TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Workers of the world, wake up!
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 The word you are not using is socialized, as in you advocate socialized healthcare. On again with the con of socialized health care: If you still think socialized medicine is a good thing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. Adolph Hitler The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one Adolph Hitler |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay if their is one thing that you left should take from this though, is rejection of the idea that we leave the rich with more and poor with less. That is the biggest crock that is ever shot out from the left that we hear. Now we are interested in economic growth okay and that does more for the poor than any bs social program could ever do with any amount of money. |
Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich. Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail. The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason.
What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now.
denny_shibby
| quote: |
| Now poverty is considered living in either an apartment or an old tiny house, you have maybe 1 car, you never go hungry, etc. Astonishingly this is pretty much middle class in Europe(hahaha socialists thats what you get for ignoring economics). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich. Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail. The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason. What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now. |
| quote: |
| Since 1973, the bottom fifth of families have seen their income fall by an average of 0.2 percent per year, while the bottom 40 percent have seen no growth at all. At the same time, the top fifth of families have seen their income rise by 1.1 percent per year. The growth in inequality abated�but did not reverse course�during the high employment years of the late 1990s. Since the recession of the early 2000s, however, inequality has begun to grow again. Families whose total income places them in the bottom fifth of households lost ground, as their incomes fell by 1.9 percent, to $17,984 between 2002 and 2003, while income for those in the top income brackets rose�by 1.1 percent, up to $86,867. Growing inequality over the past few years has been accompanied by economic growth and rising productivity. Between 2003 and 2004, the gross domestic product increased by 3.0 percent and productivity increased by 4 percent. But it was not enough to generate strong job growth. As of March, four years after the recession began, the economy has generated only 415,000 net new jobs. Had the share of Americans working remained at its 2000 level, 4.5 million more people would have had jobs by now. It wasn't always this way. Economic growth used to benefit all families. In the decades after World War II up until 1973, family income grew at about the same pace for families across the income distribution. The bottom fifth of families saw their income rise by an average of 2.6 percent per year, as did the top fifth of families. What's changed? The disconnect between economic growth and incomes is the result of a shift in the balance of power away from workers towards CEOs and corporate profitability. While wages have been falling, after-tax profits have grown by 18.2 percent in 2004 and 14.3 percent in 2003. There are no longer countervailing forces to prevent the wealthy from appropriating all the gains from growth. Labor is no longer a strong force to be reckoned with and government is not protecting worker's paychecks. Unions used to provide good jobs for a third of America's workers. Now, union density in the private sector has dipped into the single digits. When baby boomers were growing up, the government took responsibility for ensuring decent labor standards. Congress passed legislation that protected workers, and regulatory bodies such as OSHA and EEOC enforced these protections. Today, young people entering the workforce are faced with a virtually unregulated labor market as Congress has essentially abdicated its responsibility to provide a decent floor for workers. A prime example is the minimum wage, which has not been increased since 1997. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich. |
| quote: |
| Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail. |
| quote: |
| The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason. |
| quote: |
| What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now. |
Alright, Opus. I'm gonna show you what a evil, cold-hearted capitalist I can be...This was such a heartwarming response. Really great stuff. The rich are evil, blah blah blah. Pity the poor.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I see. So let's continue gutting those programs that help the poor, the poverty-stricken, and the disabled because, well fuck, I guess we can just continue to ignore them and let them fucking fend for themselves, right? |
| quote: |
| You remember him, right? Go ahead, you can say his name. |
Shakka
| quote: |
| Call me selfish |
Shakka
| quote: |
| Yeah, fuck the poor. Make sure you pull the knife out of my back on your way out. Wanna kick my dog while you're here? |
Since 1973, the bottom fifth of families have seen their income... Yet again a liberal uses facts that are completely worthless. Instead of using the unemployment rate during the campaign, the correct measure of employment they use, total job loss, job gain. Gee there are differences in population people and you do have a baby boom generation going into retirement maybe factors like that can have affects on whos working. Then you guys state that the deficit is the biggest we have ever had by using dollar amount. Gee isn't there something called inflation ah duh. The fact is that the deficit has never exceeded 30 percent of gdp which means that there have been like 5 or so presidents that have had greater deficits in the last century. Now another thing that is retarded is that you don't compare the wages with prices and perk packages to(i.e. health benefits, etc.). Its pointless to compare wages if you don't compare them to something like the cost of a loaf of bread, a car from a given year, a tv from a given year, etc. Thats just it you guys have to divorce yourselfs from standard economic indicators to project your worthless views on events and situations. Whats next you going to go back to GNP instead of GDP or whatever to make our economy look worse or something.
