President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby conversationpc » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:33 am

JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.


If someone as far left as Obama can get elected in a center-right country, then a real conservative could definitely get elected, especially after a disastrous Presidency like it looks like this is going to be. I hope it's not, though, for the country's sake.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:33 am

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Hmmm. Here's your buddy Glenn Beck from tonight's interview with Katie Couric:

"Glenn Beck thinks President Obama is better for the country than John McCain would have been, he said in an interview with Katie Couric to air at CBSNews.com Tuesday evening.

"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama," Beck told Couric in the debut episode of her new web show, @katiecouric.

Beck's comment came in response to Couric's question about Hillary Clinton, who Beck said he may have even voted for had she been the Democratic nominee against John McCain.

"I can't believe I'm saying this," Beck said, "I think I would have much preferred [Hillary Clinton] as president and may have voted for her against John McCain."

He described McCain as "this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 ... 94052.html

How ya likin that one Fact Finder! :lol:

So what? I agree in the fact that republicans can feel free to call Obama the socialist that he is. With McCain they'd be forced to bite their tongues like they did with some of Bush's policies. Obama is wrecking the democrat party.


I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby conversationpc » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:34 am

JrnyScarab wrote:I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.


Actually, most of what Obama has done is more fascist in nature than socialism.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:37 am

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up. At least he knew what he had to do and didn't care what he was called. Oh yeah and BUSH the 1st too. I give them both credit for raising taxes when they had too because they knew the reality. George W didn't have a fucking clue. It was tax cuts no matter what.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:39 am

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up.

Yeah, the same Reagan that slashed the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 %.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:40 am

conversationpc wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.


Actually, most of what Obama has done is more fascist in nature than socialism.


"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak"

Sounds more like what the Repubs have been doing. But I admit, the Dems are just as beholden to Corporatism as the Repubs.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:42 am

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up.

Yeah, the same Reagan that slashed the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 %.


I Quoteth as follows:

"It is amazing to here people equate Obama's tax plan with socialism. Such arguments reflect an ignorance of fact and history. The American tax system has been progressive for a long time. Also, Obama's tax plan is not nearly as progressive (or socialistic as some RWs would say) as Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagans. Indeed, under Reagan, we had a 50% top marginal rate. Unfortunately, the MSM never takes the time to address the charges and counter-charges regarding tax plans with fact. So, here's my effort to introduce some fact into the tax debate:

I got my information from the following websites:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploaded ... 93_Candi...

Our current maginal tax rates for 2008 are as follows:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%


Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

10%
15%
25%
28%
36%
39.6%

McCain would simply continue applying Bush's marginal tax rates:

10%
15%
25%
28%
33%
35%

However, does this make Obama's tax plan radical or socialistic? Hardly. In 1999, when the stock market was zooming through the roof, and real median household incomes were going through the roof under Bill Clinton, we had the following marginal tax rates:

15%
28%
31%
36%
39.6%

Thus, Obama's proposed taxes are still significantly less than the taxes under Bill Clinton, particularly for middle income Americans.

Okay, well how about Ronald Reagan? Well for much of Reagan's two terms, he had top marginal tax rates of 50%, though deductions may have resulted in a different tax burden. In other words, compared to Obama's proposed tax plans, Ronald Reagan is a pinko commie:

Married Filing Jointly
Marginal Tax Brackets
Tax Rate Over But Not Over
0.0% $0 $3,670
11.0% $3,670 $5,940
12.0% $5,940 $8,200
14.0% $8,200 $12,840
16.0% $12,840 $17,270
18.0% $17,270 $21,800
22.0% $21,800 $26,550
25.0% $26,550 $32,270
28.0% $32,270 $37,980
33.0% $37,980 $49,420
38.0% $49,420 $64,750
42.0% $64,750 $92,370
45.0% $92,370 $118,050
49.0% $118,050 $175,250
50.0% $175,250 -
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:45 am

JrnyScarab wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.


Actually, most of what Obama has done is more fascist in nature than socialism.


