and deal dope, which will make getting an education more tempting. ANd, the police here would be freed up to do what they are suppose to do, stop criminals, and not putting someone in jail for sniffing some coke up their nostrils and going to a party.

Shall I go on?

[ConHog]

Seriously?
I thought that would be pretty obvious.

First, you are advocating something else, all kinds of controls which isnt even do able.
Second, you havent said you are in fact putting together a peoples lobby.
Third, if you were putting together a people lobby, you would have asked some here to join, if not everyone.
Four, its in your nature to try and prevent people from doing things, and not propose alternate solutions on what we should do, but rather how we can stop people from doing what is wrong.

An example, I feel confident you think drugs should be illegal. Stop the problem by telling people they cant. This leads to policing, cars, borders, going into peoples homes, etc, etc.

I advocate making drugs legal, it illiminates drug cartels, less work for border patrol so they can focus more on terrorists, gangs & drug dealers here and all the crime associated with it will go down, since the price of drugs will go down radically, black kids wont be so tempted to join gangs and deal dope, which will make getting an education more tempting. ANd, the police here would be freed up to do what they are suppose to do, stop criminals, and not putting someone in jail for sniffing some coke up their nostrils and going to a party.

Shall I go on?

If I believe lobbies should be illegal, and I do, why would I then attempt to form a lobby?

As for your example about drugs. I actually think that that should be a state issue and each state should be allowed to vote on such. You may ask around to those who I posted with on USMB , they will verify that has been my stance since I've been posting anywhere.

Which of course proves that you don't know jack about me.

[Gaffer]

Seriously? I thought that would be pretty obvious. First, you are advocating something else, all kinds of controls which isnt even do able. Second, you havent said you are in fact putting together a peoples lobby. Third, if you were putting together a people lobby, you would have asked some here to join, if not everyone. Four, its in your nature to try and prevent people from doing things, and not propose alternate solutions on what we should do, but rather how we can stop people from doing what is wrong. An example, I feel confident you think drugs should be illegal. Stop the problem by telling people they cant. This leads to policing, cars, borders, going into peoples homes, etc, etc. I advocate making drugs legal, it illiminates drug cartels, less work for border patrol so they can focus more on terrorists, gangs & drug dealers here and all the crime associated with it will go down, since the price of drugs will go down radically, black kids wont be so tempted to join gangs and deal dope, which will make getting an education more tempting. ANd, the police here would be freed up to do what they are suppose to do, stop criminals, and not putting someone in jail for sniffing some coke up their nostrils and going to a party. Shall I go on? There is a peoples lobby. It's called the Tea Party.

[Gunny]

There are millions of factors and considerations that prove without doubt that wealth nor tax levels create jobs on their own. The missing equations here are that there have been many millions of jobs created during the last decade or so. In India, Sri Lanka, China, etc. Good jobs that once belonged to Americans and could still be American jobs if not for the regulatory favoritism towards those that send work and material to foreign lands for whatever reasons. This cannot be sustained in the long run.

This is indeed a subject that deserves honest consideration and debate whether you like the op author or not. Slinging names and insults like shit sandwiches at a Heritage Foundation convention is not credible or intelligent discussion.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Psychoblues

While I agree with your sentiment, good luck. The fallacy to your statement is using the term "honest consideration".

[Gunny]

There is a peoples lobby. It's called the Tea Party.

That amounts to nothing more than what used to be called Constitutionalists and/or independents and/or so-called silent majority moderates and/or so-called Libertarians -- unorganized gaggles of voters that do nothing but steal the election for one side or the other but never really manage to accomplish anything more than that.

[LuvRPgrl]

If I believe lobbies should be illegal, and I do, why would I then attempt to form a lobby?.
I thought you asked how I knew you werent trying to put one together, or did I mis read your question?


As for your example about drugs. I actually think that that should be a state issue and each state should be allowed to vote on such. You may ask around to those who I posted with on USMB , they will verify that has been my stance since I've been posting anywhere..

I dont need to ask anyone jack about that. Making it a states issue doesnt prove jack. You still have to have an opinion on whether the state should legalize it or not, Im quite positive you are not without an opinion on the topic, if you say you are w/o an opinion, then you are a bald faced liar.