Hey why don't you try to take up my argument that you are fucking over the poor of the future to give to the poor of today?
Also by the way the number of homeless in this country is less than a couple hundred thousand, but the "poverty line" is some how put around the bottom 20 percent of the entire country like 70 million people. So considering that if you have a small old house/apartment, 1 car, a couple tvs, etc. you are considered poor in America. This is also considered middle class in Europe. How is this? Standard of living and past growth have propelled the United States past Europe so much. And all those piece of crap social programs in Europe have done nothing to help their society or there poor in comparison to a country like the U.S. that is one of the 5 biggest capatalist countries in the world(the only of which that is decently sized). I'm sorry but you people are blind as a bat. You know one of the big catalysts for change in Eastern Germany in the late 80s is when western tv made it into east. The east watched station after station showing westerners with nicer clothes, nicer cars, nicers houses, etc. That will by all of Europe 10-20 years down the road. They are going to eventually wake up to realize that while they are stuck back with a middle class with a flat and a little smart car, the U.S. poor will have several almost brand new cars, nice house/apparment--all owners no renters, can go on a couple vacations a year. This will be our poor, and why will this be our poor because of economic growth not bs social programs--they can just sustain an underclass with shit rundown projects, etc. while growth will transform the poor from those piece of crap projects into basically the middle class of today.
AND YES I AM HONESTLY SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS FUCK OVER THE POOR MORE THAN REPUBLICANS for the above reason. The only thing that they have shielding them is that they don't know they are doing that.
Okay generalities maybe can't work in your view of things because you actually believe that social programs can provide more than the market can which me and many others do not. I also have a vast knowledge of the individual programs and how to make them atleast less damaging and more helpful for the vast amounts of money we jam in them. They all follow a reoccuring theme, make them more market oriented(another generality for you). In the case of social security the private accounts are a great idea. We have heard from you liberals that some old women living only on her social security has to, "Somedays choose between food and medicine." Well private accounts are designed so people can have bigger social security checks when they retire. This has been tried before. I believe Texas was able to get a plan through a little bit ago that allowed some private investment accounts(I don't have to much info on that though) and I heard that their recipients recieve many times more in retirement than the rest of the country. And Chile has private investment accounts for their citizens. The first year the private accounts were instituted only like a fourth of the country got them. They were such a success the first year that the second year 90 percent of the country was signed up for them. In terms of the programs effects on future growth, they both take out the same amount of money in fica taxes so either way you look at it future growth would roughly be the same, but since everybody or at least everybody that decides to take part will be getting more money plus the increase in investment in the economy you could see positive growth if anything.
I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.
Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.
Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.
Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.
Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.
Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.
Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.
This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.
So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.
