Un-effing-believable.

[chevysoldier]

Don't like smoking? don't smoke.

Don't like guns? don't buy one.

Don't like alcohol? Don't drink it.

Don't like gay marriage? don't marry a dude.

Don't like drugs? Don't do them.

Quit legislating shit you don't like, cause eventually shit you do like will get legislated and suddenly you're a criminal, too

Reminds me of this, albeit a little off topic:

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

And a more current version:

First they came for the hackers.

But I never did anything illegal with my computer,

so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the pornographers.

But I thought there was too much smut on the Internet anyway,

so I didn't speak up

Then they came for the anonymous remailers.

But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi,

so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for the encryption users.

But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway,

so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for me.

And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

[magley64]

So you want less government?

Basically, more specifically a less constrictive government.

[kawi kid]

Basically, more specifically a less constrictive government.

And you said you will vote for Obama again if the right guy don't get the nomination. That's kinda the contradictory right?

[magley64]

And you said you will vote for Obama again if the right guy don't get the nomination. That's kinda the contradictory right?

It would appear that way, but the rest of the republican field isn't for smaller, less restrictive government either...

obama is for overtaxing the wealthiest (who can afford it) and personal welfare...

The republicans are for overtaxing the poor (who can't afford it) and corporate welfare.

So if my only choices are those 2, i'll take the former.

[kawi kid]

So when it comes down to money or rights you pick money? I don't see any nominee that would be as much of a power grabber as what this president has been.

[magley64]

So when it comes down to money or rights you pick money? I don't see any nominee that would be as much of a power grabber as what this president has been.

What republican running has said a thing about rights other than Paul?

Santorum defended habeus corpus in the face of the defense appropriations bill(everything else he has said is theocratic); Huntsman seemed to have a good stance on liberty; other than that I have seen nothing from a republican candidate that makes me think they will do anything any different.

What they are proposing is that we stop taxing rich people, start taxing poor people, stop spending that money on helping americans and instead spend it on bombs and helping rebuild the places we've just bombed...

[kawi kid]

Your support for Paul and Obama the same time is such polar opposits I can't wrap my head around it.

[magley64]

Your support for Paul and Obama the same time is such polar opposits I can't wrap my head around it.

perhaps a simile or metaphor will help...

Ron paul is a hamburger, the rest of the republican candidates are Turkey burgers, Obama is a turkey.

I'd much rather have a hamburger, but if I've only got a choice between a turkey burger or some turkey, I'd rather just have some turkey.

[kawi kid]

I see the other nominees much different than Obama. I would call Obama pork.

[magley64]

I see the other nominees much different than Obama. I would call Obama pork.

well, we can frame this however you like, but it's all the same metaphor.

ron paul is chocolate ice cream, Obama is pork, the other candidates are pork flavored ice cream.

either you stand for one thing or you stand for the other, make a decision, I'm sick of the waffling.

[kawi kid]

You seem to be picking from both sides tho. That's why I r confuzzed

[magley64]

Well, that's because I am on both sides, I identify myself as republican, but when it comes right down to it, I'm really libertarian.

when it comes to most social issues, I'm a liberal, when it comes to most fiscal issues, I'm a conservative.

[Rod38um]

What they are proposing is that we stop taxing rich people, start taxing poor people, stop spending that money on helping americans and instead spend it on bombs and helping rebuild the places we've just bombed...

While we agree on many points, we also disagree on many. Statements like the one above are the classic liberal talking points designed to inflame class warfare. The shame is that this kind of rhetoric is repeated so much by liberals that many regular folks get the idea that republicans are rich, mean, greedy, hate the poor.... yada,yada,yada.

Its not a matter of the rich paying less or the poor paying more. Very few rich people have a large income to tax, they have capital gains income which is income that has already been taxed by corporate tax. When the media talks about taxing the rich, they are talking about raising the corporate tax and the capital gains tax, both of which will drive business overseas and put the average guy out of work. this creates a large income gap between the rich and the poor. The consumer pays all the bills no matter what group is taxed the most. Lower taxes on the poor and raise it on the rich, prices go up and the consumer pays, lower the corporate tax and the capital gains tax and the poor man will have a job and is able to pay his taxes.

If we follow the Obama plan, we tax corporations, tax their owners income again as capital gains, throw an average of 80,000 pages of new regulation a year at them and hope they move overseas and sign as many people up on government assistance as we can till everyone is dependent on an all powerful government. We all fall in an obedient line for fear of losing our subsidy.

