Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[uofom3]

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

Read the second edit in my previous post... that should clear up this situation. The trickle down effect only helps offset the problems created by the minimum wage situation that I just discussed a minute ago.

[brandondan1]

As the dollar inflates wages will increase anyways (as supply and demand deems necessary). If minimum wage is increased then business owners are just going to raise prices, which will then make minimum wage go up, etc, etc.... This will then weaken the dollar and make things worse for everyone.

Allow the market to decide where prices and other things should be set. Americans vote more with their dollar than they do at the polls. If people are not willing to work for a certain rate businesses will either fail or raise the wage. People should not get paid more than they are worth and adding an outside party (the government) to set wages and set prices screws up how the market works.

I care about these people, but I also care about all people. It is also important to know the role of the government. Take the time to read the Constitution. The role of the government and the role of the president is not to but into every situation and create universal everything (aka communism). Ask yourself, what should the role of the government be?

"The founders asked themselves that question and came up with a pretty good answer. They said the role of government should be one thing, to protect liberty...That should be the only purpose of government." -Ron Paul

Shouldn't we vote to protect the freedom and principles this country was founded on?

While the market should regulate itself to an extent, what if business was allowed to fully set it's own wages. What is the goal of a business? To make as much money as possible. This would no doubt lead to a decrease in wages.

I can see that if some companies were really exploiting their employees then they would just leave. However, there are only so many jobs to be had, and some people would have no choice but to stay, especially in poor where there aren't many opportunities.

Wouldn't this make the rich richer and the poor poorer? The rich would still be able to support markets, so I don't see how all of these companies would be going under. How does this balances out? (sorry, my HS economics class sucked)

Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. For something to be gained, something must also be lost. The problem is finding that middle ground.

[e30sd]

Well, for starters - we don't engage in biological warfare. I'm assuming you are refering to "agent orange" from the vietnam era. That was an herbicide, but it did ultimately have some bad effects on the people who it was used on. We do not use anthrax, or any other chemical agent on our enemies. It's funny you say that, as I just watched a documentary the other night on History Channel about the VF nerve gas...

wrong, the BWC has been subverted by proxy through National Security Presidential Directive 33, and the CWC deadline conveniently gets extended another 6 years. so, yeah, we still do mess around with anthrax and vx. it doesnt really matter anyway, the US is not subject to the ICC, so even if we say accidentally used them (oops we killed thousands of people sorry) the consequences would be minor.

[uofom3]

Yeah, I understand that the Geneva convention outlawed the use of such chemical attacks. Agent orange was actually used to destroy the plantlife, because the viets were kicking our ass in jungle warfare.

What I'm saying is that if we start using their tactics (torture etc) it becomes a slippery slope. We are losing more and more freedoms everyday because of things like the Patriot act. It's kind of scary to see how things will end up if these trends continue. We will eventually say "fuck it" to all of the rules and start dropping nukes. That's the only solution I can see if diplomacy doesn't exist.

I know that extreme passification can get civilians killed, but so can wreckless warfare.

Anyway, it's cool how you inform rather than attack. You've really made me question who I'll vote for.

"actually used to destroy plant life" - that's what I said, HERBICIDE :).

We'll never just start nuking people. Diplomacy does exist - if it didn't, the Iraq thing would have been handled a long time ago.

Wreckless warefare is not what I'm advocating, but NO action is not a solution either. We aren't using their tactics currently, I view this ultimately as a matter of containment. It's just like the border - how can we grant amnesty (which I agree with) when the border isn't secure? You lock down the border, then grant amnesty; The same should be done with defense - but it has to be done backwards to a degree. We are geographically isolated from most all of our immediate threats militarily. So, we don't need to "lock it down" perse. Rather, we DID start locking it down with the TSA (Which is a fatally flawed system - look at the lebaneese (sp?) airline (Al AIl or something like that, can't remember the name) They are SERIOUS about it and do it right)) Ultimately, it will be global problem - we just happen to be the one seriously spearheading it.

[e30sd]

"actually used to destroy plant life" - that's what I said, HERBICIDE :).

We'll never just start nuking people. Diplomacy does exist - if it didn't, the Iraq thing would have been handled a long time ago.