denny_shibby
| quote: |
| Standard of living and past growth have propelled the United States past Europe so much. And all those piece of crap social programs in Europe have done nothing to help their society or there poor in comparison to a country like the U.S. |
| quote: |
| Unemployment, as of late 2004, stood at 4.3 percent, suggesting that the economy is as close to full employment as possible. Inflation in the services sector partly reflects tightening in the labor market, upon which the sector is particularly dependent. Aveerage annual compensation in Ireland in 2004 grew by over 4 percent to euro 38,140, compared to euro 34,630, the average wage in the original 15 EU Member States. Between 1998 and 2003, compensation per employee had increased by 37.1 percent, compared with 8.7 percent in Germany over the same period. The pay terms of the current national wage agreement, "Sustaining Progress," which provide for wage increases of 5.5 percent over 18 months, are relatively moderate compared with previous agreements. Wage pressures in 2005, however, are expected to remain strong, particularly in the private services sector, where employment growth likely will continue to be robust. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Rush Limbaugh a/k/a denny_shibby I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway... |
| quote: |
Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries |
| quote: |
Since 1973, the bottom fifth of families have seen their income... Yet again a liberal uses facts that are completely worthless. |
..
| quote: |
| [i]The bottom 20% of the country seeing their income fall over the past 32 years and another 20% has seen no growth at all are worthless statistics? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Dammit, we need more of these programs. We need to dictate charity on society. We will get government to wield its mighty monopoly on force and force those evil rich to fork over a larger dollar amount than we ask the average man to fork over, to help out someone less fortunate than he. Charity is great, but it's not something you can govern. |
| quote: |
Griffin: Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do? Dodd: Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled �un-American� -- without, I might add, defining what they meant by �un-American.� That was the Resolution and the committee had, then, the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel, in turn, had the task of selecting a staff; and, he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the �Director of Research. � Griffin: What were some of the details, the specifics, of what you told the committee at that time? Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report, I specifically -- number one -- defined what was, to us, meant by the phrase �un-American.� And, we defined that, in our way, as being a determination to effect changes in the country by un-Constitutional means. We have plenty of Constitutional procedures, assuming that we wished to effect a change in the form of government, and that sort of thing. And therefore, any effort in that direction, which did not avail itself of the procedures authorized by the Constitution, could be justifiably called �un-American.� That was the start of educating them, up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years. Griffin: What was that effect, Sir? Dodd: That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution; and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths. And, that�s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations -� foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years -- and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward was -- what we had uncovered was -- the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education. Griffin: There is quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Will you please tell us who he was, and what was that conversation you had with him? Dodd: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, President of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me, when I found it convenient to be in New York. He asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, "Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today, because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves." And, before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on, and voluntarily stated, "Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here, have had experience either with the OSS during the war, or with European economic administration after the war. We have had experience operating under directives. The directives emanate, and did emanate, from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?" I said, �Yes, Mr. Gaither, I would like very much to know.� Whereupon, he made this statement to me, "Mr. Dodd, we are here to operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States, that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. |
Re: ..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt The problem with this argument is that you believe that same people have occupied the bottom income quintile for 20 years in a row. Studies have shown that this is complete NONSENSE. The vast majority of those in the bottom income group do NOT remain there for more than a decade, and certainly not for two. I believe reading in fact that over any recent 10-year period, a greater number of the "poor" cited in your stats actually make it to the TOP bracket than remain in the bottom. We have great income mobility in this country, and this makes most of these "inequality" arguments fallacious. |
You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. You don't get it wages don't mean shit unless you compare prices to wages. Okay first before you can even compare the wages between Europe and U.S. you have to use AFTER TAX INCOME. Then I want you to add up how much you guys spend on gas , a flat, food, a piece of shit car, etc. then see how much you guys got. Keeping that all in mind there is one way to best figure out what country has better standards of living. Whos middle class spends the most on luxurys after that spending.
