Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Five Myths About the GOP That Just Won't Die

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
    Eh, I was using the corporate name as an example. I don't owe them money and I wasn't personally sued. Regardless, I'm getting at the expansion of corporate rights at the expense of yours. Perhaps a poor metaphor, let me change it up a bit.

    BP is fresh in everyone's mind. If I personally skimped on safety, blowing up an oil rig and killing people in the process, and dumped a few million gallons of oil in to the Gulf, then sullied everyone's property, and then promised payment but didn't make those payments (while lying and saying that I had), I'd be arrested. I'd be tried for criminally negligent homicide. Then I'd be sued the snot out of. I'd be left destitute for the rest of my life, not to mention in prison. BP, on the other hand, gets away with it because they have corporate rights and can only be dealt with in civil courts.

    Make more sense? I do what they did, I suffer the swift hand of justice. They do what they did, and only have to worry about a soured public image and how big their golden parachutes will be.
    And where has BP failed to pay up? The case isn't closed, and they are still doing the right thing. The rig that failed was operated by another company under lease to BP. BP has taken responsibility since day one of the accident, and has spent billions on containment and cleanup. Obama has only been on the attack against BP for publicity. By acting tough with them, he can hide the fact that his polling numbers are dropping, and he is losing control and the faith of the Democrats in Congress. As long as the Republicans don't find some ancient career politician (ex. McCain, who I didn't favor for President either), Obama will be a single term president. Unlike what Obama thought was a landslide victory, he only won election by a small percentage, of which he has alienated since.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
      The reason those in the lower 50% are paying less, is because their wages aren't changing or are falling. The reason those in the upper 50% (or upper 5%, especially) are paying more is that their income has exploded 400% in a decade. Even with lower taxes, the sheer volume of money they have dictates higher overall tax figures. They should still be paying more, especially given that they are most culpable for the most recent disaster - and yet their incomes are still ballooning, while everyone else watches their income collapse or disappear all together.
      So, those folks who lived beyond their means and bought houses they couldn't afford... have no blame?

      Hey, I'm in the higher tax brackets and I work in healthcare management. I had nothing to do with this recession.

      Why should I be punished for taking risks and working hard all my life???

      Class warfare... nice.
      I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

      "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

      "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by mcwops View Post
        And where has BP failed to pay up? The case isn't closed, and they are still doing the right thing. The rig that failed was operated by another company under lease to BP. BP has taken responsibility since day one of the accident, and has spent billions on containment and cleanup. Obama has only been on the attack against BP for publicity. By acting tough with them, he can hide the fact that his polling numbers are dropping, and he is losing control and the faith of the Democrats in Congress. As long as the Republicans don't find some ancient career politician (ex. McCain, who I didn't favor for President either), Obama will be a single term president. Unlike what Obama thought was a landslide victory, he only won election by a small percentage, of which he has alienated since.
        http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/a...-2010_7-03-pm/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_676493.html

        They're not responsibly and efficiently doing everything they're supposed to. They're doing what corporations do, so they can get away with it all under corporate law.

        Class warfare... nice.
        There's a right wing buzzword if I've ever heard one. The entire concept as it relates to taxation is as completely off base as calling health care reform communism. The rich pay more taxes because *they can afford to*, and have since the beginning of the income tax. We're talking Roman Empire income tax. Emperors realized they could keep the poor from starving by not fleecing them as hard, and raising their money from the wealthy who could afford to part with it.

        Class warfare is the single dumbest term created by the right wing in the history of ever. Anything that makes the wealthy pay just a smidgen more than they do today is class warfare, but lowering the wealthy tax while their income is exploding and then sitting on over a trillion in capital without hiring isn't class warfare against the poor? Your idea of what constitutes class warfare seems very shallow and partisan, if I do say so myself.

        If you want to see class warfare then open a history book, read about the Russian Revolution. Read about the Springtime of Nations. Those are a couple of very memorable events in which one class (or more) actually rose up against another in open warfare. Calling everything the GOP doesn't agree with communism/fascism/class warfare gets old, and you'd be surprised just how many Americans think so.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
          There's a right wing buzzword if I've ever heard one. The entire concept as it relates to taxation is as completely off base as calling health care reform communism. The rich pay more taxes because *they can afford to*, and have since the beginning of the income tax. We're talking Roman Empire income tax. Emperors realized they could keep the poor from starving by not fleecing them as hard, and raising their money from the wealthy who could afford to part with it.
          "they can afford to"? You could afford to pay more too. You don't need a widescreen television or an Ipod. As a matter of fact, let the government take ALL your money and only give back what they think you need.

          It's punishing success and the sad thing is that the left has convinced the middle class that it doesn't affect them. Guess what, the middle class don't hire each other.