Wreckless warefare is not what I'm advocating, but NO action is not a solution either. We aren't using their tactics currently, I view this ultimately as a matter of containment. It's just like the border - how can we grant amnesty (which I agree with) when the border isn't secure? You lock down the border, then grant amnesty; The same should be done with defense - but it has to be done backwards to a degree. We are geographically isolated from most all of our immediate threats militarily. So, we don't need to "lock it down" perse. Rather, we DID start locking it down with the TSA (Which is a fatally flawed system - look at the lebaneese (sp?) airline (Al AIl or something like that, can't remember the name) They are SERIOUS about it and do it right)) Ultimately, it will be global problem - we just happen to be the one seriously spearheading it.

you're thinking of El Al, the Israeli airline.

[uofom3]

wrong, the BWC has been subverted by proxy through National Security Presidential Directive 33, and the CWC deadline conveniently gets extended another 6 years. so, yeah, we still do mess around with anthrax and vx. it doesnt really matter anyway, the US is not subject to the ICC, so even if we say accidentally used them (oops we killed thousands of people sorry) the consequences would be minor.

I know we have it, I'm saying it's not used. We also have enough nukes to blow up the world 10x. We probably have shit that you and I don't even have any clue exists. I was waiting for you to jump on that one ;)

[uofom3]

you're thinking of El Al, the Israeli airline.

Exactly - I couldn't remember specifics, just what their policies are. They take it very seriously.

[dinanm3atl]

Does someone have a link to Barrack's speech? I can't seem to find the above information.

[DarkWing6]

Does someone have a link to Barrack's speech? I can't seem to find the above information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us...ewanted=1&_r=1



Working on responding to your post Brandon. I am at work making money. ;)

[e30sd]

I know we have it, I'm saying it's not used. We also have enough nukes to blow up the world 10x. We probably have shit that you and I don't even have any clue exists. I was waiting for you to jump on that one ;)

yea, right now under START I we are hovering near 6,000 MIRV equipped warheads, with another 10,000 warheads in inactive reserve, stashed at places like Pantex. Just in case.

[brandondan1]

You're confusing wages paid with direct hard work; not skill set. Anyone can dig a ditch. Can you perform brain surgery? I sure as hell can't. It's a rare skill, so it gets compensated handsomely. Pound for pound, the ditch digger works twice are hard; but in reality his job is 1/10th as stressful and requires virtually no pre-requisite knowledge in comparison.

It's logic like this that drives doctors out of business, and decreases enrolement in medical schools.

EDIT: which becomes an even more amplified problem when our population is becoming older rapidly (i.e. baby boomers retiring and needing doctors to provide services)

SECOND EDIT: Just to re-state this: The popcorn costing six dollars is directly related to the guy ripping tix getting paid 9$ an hour. you want a trickle down effect? think of it this way - The popcorn costs six dollars because the guy who is packaging the popcorn has to get paid $8.00 in X state for handling the boxes. Then, the dock worker gets paid $12.00 because he is unionized and all he does is move freight all day. Then, you have to pay the guy who fills soda/sweeps the floors/washes the toilet at least minimum wage $9.00 an hour (in this example). So what happens? All of this gets passed on to you; the end consumer.

What is the result? You go to the movies a little less. They have a little less revenue, they end up laying people off, and the cycle repeats itself as the minimum wage increases.

See how that is not good for anyone?

That's a good example, thanks for clearing it up. I was referring to a Minimum minimum wage all of this time.

The reason why I started arguing about 'hard work' was because it was earlier said that low income people don't do shit. This obviously isn't always true. I understand skill sets, but I was talking about physical work. It does take a certain amount of conditioning and knowledge to be an efficient 'ditch digger.' There can even be a high level of stress if they have impossible deadlines to meet, and I doubt a lot of people could do it. Are profits being passed down to them when the company's profit margins rise? I doubt it, because most owners are greedy. I just feel like there should be some level of 'fairness' in some situations. That's why I support some government intervention. But I guess there is no 'right or wrong, but only the way it is'

[e30sd]

quick call griots so you can continue this conversation

[DarkWing6]

While the market should regulate itself to an extent, what if business was allowed to fully set it's own wages. What is the goal of a business? To make as much money as possible. This would no doubt lead to a decrease in wages.