Which of course proves that you don't know jack about me.
In three months or so of posting, you have more posts than I do. Maybe you need to get a life. I have time to post right now cuz Im getting paid while waiting for online events to occur, so I have paid online time to use.
...... If I dont know jack about you, then you are not being very articulate about your posistions and opinions. Pssssssss, I DO know jact about you, as much as anyone else who only knows you through posting here. Some may know MORE than I do, but it doesnt mean I dont know JACK.

[LuvRPgrl]

There is a peoples lobby. It's called the Tea Party.

actually there are others, common cause, one here in Ca started by a guy named Jarvis who got property taxes repealed back to a cheaper time.
They all, for the most part, have certain agendas, none of which cover what I think are the more important issues. But anyways, I think starting one would be a better answer than just crying like a little bitch, mommmmmy,,,they arent doing it the way I want too, and then try to slap more uselss restrictions that they will simply circumvent anyways, like they have always done, and then having even more restrictions makes the issue even more complex which makes it easier for them to circumvent.

[Psychoblues]

While I agree with your sentiment, good luck. The fallacy to your statement is using the term "honest consideration".

I appreciate your attention, gunny, but your failure to comprehend is as blatant and obvious as it ever was. My, my.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

... could still be American jobs if not for the regulatory favoritism towards those that send work and material to foreign lands for whatever reasons.

Did I miss the specifics of that the first time through?

[Gunny]

I appreciate your attention, gunny, but your failure to comprehend is as blatant and obvious as it ever was. My, my.

Psychoblues

Your memory doesn't serve you very well if you think not comprehending that I was neither disagreeing with nor insulting you is a lack of comprehension on my part. Honest discourse would require all on both sides of the argument to drop the rhetoric each calls ideals and discuss actual facts.

If you're just the same old troll you've always preferred to be rather than engage the gears in your brain housing group, piss off.

[Psychoblues]

Your memory doesn't serve you very well if you think not comprehending that I was neither disagreeing with nor insulting you is a lack of comprehension on my part. Honest discourse would require all on both sides of the argument to drop the rhetoric each calls ideals and discuss actual facts.

If you're just the same old troll you've always preferred to be rather than engage the gears in your brain housing group, piss off.

Eh, pardon, old soldier. You reflected the "honest consideration" remark directly to me. Possibly I misunderstood. Carry on. You and I have had honest conversations in the past and I hope we can again. But, if you prefer to engage in senseless innuendo and name calling then I return your warning, piss off.

Psychoblues

[LuvRPgrl]

Eh, pardon, old soldier. You reflected the "honest consideration" remark directly to me. Possibly I misunderstood. Carry on. You and I have had honest conversations in the past and I hope we can again. But, if you prefer to engage in senseless innuendo and name calling then I return your warning, piss off.

Psychoblues

apparently you find it more important to engage in tit for tat rather than give a serious response to a serious question posed by FJ.
AS a side, Gunny simply told you it seems an honest conveersation may be difficult to achieve, and yes it was aimed at you, that doesnt make it an insult, its a comment on the laack of both of you being able to converse, but you felt compelled to respond with a personal attack claiming Gunny only wants to engage in personal attacks.

[ConHog]

apparently you find it more important to engage in tit for tat rather than give a serious response to a serious question posed by FJ.
AS a side, Gunny simply told you it seems an honest conveersation may be difficult to achieve, and yes it was aimed at you, that doesnt make it an insult, its a comment on the laack of both of you being able to converse, but you felt compelled to respond with a personal attack claiming Gunny only wants to engage in personal attacks.

Off topic, but I LOVE engaging tits.

[fj1200]

^You've just violated no less than four recent threads. BAN HAMMER!!!

[ConHog]

^You've just violated no less than four recent threads. BAN HAMMER!!!

LOL As long as I've already went off topic here, let me ask you a real question. How is KRB? I heard he was having some health issues. All bullshit aside, I hope he is okay.

[fj1200]

I haven't heard that he's had a setback or anything but he's as well as can be expected with a chronic thing. I just read a few of his posts on another board as a matter of fact.

[ConHog]

I haven't heard that he's had a setback or anything but he's as well as can be expected with a chronic thing. I just read a few of his posts on another board as a matter of fact.

I'm glad to hear he's okay. Even an annoying ass doesn't deserve health issues.

[fj1200]

I'm glad to hear he's okay. Even an annoying ass doesn't deserve health issues.

So far you've been lucky. :poke:

[ConHog]

So far you've been lucky. :poke:

I make no pretenses of not being an annoying ass to those who are umm less intelligent.