          But that's okay, unemployment isn't a problem right now.

          Class warfare is the single dumbest term created by the right wing in the history of ever. Anything that makes the wealthy pay just a smidgen more than they do today is class warfare, but lowering the wealthy tax while their income is exploding and then sitting on over a trillion in capital without hiring isn't class warfare against the poor? Your idea of what constitutes class warfare seems very shallow and partisan, if I do say so myself.
          Lenin would love you.

          If you want to see class warfare then open a history book, read about the Russian Revolution. Read about the Springtime of Nations. Those are a couple of very memorable events in which one class (or more) actually rose up against another in open warfare. Calling everything the GOP doesn't agree with communism/fascism/class warfare gets old, and you'd be surprised just how many Americans think so.
          Yes, i understand your philosophy now comrade.
          I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

          "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

          "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
            http://www.wkrg.com/gulf_oil_spill/a...-2010_7-03-pm/

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_676493.html

            They're not responsibly and efficiently doing everything they're supposed to. They're doing what corporations do, so they can get away with it all under corporate law.


            I looked at those two links, which part says BP is not doing its part. The first article is about BP hiring some scientists to assist in research for the company. Nothing unusual there.

            The second article states that while most claims have been paid, the company is waiting to pay some to have time to validate those claims. That is a good thing, because I guarantee there are people looking to scam BP with false claims. Any that are questionable, they have a right to look into further before just writing a check.

            Go ahead, try again..

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
              No, it offers a load of debt (if you qualify) to go to school. That's if your grades in school were enough to get that far. This country offers very little to those without means.

              Think about it. How are you going to afford going to school, even with a loan to cover tuition, and hold down whatever job you have, and pay the bills and raise the kids, all at the same time? It's a lot harder than you think. Or should I say, it sounds really easy until you try to do it.
              DeForest 10mi from Madison, Wi. Congratulations, you're the new posterchild for the University. Problem with "education" cost? Start a sit in to reduce the wages of employees at your local leftwing university. Talk about outstripping the rate of inflation. Think maybe that has run up cost of "eductation"?

              Girl, you need to chill out a bit until you've been on this forum more than 5 minutes. Or do you intend to battle scfire for the nutty leftist ribbon? You're already established your credentials as a pathalogial kooky marxist. We got it.

              Comment


              • #67
                I looked at those two links, which part says BP is not doing its part. The first article is about BP hiring some scientists to assist in research for the company. Nothing unusual there.
                The first link says BP is hiring all kinds of scientists to assist in the research, and then gagging them with an NDA for three years. Dig deeper in to the story and you'll find it.

                The second article states that while most claims have been paid, the company is waiting to pay some to have time to validate those claims. That is a good thing, because I guarantee there are people looking to scam BP with false claims. Any that are questionable, they have a right to look into further before just writing a check.
                No, it shows that BP is picking and choosing what types of business it pays claims to, and shows that BP is also playing the corporate tough guy and telling some people they won't get jack sh*t unless they complain enough. Again, read deeper. It's there.

                There's nothing wrong with validating claims, but when it's obvious your business was toasted by the spill and they're not paying because of your specific service type, that's bogus.

                "they can afford to"? You could afford to pay more too. You don't need a widescreen television or an Ipod. As a matter of fact, let the government take ALL your money and only give back what they think you need.
                No, I couldn't afford to pay more. I barely have enough to pay the mortgage and bills, then feed myself. I don't have a widescreen tv or an ipod. I don't have very many luxuries at all, and I make enough to suggest that I would. Remember that part I was saying earlier about the cost of living skyrocketing while wages stagnated? Yeah. If I was making a million a year, on the other hand, I certainly could afford to pay more taxes.

                You want to bump consumer spending and kickstart the economy? The rich don't fuel consumer spending, the rest of us do. Drop taxes on the less fortunate and compensate from the rich. They're already sitting on almost two trillion dollars in capital and not hiring a single person with it. Their excuse? "We're just not sure yet."

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

                They can pay more taxes, thank you. Especially if they want to hold the economy hostage.

                It's punishing success and the sad thing is that the left has convinced the middle class that it doesn't affect them. Guess what, the middle class don't hire each other.
                They're the only ones hiring anyone. The middle class is populated with small business owners and public service employees. They hire employees for their small businesses, and they hire services for their homes. The non-hiring middle class is a myth, and the sad thing is that the right wing has convinced the middle class that's not the case - even though they're doing it.

                Yes, i understand your philosophy now comrade.
                I understand yours, as well. Screw the poor and their lack of ambition, even if the money supply doesn't allow them all to have opportunity. Damn the old for their incessant need to get their greedy hands on your paycheck. And damn the government for daring to take a cent of your money for any reason, it's just not patriotic to ensure that everyone gets to live.