As you go thru life and you achieve more success, more income or general wealth, do get greedier or more generous? Do you really think that republicans are greedy, mean folks bent on punishing the poor or do you think maybe they just see a better way to bring everyone up to a better level?

Taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive has never done anything but create common poverty. Rewarding success and productivity is the only system that has ever lifted an entire nation and given the common man clear rungs on the ladder of success in which to step on, those rungs are opportunity.

Its simple, if we want jobs, we have to encourage what creates them. Business creates them. The purpose of business is to make money. Jobs are a byproduct. We have to make this country the #1 place to do business. Right now we are almost dead last on the list of best places to do business. If democrats keep shaping policy, we will remain dead last.

[magley64]

Right now we are almost dead last on the list of best places to do business.

Ninth place out of 128 countries is HARDLY dead last...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/6/best-countries-10_Best-Countries-for-Business_Rank.html

yadda yadda class warfare, every time you mention the income disparity conservatives scream "class warfare"

the fact remains that the people who work the hardest in this country earn the LEAST. By and large those who have the most money were born into it.

Mitt Romney said he doesn't earn that much from his guest speaking, that's nearly $400,000 a year... yeah a pittance.

his "real" money comes from investments...

Edited January 19, 2012 by magley64

[Rod38um]

That link does not take into account taxes or regulation, the two most important factors.

You apparently see physical work as more valuable than mental. The fact is, its always been more rewarding to work smart, not hard. Besides, every job I ever had, I agreed to the wages. I have known several millionaires over the years, none of them were born into it, they all worked their ass off for it. their life was business, day and night, 7 days a week. You can remain bitter because someone has more than you, you can vote to punish them.......... but they are the job creators and you cant get to where they are with out opportunity. They give opportunity and as long as you vote to punish them, they will give that opportunity to other country's.

[magley64]

That link does not take into account taxes or regulation, the two most important factors.

okay, cite a better source for your claim that we are "dead last" as opposed to somewhere in the top 10

Besides, every job I ever had, I agreed to the wages.

so in your world wages are infinitely negotiable? I've never had such an experience.

I have known several millionaires over the years, none of them were born into it, they all worked their ass off for it. their life was business, day and night, 7 days a week.

name 3

You can remain bitter because someone has more than you, you can vote to punish them.......... but they are the job creators and you cant get to where they are with out opportunity. They give opportunity and as long as you vote to punish them, they will give that opportunity to other country's.

I'm not bitter, I'm not voting to punish them... I'm suggesting that they are not going without, their outcome doesn't change, their day-to-day life is exactly as it would have been, the only difference is by how much their bank accounts grow each day.

as opposed to someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, when you take that money, they go without something.

on a side note, I'm amused, because 4 years ago I was on the opposite side of this debate... and 4 years ago, I was on unemployment while making your argument. Now i'm working, and i'm on this side of it... kinda funny, huh?

Edited January 19, 2012 by magley64

[Rod38um]

okay, cite a better source for your claim that we are "dead last" as opposed to somewhere in the top 10

Japan was the worst on corporate tax, they lowered theirs last year, didnt find an article to support it on quick search but this should get you in the ball park. http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/america-to-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-april/

Regulation is a harder one to define but I'll work on it.

so in your world wages are infinitely negotiable? I've never had such an experience.

If you insist on letting someone else dictate your wages, you are limited by their generosity, even more limited if you let a government official dictate it. Go out on your own and you dictate your wages.

name 3

I'm not naming my friends on a public forum but I can assure you anyone who starts with working for someone else and then winds up with owning and operating a large construction company, multistate sign company or multiple grocery stores does not just fall into it. they worked their ass off for it. more work than I or anyone else who settles for less is willing to put into something.

I'm not bitter, I'm not voting to punish them... I'm suggesting that they are not going without, their outcome doesn't change, their day-to-day life is exactly as it would have been, the only difference is by how much their bank accounts grow each day.

as opposed to someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, when you take that money, they go without something.

True and they will make money overseas more easily than will here, the difference is, you wont get any part of it if they do their business overseas.

on a side note, I'm amused, because 4 years ago I was on the opposite side of this debate... and 4 years ago, I was on unemployment while making your argument. Now i'm working, and i'm on this side of it... kinda funny, huh?