"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak"

Sounds more like what the Repubs have been doing. But I admit, the Dems are just as beholden to Corporatism as the Repubs.


What the fuck do you people think we would do without the "big, bad, evil corporations?"

Who will fund the government? Pay your paycheck? Provide jobs? Fund innovation, ingenuity and other useful social activity?

Just because there have been some unscrupulous scumbag executives who made millions/billions while running their companies into the ground and screwing their employees over does not make all business an evil empire. I understand the root of the frustration, but I don't understand the extent of the rhetoric.

I'm really curious what you people want or envision when you spew this anti-corporate, anti-profit crap. Do you want everyone to live off a grand a month from a government (that would very quickly be insolvent there)? All non-profit companies? (Someone has to make a profit to fund the non-profits, genius)? All government jobs in every sector of industry? What?
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby conversationpc » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:46 am

Ehwmatt wrote:What the fuck do you people think we would do without the "big, bad, evil corporations?"

Who will fund the government? Pay your paycheck? Provide jobs? Fund innovation, ingenuity and other useful social activity?

Just because there have been some unscrupulous scumbag executives who made millions/billions while running their companies into the ground and screwing their employees over does not make all business an evil empire. I understand the root of the frustration, but I don't understand the extent of the rhetoric.

I'm really curious what you people want or envision when you spew this anti-corporate, anti-profit crap. Do you want everyone to live off a grand a month from a government (that would very quickly be insolvent there)? All non-profit companies? (Someone has to make a profit to fund the non-profits, genius)? All government jobs in every sector of industry? What?


Wealth envy. That's the root of it.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:48 am

JrnyScarab wrote:Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

If you're stupid enough to believe what Obama "proposes" you deserve your fate as sheep led to slaughter. He's spent more than all previous presidents combined!! Now they're after taking over the student loan industry, they've got the car industry and they want the health care industry!!! Don't tell me Reagan's the pinko commie!!!
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby treetopovskaya » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:53 am

JrnyScarab wrote:Hmmm. Here's your buddy Glenn Beck from tonight's interview with Katie Couric:

"Glenn Beck thinks President Obama is better for the country than John McCain would have been, he said in an interview with Katie Couric to air at CBSNews.com Tuesday evening.

"I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama," Beck told Couric in the debut episode of her new web show, @katiecouric.

Beck's comment came in response to Couric's question about Hillary Clinton, who Beck said he may have even voted for had she been the Democratic nominee against John McCain.

"I can't believe I'm saying this," Beck said, "I think I would have much preferred [Hillary Clinton] as president and may have voted for her against John McCain."

He described McCain as "this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/2 ... 94052.html

How ya likin that one Fact Finder! :lol:


hasn't he said this on his tv show? like last week? }:C)
User avatar
treetopovskaya
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3071
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:58 pm

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:55 am

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up.

Yeah, the same Reagan that slashed the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 %.


Too bad trickle down didn't work. Real wages adjusted for inflation have barely budged since the early 80's. A span of nearly 30 years. Check out this chart. Income and Debt were close until the early 80's. Since then it's been borrow , borrow, borrow to make ends meet. Mortgage debt started outpacing incoming around the time of Reagan and Consumer Debt started really getting out of whack in the early 90's under Clinton. Corporations raked in record profits and Wall St. made out like bandits. The middle class, not so much.

http://market-ticker.org/uploads/KeyCha ... ndDebt.png
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:57 am

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

If you're stupid enough to believe what Obama "proposes" you deserve your fate as sheep led to slaughter. He's spent more than all previous presidents combined!! Now they're after taking over the student loan industry, they've got the car industry and they want the health care industry!!! Don't tell me Reagan's the pinko commie!!!


Government's been subsidizing PRIVATE student loans and taking a loss since the rules were changed under BUSH. Why wouldn't they want to lend directly to students when they were backing PRIVATE loans and taking a loss. You just don't want to read about it to know the truth.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:01 pm

Ehwmatt wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.


Actually, most of what Obama has done is more fascist in nature than socialism.


"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak"

Sounds more like what the Repubs have been doing. But I admit, the Dems are just as beholden to Corporatism as the Repubs.