                You're nothing but straw men and pathetic accusations of communism. You wouldn't know a communist if he hit you in the face, because you've convinced yourself that anyone who thinks the rich bear a heavier burden due to their immense ownership of the economy is an outright Leninist.

                Here's a though for you. In Soviet Russia, you don't own business - business owns you. You don't own state, state owns you. Dwell on that for a little bit, and then tell me where - in any one of my posts - I espoused a belief that private ownership needed to be revoked. Then please show me where I suggested that because a man is rich he should be a ward of the state. Your misguided and failed attempts to string together apples and oranges has amused me, but there's no point in arguing with someone so ideologically blinded by hatred for the "other side" that he's forgotten that the "other side" is just as American as he is.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by neiowa View Post
                  DeForest 10mi from Madison, Wi. Congratulations, you're the new posterchild for the University. Problem with "education" cost? Start a sit in to reduce the wages of employees at your local leftwing university. Talk about outstripping the rate of inflation. Think maybe that has run up cost of "eductation"?

                  Girl, you need to chill out a bit until you've been on this forum more than 5 minutes. Or do you intend to battle scfire for the nutty leftist ribbon? You're already established your credentials as a pathalogial kooky marxist. We got it.
                  Because where I live makes a load of difference, and way to be a privacy whore.

                  On to other things, the education cost could certainly be contained by reducing professorial pay. It's quite ridiculous what they get paid. If they want to be paid that much working at a university then they should earn it through research and patents, not fleecing me of taxes. That is, however, only one side of the sword.

                  I'm no leftist, and I'm certainly no marxist. I refuse to lump myself in with you reactionary nutcases. I was a Republican when Republicans actually believed in civil rights and balanced budgets. Then came the new GOP, with its xenophobia and budget destroying deficits. Moderate Democrats are the only thing I have left to identify with, and it's a crying shame. I don't support all sorts of left wing policies. The problem is that I don't support *a single one* of the GOP's stated policies.

                  Altering the 14th amendment to strike back at babies? Come the f*ck on. If I'm a marxist kook because I think the wealthy should return to their tax brackets pre-Bush, then you're so far gone from the mainstream you'll be lucky to find your way back.

                  Also, I'm not a girl. But thanks for playing.
                  Last edited by abeth86; 08-21-2010, 04:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by abeth86 View Post
                    No, I couldn't afford to pay more. I barely have enough to pay the mortgage and bills, then feed myself. I don't have a widescreen tv or an ipod. I don't have very many luxuries at all, and I make enough to suggest that I would. Remember that part I was saying earlier about the cost of living skyrocketing while wages stagnated? Yeah. If I was making a million a year, on the other hand, I certainly could afford to pay more taxes.
                    Buy a smaller house or rent. Eat less. You are living a life of luxury.

                    You want to bump consumer spending and kickstart the economy? The rich don't fuel consumer spending, the rest of us do. Drop taxes on the less fortunate and compensate from the rich. They're already sitting on almost two trillion dollars in capital and not hiring a single person with it. Their excuse? "We're just not sure yet."
                    The "rich" hired you and pay your salary. "the less fortunate" don't pay taxes.

                    They can pay more taxes, thank you. Especially if they want to hold the economy hostage.
                    No, they can't they have to pay their mortgage and eat.

                    They're the only ones hiring anyone. The middle class is populated with small business owners and public service employees. They hire employees for their small businesses, and they hire services for their homes. The non-hiring middle class is a myth, and the sad thing is that the right wing has convinced the middle class that's not the case - even though they're doing it.
                    Tell your President to leave the Bush tax cuts in place then. They will effect those small business owners the most.

                    I understand yours, as well. Screw the poor and their lack of ambition, even if the money supply doesn't allow them all to have opportunity. Damn the old for their incessant need to get their greedy hands on your paycheck. And damn the government for daring to take a cent of your money for any reason, it's just not patriotic to ensure that everyone gets to live.
                    It's not scre the poor... its about a hand UP not a hand OUT.

                    You're nothing but straw men and pathetic accusations of communism. You wouldn't know a communist if he hit you in the face, because you've convinced yourself that anyone who thinks the rich bear a heavier burden due to their immense ownership of the economy is an outright Leninist.
                    No, but your philosophy of wealth redistribution is right in line with Lenin.