Its Very.......... uh........ funny

[magley64]

True and they will make money overseas more easily than will here, the difference is, you wont get any part of it if they do their business overseas.

fact is, businesses are in business to make money, do you know why manufacturing moved overseas? not because of taxes (at least not "mostly" because of taxes) it's because of labor.

if you want to earn $30,000 a year doing a job that someone in china will do for $1,000 per year, business will favor that source. As long as the people with the purchasing power (us) continues to buy things that are made by chinese at slave labor wages, then business will continue to favor using the slave labor overseas.

i see 2 things affecting this in a major way

1. fuel costs; if fuel costs become so high that it's actually cheaper to make things here than to make them elsewhere and ship them here, then jobs will return.

2. government intervention in the form of tarrifs. If it costs more to import it than it does to pay someone a decent wage to make it, then jobs will return.

taxes have little to do with this equation.

[Rod38um]

You're right in that it is an equation. Any business looking for a place to manufacture will look at several things. The number one thing is taxes and then regulation. many foreign countries have figured this out and have lowered their corporate tax to a very enticing level. They have also put all required regulation into an easy to deal with package that can be easily understood. You dont have to hire 3 law firms to guide you thru the start up period. They can license you and provide you with everything you need to know in one place. They do this because they want you to do business there. they want the byproduct of jobs.

Yes high labor costs do play a part but with the automated world we live in, its not as big a part as it used to be. As a potential investor if told you I was going to take 39% percent of your profits before you dispersed them and then take another 15% when you did disperse them, Tell you that you have millions of pages of regulation you must comply with, spanning dozens of agencies but not give you a clue as to what they were or how to deal with them..... would you invest in that startup? labors cost is at least definable and negotiable.

There are many companies who would love to set up manufacturing here. we have many non economic benefits that other countries dont have but you cant really put a dollar figure on those for business purposes.

My point is, we live in a world market. we cant close our doors and keep our wealth here, it doesn't work that way, We have to compete and until we recognize that we will continue to get our economic ass handed to us by countries that understand it.

Wages are already stagnant or falling. With fewer jobs out there, companies have their pick of employees, bring more jobs, the value of a good employee goes up. We need to look at every factor in the equation what lures business and adjust each one to a level that is more than competitive. The more that politicians can make you believe that someone is not paying their fair share, the longer it will take to recover, that gets us nowhere. we have 2 problems, a government that requires more to run than we can pay and our inability to control it.

[magley64]

we have 2 problems, a government that requires more to run than we can pay and our inability to control it.

I definitely agree with this statement...

We need to cut spending, that means military spending (our wars and non-wars), social programs (social security, medicare, medicaid), and discretionary spending... I also think that the congressmen and congresswomen need to earn less money.

One thing I don't see anyone in the republican debates willing to do other than Dr. Paul. Instead they all want to spend more money, and increase taxes on poor people.

[Cheech]

Ah, what the hell, I'll bite on this.

You do realize that any President in the last 50 years has access to a private plane, right? And with that access to said plane it's possible to give an address in Disney, maybe fuck around for a few hours with the kids and go back to work in DC the same day? I'm really sorry if you can't think outside of your box that you automatically assume that since Obama's going to Disney that he's getting a hotel on Priceline and taking the week off of work to hit the touristy spots.

Hey, if this is what you have to bitch about, then this country must be doing OK after all.

[magley64]

^

"Michelle, should we book for thursday and save $20 on the fare?"

"Barack, just name your own price and save"

[kawi kid]

^

"Michelle, should we book for thursday and save $20 on the fare?"

"Barack, just name your own price and saveCuz we aren't paying for it."

Ftfy

[magley64]

actually, the president probably pays 30% of his income to taxes, so I'd say he is paying for it...

[Cheech]

Ftfy

Correct. For the portions of the flight that are political, like going to a fundraiser or giving a speech for some guy across the country, the DNC (which, just as a reminder, is funded by voluntary campaign donations) picks up the tab. These rules were put in place by Reagan, and you wouldn't question the True Conservative, would you?

And for the portion of the flight that was actual US business, would you rather the President (for purposes of this discussion, let's just assume Ron Paul) be stuck in some foreign country for days because his connection got canceled, or have to take the train back from LA to DC because the plane was too expensive? It's a question of efficiency, there's more to cost than just dollars and cents.