What the fuck do you people think we would do without the "big, bad, evil corporations?"

Who will fund the government? Pay your paycheck? Provide jobs? Fund innovation, ingenuity and other useful social activity?

Just because there have been some unscrupulous scumbag executives who made millions/billions while running their companies into the ground and screwing their employees over does not make all business an evil empire. I understand the root of the frustration, but I don't understand the extent of the rhetoric.

I'm really curious what you people want or envision when you spew this anti-corporate, anti-profit crap. Do you want everyone to live off a grand a month from a government (that would very quickly be insolvent there)? All non-profit companies? (Someone has to make a profit to fund the non-profits, genius)? All government jobs in every sector of industry? What?


No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:02 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up.

Yeah, the same Reagan that slashed the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 %.


Too bad trickle down didn't work. Real wages adjusted for inflation have barely budged since the early 80's. A span of nearly 30 years. Check out this chart. Income and Debt were close until the early 80's. Since then it's been borrow , borrow, borrow to make ends meet. Mortgage debt started outpacing incoming around the time of Reagan and Consumer Debt started really getting out of whack in the early 90's under Clinton. Corporations raked in record profits and Wall St. made out like bandits. The middle class, not so much.

http://market-ticker.org/uploads/KeyCha ... ndDebt.png

Funny how they didn't put a pretty little line on that chart to represent government spending....yeah we're in debt. So are our grandkids.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:04 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

If you're stupid enough to believe what Obama "proposes" you deserve your fate as sheep led to slaughter. He's spent more than all previous presidents combined!! Now they're after taking over the student loan industry, they've got the car industry and they want the health care industry!!! Don't tell me Reagan's the pinko commie!!!


Government's been subsidizing PRIVATE student loans and taking a loss since the rules were changed under BUSH. Why wouldn't they want to lend directly to students when they were backing PRIVATE loans and taking a loss. You just don't want to read about it to know the truth.

Yeah, why wouldn't they??? Why would they want to "bailout" the car companies when they knew they'd go bankrupt anyway???? To have control of it maybe??? No, not politicians!! :roll:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:05 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Yeah, I know. McCain's not a REAL conservative, Bush wasn't a REAL conservative. But if you think for a minute a REAL conservative could garner enough votes to win you are sadly mistaken. Enough of America doesn't wan't that. This country has many different thoughts and opinions and the far RIGHT (REAL conservatives) don't have a large enough base to win without the center and right now your party has no center. Just a bunch of nutbags causing trouble.

Good call, the last real conservative to run was Reagan....2 landslides!!! :lol: You're a real history buff huh??? :lol:


You mean Reagan, the guy who raised taxes when he saw the deficit getting out of control? Look it up.

Yeah, the same Reagan that slashed the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 %.


Too bad trickle down didn't work. Real wages adjusted for inflation have barely budged since the early 80's. A span of nearly 30 years. Check out this chart. Income and Debt were close until the early 80's. Since then it's been borrow , borrow, borrow to make ends meet. Mortgage debt started outpacing incoming around the time of Reagan and Consumer Debt started really getting out of whack in the early 90's under Clinton. Corporations raked in record profits and Wall St. made out like bandits. The middle class, not so much.

http://market-ticker.org/uploads/KeyCha ... ndDebt.png

Funny how they didn't put a pretty little line on that chart to represent government spending....yeah we're in debt. So are our grandkids.


Actually, the red line is federal. We are totally fucked and all we can do is argue over what party is worse. Something needs to be done and it's not taxes or tax cuts that are the way. They need to figure out how to get people working again and bring wages up or we will just continue to crater.
Last edited by JrnyScarab on Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:07 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:Obama proposes the following marhinal tax rates:

If you're stupid enough to believe what Obama "proposes" you deserve your fate as sheep led to slaughter. He's spent more than all previous presidents combined!! Now they're after taking over the student loan industry, they've got the car industry and they want the health care industry!!! Don't tell me Reagan's the pinko commie!!!