                    Here's a though for you. In Soviet Russia, you don't own business - business owns you. You don't own state, state owns you. Dwell on that for a little bit, and then tell me where - in any one of my posts - I espoused a belief that private ownership needed to be revoked. Then please show me where I suggested that because a man is rich he should be a ward of the state. Your misguided and failed attempts to string together apples and oranges has amused me, but there's no point in arguing with someone so ideologically blinded by hatred for the "other side" that he's forgotten that the "other side" is just as American as he is.
                    Your hatred of those who have gone out and succeeded in life through hard work and risk is pathetic. The philosophy of "punishing" them for their efforts and taking their money to pour into government programs that DONT work is an outdated belief that is akin to throwing money into a bonfire.
                    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                      The "rich" hired you and pay your salary. "the less fortunate" don't pay taxes.
                      May very well be true. However, contrary to the belief that wealth trickles down (you don't really believe that, do you?) it actually trickles up. Where do you believe the wealthy acquire their wealth? It is from the consumption of the middle class. Which if you haven't noticed is slowly being destroyed with wealth concentrated in an ever smaller number of people.

                      I read once somewhere that Henry Ford realized he had to pay his workers well enough to afford the product they were producing. Sadly, that corporate mindset is long gone in our nation.
                      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                        May very well be true. However, contrary to the belief that wealth trickles down (you don't really believe that, do you?) it actually trickles up. Where do you believe the wealthy acquire their wealth? It is from the consumption of the middle class. Which if you haven't noticed is slowly being destroyed with wealth concentrated in an ever smaller number of people.
                        The "wealthy" acquire their wealth by taking risks, opening business, expanding business and investing their money.

                        I read once somewhere that Henry Ford realized he had to pay his workers well enough to afford the product they were producing. Sadly, that corporate mindset is long gone in our nation.
                        I work for a very large multibillion dollar company and I can tell you that there is a keen interest in paying our employees well. There is competition for their talents and we are making some large investments (close to a million dollars in my region) to stay competitive.

                        During this economic downturn we didn't cut their 401k matching, still provided raises and increased some like Tuition reimbursement.

                        Your generalizations are just that.
                        I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                        "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          What I see is a lot of jelousy feeding the notion of legalized theft. When you advocate wealth redistribution - and you aren't part of the giving portion - I have a strong inclination to view that as theft. Its up to you to prove that it does meet the fundemental purposes of government.

                          So - you want to raise taxes on the 'rich' to increase social programs. I say raise taxes on you too. Who are you to decide that somebody making 250k/yr can deal with less money and you can't. Don't give me the line of 'they have more and they won't miss it'. Don't give the line of 'they could have a lesser lifestlye'. If you believe this that you should also believe it for yourself.

                          I am not rich but I do fall in that really nasty area of high taxes. Last year - two professional engineers with no kids paid in federal income tax the starting salary for a custodian where I work (and we don't make over 150k combined). Tell me again how I am not paying enough and I can afford give more.

                          Put the shoe on your foot and let us decide you aren't paying your fair share. Maybe you ought to have a smaller house. Its a very different feeling when other people are playing with 'your' money isn't it.

                          You make a strong case for more resources needed to fit the true role of government as defined by the consitituion - I'll buy into higher taxes.

                          Lastly - I've said it once and I'll say it again. EVERYONE should pay something in federal income tax if they have income. Be it 1% - they should still pay. You want to raise it - raise it by 1% across the boards. Everyone feels the increase. When people make decisions about this without having to feel the impact - it becomes too easy. (and 47% of taxpayers didn't pay federal income tax)

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                            The "wealthy" acquire their wealth by taking risks, opening business, expanding business and investing their money.
                            And who consumes their products and services? A middle class with disposable income.

                            Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                            I work for a very large multibillion dollar company and I can tell you that there is a keen interest in paying our employees well. There is competition for their talents and we are making some large investments (close to a million dollars in my region) to stay competitive.
                            Excellent.

                            Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                            During this economic downturn we didn't cut their 401k matching, still provided raises and increased some like Tuition reimbursement.

                            Your generalizations are just that.
                            Like the fact that the wealthy derives their wealth from those below them? Where else would it come from?
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                              And who consumes their products and services? A middle class with disposable income.
                              And where did they come by such vasts amount of income?

                              Like the fact that the wealthy derives their wealth from those below them? Where else would it come from?
                              What other options are there? If you eliminate the "wealthy" then what?
                              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                A middle class with disposable income.
                                Is this somehow wrong? Is there a deep seated jealously or reprehension that a segment of the population has made the choice to live with-in their means and have some "disposable", or as you seem to be alluding too, throw away income?
                                Why are there elitists that feel that because I choose a life style that allows me to afford a cabin, or a boat, or some hunting land, or snowmobiles, I should somehow feel bad for those that choose not to do that?
                                Then come on here a say the government has the right to take that and give it to those that have no ambition, drive or desire to achieve?
                                If your excuse is there isn't any opportunities, come to my first due and see first hand the success of our Hmong, Asian, and Hispanic population.
                                My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
                                "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
                                George Mason
                                Co-author of the Second Amendment
                                during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
                                Elevator Rescue Information

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X