Two points on this one.

1) Reread what I said. If people are not willing to work for what the business is willing to pay the business will have not workers. Without workers at all levels they cannot function and will go out of business.

2)You are not taking into account the other costs that a company encounters. In a lot of cases it is cheaper for a company to pay their employees more then it is to train a new employee, so high turnover will cost the company more than paying their employees an extra buck or two an hour.

These two points are working off of supply and demand. Businesses have a demand for jobs and a supply of money and workers vise versa. They come to an agreement that works for both parties. If one side is unhappy they discuss it and come to a new agreement or part ways. Again, if people are not willing to work for the amount of money the business will pay then the business will go under, find work elsewhere (which can ultimately be good for everyone, ask me about this later), or pay employees more to do that job.

I can see that if some companies were really exploiting their employees then they would just leave. However, there are only so many jobs to be had, and some people would have no choice but to stay, especially in poor where there aren't many opportunities.

Wouldn't this make the rich richer and the poor poorer? The rich would still be able to support markets, so I don't see how all of these companies would be going under. How does this balances out? (sorry, my HS economics class sucked)

The rich need the poor and the poor need the rich. If the government would butt out the market could actually work properly. The thing about rich people is they spend their money, which benefits the entire economy. The rich having money creates jobs. The more jobs, the less supply, the higher the demand, the higher paying the jobs are.

Liberty is in the eye of the beholder. For something to be gained, something must also be lost. The problem is finding that middle ground.

There is a middle ground. It is the market. Both parties agree to the deal. That is the middle ground.

EDIT - And if one party is too greedy (poor can be greedy too) then they wont agree to terms and wont get any supply for their demand. Supply and demand goes both ways.


My HS Econ class sucked too. Talking through econ with people helped me learn more. I enjoy discussing this. It makes me think and sharpens me.

[DarkWing6]

quick call griots so you can continue this conversation

[rwh11385]

Allow the market to decide where prices and other things should be set. If people are not willing to work for a certain rate businesses will either fail or raise the wage. People should not get paid more than they are worth and adding an outside party (the government) to set wages and set prices screws up how the market works.

ding ding ding ding

Are you telling me that we should have sweatshops and let people work for however low the company is willing to pay? There needs to be intervention because American citizens would be exploited. This was rampant all during the Industrial age. But hey, at least the fat cats were living good.

Are you in high school?

People accept work and pay, or leave it. The Industrial age is long gone, and safety has improved HERE. If min wage laws are hyped up more then jobs are just going to be sent more to China were people are exploited, the environment is destroyed, etc. etc.

What about the ditch diggers who work all day in 100 degree weather and get 6/hr? Are you saying they don't work hard, or deserve more?

If you are a ditch digger, you screw up in life somewhere and are only worth $6/hour. Any harder of a worker or smarter or more skilled... there would be a better job for him. Or probably the company would just use a machine.

Construction machines aren't used in India to break up boulders to create roads. Unskilled workers with hand tools are used because they are cheaper. The United States has more and more technology so either unskilled labor should GET SKILLED or live with minimum wage - NOT be artificially given higher wages they are not worth...

Should the government let their bosses pay them even less because it's the only thing they can get? I sure as hell don't think so.

YES.

The government is not supposed to run the economy here. This isn't mother USSR and you know how that turned out...

All of that stuff about giving the rich more tax breaks so it can trickle down hasn't worked out in reality. The proof is in the disparity of income levels increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. With a few philanthropic exceptions, it is a fact of life that abundance makes people stingy, fearful, and ungrateful. It also creates fear.
Money is the religion of America and consumerism is it's ritual. The majority of people vote against their own self interest because they still think there's a chance that they too can become one of the "saved". The wages of sin are debt!

Move to Sweden if you have a problem with the US here. The income disparity before redistribution is the same, but everyone is leveled out, no matter how smart/skilled/hard you work. The dumb lazy uneducated people will benefit from your success, YAY socialism. NOT