Government's been subsidizing PRIVATE student loans and taking a loss since the rules were changed under BUSH. Why wouldn't they want to lend directly to students when they were backing PRIVATE loans and taking a loss. You just don't want to read about it to know the truth.

Yeah, why wouldn't they??? Why would they want to "bailout" the car companies when they knew they'd go bankrupt anyway???? To have control of it maybe??? No, not politicians!! :roll:


I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company. I work with MANY hard core right wingers and even they were opposed to just letting GM crash and burn without Govt help.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:10 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Rick » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:12 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:13 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:15 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


If the taxpayers bail the company out (Financial Institutions, GM) It damn well has the right to tell them to cut the shit with the bonuses and high pay. They are no longer a capitalist business if they survived because of taxpayer bailouts. They keep all the profits and Socialize the losses.
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:19 pm

Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:21 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:


Sorry, lending to students so everyone can attain a good education doesn't bother me. As for health care, they already pay a larger percentage of health care than private industry through Medicare, VA and Tricare benefits and oh yeah, the nice Govt plan they voted themselves. I understand your distrust of Govt but don't you distrust a lot that goes on in the private sector as well with all the fraud. (Wall St, Bernie Madoff, Fraudulent mortage lending etc.)
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:21 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


If the taxpayers bail the company out (Financial Institutions, GM) It damn well has the right to tell them to cut the shit with the bonuses and high pay. They are no longer a capitalist business if they survived because of taxpayer bailouts. They keep all the profits and Socialize the losses.

None of the bailouts should have happened. GM included, the Union finally killed the golden goose. They got what they deserve....my father included.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby JrnyScarab » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:23 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.


Unions served a very important role at one time. They should not be making demands when the company is losing money. When the company is hogging huge profits they should fight for a share that allows the middle class to prosper. They are now just as corrupt as the Govt. Corruption is everywhere. :cry:
User avatar
JrnyScarab
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:19 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Rick » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:26 pm

RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.


Unions didn't ruin GM. GM refusing to build cars that people want did that. Unions and their membership can ask for stupid shit like that, it doesn't mean they will or should get it.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:26 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I really don't think the Govt want's to be running a car company.

:lol: And they (aka Obama) doesn't want to run the lending or the health care system!!! :lol: You're pretty gullible. :lol:


Sorry, lending to students so everyone can attain a good education doesn't bother me. As for health care, they already pay a larger percentage of health care than private industry through Medicare, VA and Tricare benefits and oh yeah, the nice Govt plan they voted themselves. I understand your distrust of Govt but don't you distrust a lot that goes on in the private sector as well with all the fraud. (Wall St, Bernie Madoff, Fraudulent mortage lending etc.)

What Bernie Madoff did is pretty much what the government has done with Soc. Security, medicare, medicaid. The difference is Madoff, Martha Stewart, Enron, is that they can be prosecuted!!!!!! Who's gonna keep the government in check?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby RedWingFan » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:27 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Rick wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.

You mean Henry Ford didn't have a president or congress to force him? By the way where in the Constitution does any president have the authority to dictate what a business pays employees?


That's why there are Unions. Oh wait... I'll bet you're against them too.

Look what they did to GM. My dad spent 40 years in the UAW. And I asked him, "Dad if you owned GM and you walked through your plant (he worked at) in disguise. What would you think of the employees demanding cable tv, cots in the breakroom, being paid what you're paid...seeing the hours upon hours of the cards being played on the clock. Employees clocking in and walking out for hours before returning to clock out. If you were the owner would you give into strike demands? Or would you say, you know what the hell with these people. There are people that would kill to have these jobs!!!"

He was shamed because these are all things he'd done and agreed with me.
So yeah Rick, Unions allow companies to run like this...Which leads to failure.