I've been to Ireland and the UK and my sister studied abroad in Lancaster, England trust me when I say we are kicking your ass. Don't get me wrong I think Ireland is a beautiful country. And I think the people there are some of the nicest people I have met on a vacation. I live in a middle class to upper middle class town and let me say that about 80 percent of my school goes on at least one vacation to Florida, Mexico, California, etc. a year. Everybody attending my school has a relatively new computer with internet. 98 percent of everybody over 16 in my school also has there own car. I can keep on going and these are just the easily seen things. How long have you guys spent in the U.S. This whole argument is given for one reason, wages don't mean shit if you don't give a comprehensive analysis of living costs. Yeah you can have an average wages of $200,000 but if a loaf of bread is $100 that don't mean shit.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby You see as I thought you liberals can't understand a simple argument. Why? You are liberals. |
Yes there are many different political parties in the spectrum, but what you don't understand is that liberal and conservative are adjectives used to describe the party as pushing more towards command economy(i.e. progressive taxes, welfare state, etc.) conservative is pushing towards more market economy. Now there are many different issues that pertain to a party--war, rights, etc., and I admit that I narrowly focus on economic issues when I cover liberal and conservative and you have to understand that when I argue this shit.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by denny_shibby Yes there are many different political parties in the spectrum, but what you don't understand is that liberal and conservative are adjectives used to describe the party as pushing more towards command economy(i.e. progressive taxes, welfare state, etc.) conservative is pushing towards more market economy. Now there are many different issues that pertain to a party--war, rights, etc., and I admit that I narrowly focus on economic issues when I cover liberal and conservative and you have to understand that when I argue this shit. |
Phillips curve, now I pictured right away that you were talking about the so called inverse inflation and wages curve, but since I wasn't positive on the name I double-checked and I was right. Phillips curve is false. Just figures you could pick out any economic law or principle out there and you choose an old Keynesian theory that was proven wrong in the 1970s. According to that theory stagflation is impossible because lower unemployment = high inflation, and vise versa. The reason why Keynesians came up with this theory was because governments were running the economies where the government would debt spend and print money(inflation-expanding money supply and high interest rates) to pay for government jobs(lower unemployment). Then you get the opposite idea. The fact is that they were just taking money from the private sector via inflation or directly borrowing, creating overall lower wages in respect to prices, to redispence to their employees. Its also strange that you bring up that theory since you consider yourself a libertarian the backbone party of Friedman economics. Milton Friedman being the Einstien of Economics. Him and his followers physically wrote the proofs that became economic law(indisputable) and proved that theory among basically all other Keynesian theories wrong. Keynesian economics is what the liberal party and labour, etc. parties were based on, but when Keynesians were proved wrong they couldn't go around calling themselves Keynesians anymore, so they denounced economics proclaiming that economics doesn't solve all economic problems(i.e. poors situation), the most retarded statement ever proclaimed.
By the way I self taught myself economics, don't think that teachers in this country are smart enough to teach this shit. They are just fucking retarded. My brother has had 1 high school, and 2 UW Madison economics classes and I have to say they almost made him dumber. I kick his ass over and over again, and he admits defeat everytime. I have yet to take a school economics class I was signed up for one this semester, but the teacher told me that I should get out of the class considering I know more about it than he does.
Um well okay, deficit spending. Well in measuring deficit spending you have to first measure it as a percentage of gdp not as an overall dollar amount because growth and inflation make every fiscal year different from the proceeding so when you compare deficits in this administration to deficits in previous administrations you have to measure it as percent of gdp. Bush's deficit never surpassed 30 percent of gdp and that is a gdp during a recession a much lower gdp than a prosperous time. In the last century I believe that there have been 5 or so presidents that have had more than 30 percent of gdp deficits. Also you have to understand that the deficit was not caused by tax cuts or Bush spending. The deficit was caused because during the recession less money was coming in to fund government programs than before during good times. Spending didn't increase that much during the Bush years at all. Don't point to the war either because war spending was only a few hundred billion in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget. You see liberals don't understand the above and they also don't understand that if you lower taxes, more transactions occur which than send more money back to the government. They make statements like that the Bush tax cuts removed x amount of money from the government which they cannot claim. First of all those tax cuts mean more transactions. There is no way they can know that amount because national wealth is always changing at one month it could be x the next it could have change to be x plus or minus 20 percent, etc.
Eh wrong. Entitlements like social security and medicare are the biggest spenders in the government. These constitute something like 50 percent of the entire budget. The statistics you are quoting are under the assumption that entitlements pay for themselves and exclude at least social security from those statistics.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.