Unions served a very important role at one time. They should not be making demands when the company is losing money. When the company is hogging huge profits they should fight for a share that allows the middle class to prosper. They are now just as corrupt as the Govt. Corruption is everywhere. :cry:

Finally we agree. Yeah, back during the "sitdown strike" in Flint, Michigan (my hometown) decades ago. They really did have a purpose to improve working conditions!!!
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Ehwmatt » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:29 pm

JrnyScarab wrote:
Ehwmatt wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
JrnyScarab wrote:I don't believe for a minute that there is a country that doesn't have some form of socialism mixed with capitalism. Socialism isn't entirely evil nor is Capitalism but they both definitely have their flaws.


Actually, most of what Obama has done is more fascist in nature than socialism.


"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology developed in Italy.[5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak"

Sounds more like what the Repubs have been doing. But I admit, the Dems are just as beholden to Corporatism as the Repubs.


What the fuck do you people think we would do without the "big, bad, evil corporations?"

Who will fund the government? Pay your paycheck? Provide jobs? Fund innovation, ingenuity and other useful social activity?

Just because there have been some unscrupulous scumbag executives who made millions/billions while running their companies into the ground and screwing their employees over does not make all business an evil empire. I understand the root of the frustration, but I don't understand the extent of the rhetoric.

I'm really curious what you people want or envision when you spew this anti-corporate, anti-profit crap. Do you want everyone to live off a grand a month from a government (that would very quickly be insolvent there)? All non-profit companies? (Someone has to make a profit to fund the non-profits, genius)? All government jobs in every sector of industry? What?


No problem with profits whatsoever. BUT, if business does not reward workers with decent enough wages we end up where we are at. People's borrowing capacity has hit the wall and now the economy almost collapsed. Just like the roaring 20's lead to the Great Depression. Too much wealth concentrated at the top. Sorry, it's a fact. That's just what happens. Henry Ford gave his employees big wage increases because he realized they wouldn't be able to buy his cars it they didn't have enough money.


I understand the emotional appeal and to some extent it's true - there aren't steel/factory/mining etc. type jobs anymore that allow Joe High School to go straight to work and very comfortably raise a family. That's reality, it's a service/knowledge economy now. That will NEVER change, no matter how much you try and tax the businesses or "redistribute the wealth." That's the reality of the world.

Not everyone is entitled to six figure salaries. Not every one is entitled to buy a new car every 80,000 miles. In fact, no one is entitled to anything.

Every one should live within his means, and unfortunately a lot of people don't want/know how to do that. Henry Ford couldn't have given his employees wage increases without a strong bottom line. Take that away from Ford in confiscatory tax rates, burdensome regulations, and whatever else people want to see done (a lot want companies shut down, no?), and no one's better off and all the "downtrodden" (a lot of them in debt by their own fault and trigger happy spending habits, to be sure) are much worse off.

It's like the health care debate here in Ohio. The health care industry is the one thing keeping this state and my city (Cleveland) afloat. You pass all the garbage Obama wants to pass, whoaaaa boy let me tell you how many people will be out of jobs and how much worse the state and city bottom lines will be. This whole argument against corporations making "excess profits" doesn't consider the consequences of its propositions. Yeah, things may be unequal, things are done that are unethical, but hey, life isn't fair. I'm patently against a scumbag executive screwing a company into the ground and running. I'm not against a talented executive who worked his ass off making 6x the salary of a clerical worker who has been content to punch the clock from 9-4:30 every day of his career. Sorry.

I know guys who make $35K a year who don't owe anyone a penny. I also know people who make well into the six figures who are using CCs to pay off other CCs and owe every Tom Dick and Harry a chunk of change. There are problems with business today, that's obvious, but there are far bigger problems with people not being wise with their own lives and finances.

Generally, the people I know who are in good shape are those who sacrificed - people who didn't buy their first new car til well into their 30s, limited their vacation expenditures (and still do), people who started 529 college plans for their kids the day they were born, people who purchased insurance instead of spending hundreds a month on cigarettes and booze, people who wait til they can pay cash for expensive appliances/pleasures etc. (or don't buy it at all...).... perhaps most crucially, people who WAITED to have kids til they could afford them... the list could go on.

There will never be perfect equitable distribution of wealth, thankfully. Can't imagine anything worse.
User avatar
Ehwmatt
MP3
 
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:15 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron