Exactly how have we been convinced

[BigNBushy]

Well that is exactly what I mean. I think mitt Romney and the vast majority of people of all percentages care about like you. No one took delight in the mass shooting at the mall or school. But life goes on normally after just a moment for all of us who are not directly affected by it. Sure we hate it for them. But beyond that, all your caring doesn't amount to a pile of dog shit. I mean, seriously, not trying to be a dick. Does the fact that guy A says, "oh well, so what" and guy B goes on for thirty minutes crying about what a tragedy it was change anything? Do these actions, that the victims and their families are unaware of have any impact on them? Nope, it doesn't. Some people care enough to text something to the red cross and give them $10. But besides that, no amount of caring does anything for anyone.

But I digress.

I would like to address your point about folks like Romney doing things that hurt people. I assume you might be referring to perhaps a decision to close a factory or something.

You state that as if you think these rich guys are sitting in smoke filled rooms making decisions to close factories just to fuck with the working man.

The reality is they are making business decisions that they think are in the overall financial interest of the business. These men are on the board of directors, and their first duty is to the owners of the company, the stock holders. Some of these are wealthy people, but many many more of them are working class families themselves who own a mutual fund that owns some stock in this company.

While one individual company has very little impact on the overall value of a mutual fund, a collective mind set of those running businesses to make decisions based on financial benefits really does a great social good.

Sure, the plant closes and 247 people in Peoria Illinois lose their jobs. Many of them go in, normally, to find similar paying jobs in a reasonable time. Some actually take the opportunity to start a business and start a new life for their families. And we should be realistic, some are devastated because they don't have the gumption to do what it takes. Maybe they know they could move and find better work, but they are set in their ways and decided to stay in the dying town and go broke.

But overall, businesses making decisions for financial gain means this capital saved will create jobs elsewhere, or allow the old guy who just retired to finance a comfortable retirement.

My point is that although some people are harmed when a factory closes, it isn't done for no good reason, most people negatively impacted will be ok in the end, and failing to close it, might hurt a lot more people worse in the long run. If the unprofitable factory stays open so 247 people don't lose their jobs, well they will likely bust the company and lose their jobs in a few years anyway, and then society is harmed by impact in the financial services and retirement of others.

Sometimes you just got to fire people.

 

[Red1966]

Yet all the while, not a single of the top guys at these big three took much of a cut in pay. Why? because they made contracts with the company, and a contract is a contract. No renegotiating there. Beyond that, you seem to think that the individual is responsible for the greater good, that is, if the individual asks for a raise it may cause the company to fold up and move their tent somewhere else. But what about the company? Should the company, in the interest of the greater good of society remain where they are and not go out of the country? or are companies exempt from this notion that perhaps it would be in the interest of the individual to give up their personal interest for a greater interest that in the long run, includes their own? Or is it only individuals? And is it also in the interest of stock holders to vote in ways that may cost them some money in the short run but benefit society in the long run?

If "benefiting society" causes them to become non-competitive, they cease to exist. Who benefits then? Not the stockholders (you know, your retired parents and grandparents), not the employees, not management. The foreign competition, perhaps.

 

[Red1966]

Well that's true but it's also relatively subjective. It would depend on what an individual deems as "best". Some folks may feel sharing is best while others may feel it's best left to survival of the fittest. Isn't this the basic argument between Democrat and Republican.

Taking from others to give it to people or causes you choose isn't sharing. It's theft.

 

[JohnnySocko]

That's a good point. But if that logic is correct then it is always in any employer's interest to pay the lowest costs for the most labor. This is why labor unions still exist in the first place. Capitalism is not personal in itself. It's just a formula for profit but any fool knows the basic formula for profit is selling something for more than you paid for it.

Now there is great flexibility within that formula and many dynamics one could consider in creating profit, quality and customer service being two of many. The problem is that those "employers" you mentioned are the same basic human beings as their "employees" and that same "intuition to exploit" you were nibbling at works both ways. This leads us to why the government';s job is to "check and balance" the relationship between the two parties, except you can see how conflicted it is because the government suffers from the same fundamental paradox. The perfect form of modern democratic government, just as the perfect form of capitalism, and arguably the perfect form of the human body, suffers from the same flaw as any perfect machine; human error.

Furthermore, it's beyond reason how the unchecked ambition to hoard resources and rule over all has ever been considered tantamount to good sound leadership or any particular "moral fiber"; intelligence, honesty, fair judgement, the "best interest" or any interest at all in the "people" of any country.
Isn't it at least reasonable, and citable, that making it to a position of power tends to require a completely opposite skill set?

Isn't it fair to say that just as foreign competition has grown, so has the foreign market and as a result the "world market"?

The capitalist model and therefore the Free Market is now a global playing field, not so much in the 50's and 60's, and American companies cashed in big because they were first in line. Hell, they created the thing. Many household names, now sell more in foreign markets than they do domestically
and ohh I'm sure it really hurts a faceless board to send thousands of jobs overseas where the labor cost is literally a fraction, labor laws are non existent, and the quality is sometimes better. That's a lot of extra zeros to turn down in favor of patriotism, much less social decency. You think the Mitt Romney's care about the other 97% of the country that much hu? I think they were waiting for an excuse to make sweat shops legit again. These fools couldn't wait!!
"Basically, we'll just call the government(cough* president) UNPATRIOTIC so by default anything we do is the Real American thing to do." lol

Last I checked many of the top employers, not founders or creators mind you, but employers spend most their lives fucking up, stepping over education and shirking personal responsibility, so the first time the country pisses them off they shut down a few warehouses in America and move a couple hundred thousand "burdensome" jobs overseas. It's not personal. They did it on an iPhone from a private jet while they Island hop because they're transient citizens. They'll never have to realize the distinction between being an adult and being a corporation because they know they deserve everything that is special.

And these are the people(cough* corporations) you tout as having "true self interest of the vitality and health of the country"?? It's funny how multibillionaires paint on the "hardworking middle class business owner" makeup for the media... like Wolf of WallStreet funny.. Pure movie magic when middle class identifies with the 1% as if they have anything in common.

You say people need to be protected from their own greed but who protects people from the greed of their protectors? Keep in mind, I don't disagree with your point. Just wanted to shed some light on the other side of it.......................................... Bong rips and coffee anyone?

to kinda/sorta summarize: when wealth collects in one spot, it tends to modify the environment towards its own best interest:
- pay Limbaugh and Fox to convince angry white people the immigrants are stealing jobs/money
- Obama is to blame for ALL problems,
- and environmental;/labor law is "draining" their money

...I mean, hell they have sold this shit lock-stock-barrel to zillions of gen-xers like yourselves already, no?


I'm hardly playing peacekeeper between Stormfront and the socialist party here, but there istwo diametrically opposed forces are at work here:
1) You do indeed need wealthy people to create jobs
2) but you need counterbalances (unions, minimum wage, voters, et) to keep the wealthy from creating a medieval serf/lord economic model or using money as leverage to modify laws towards its own self interest


This is one of those times there is logic both ways and we are fundamentally arguing application of scale and degree

 

[Harrekin]

to kinda/sorta summarize: when wealth collects in one spot, it tends to modify the environment towards its own best interest:
- pay Limbaugh and Fox to convince angry white people the immigrants are stealing jobs/money
- Obama is to blame for ALL problems,
- and environmental;/labor law is "draining" their money

...I mean, hell they have sold this shit lock-stock-barrel to zillions of gen-xers like yourselves already, no?


I'm hardly playing peacekeeper between Stormfront and the socialist party here, but there istwo diametrically opposed forces are at work here:
1) You do indeed need wealthy people to create jobs
2) but you need counterbalances (unions, minimum wage, voters, et) to keep the wealthy from creating a medieval serf/lord economic model or using money as leverage to modify laws towards its own self interest


This is one of those times there is logic both ways and we are fundamentally arguing application of scale and degree

Ahh, so basically, you want to take money out of politics.

Ban corporate donations and put a cap on private donations...but then your only complaint against rich people above would be completely moot.

 

[JohnnySocko]

Ahh, so basically, you want to take money out of politics.

Ban corporate donations and put a cap on private donations...but then your only complaint against rich people above would be completely moot.

I'm not exactly arguing any of that.... wish we could take money out of the system ...I put lobbyist on the same level as lawyers

 

[Harrekin]

I'm not exactly arguing any of that.... wish we could take money out of the system ...I put lobbyist on the same level as lawyers

So you have contempt seemingly for anyone above your class level.

Did a Jew banker fuck you as a kid or something?

The scary men coming to take all your stuff and enslave you?

Sounds like communism...

 

[JohnnySocko]

So you have contempt seemingly for anyone above your class level.

Did a Jew banker fuck you as a kid or something?

The scary men coming to take all your stuff and enslave you?

Sounds like communism...

For now, turn off Fox news: I'll dumb it down for you:

often wealthy people or people in power influence politics, laws, et usually in furtherance of more money and power

....this shit hasn't changed in 4000yrs

pointing out the societal problems therein or having a understanding of this process doesn't mean I hate rich people; all I'm doing is pointing out the the hows and whys the imbalance of money has on government and how it can negatively impact our lives

....basically it takes less rich people to change how shit is than a similar number of poor people, or is that concept outside your level of understanding ?

 

[Harrekin]

For now, turn off Fox news: I'll dumb it down for you:

often wealthy people or people in power influence politics, laws, et usually in furtherance of more money and power

....this shit hasn't changed in 4000yrs

pointing out the societal problems therein or having a understanding of this process doesn't mean I hate rich people; all I'm doing is pointing out the the hows and whys the imbalance of money has on government and how it can negatively impact our lives

....basically it takes less rich people to change how shit is than a similar number of poor people, or is that concept outside your level of understanding ?

So...its the rich people's fault that they have money?

And money buys influence?

So again, its all the rich peoples fault?

Your envy is showing.

 

[JohnnySocko]

So...its the rich people's fault that they have money?

And money buys influence?

So again, its all the rich peoples fault?

Your envy is showing.

Bro, seriously is 90% of education straight of the EIB radio network? Gheez...

FYI I'm in a high income tax bracket...hell I hate and I mean hate being taxed to death because I got a decent income only to see 40% of my income go to some lazy bitch too stupid to use birth control and/or get a education

...and yeah, I sould like a card carrying EIB koolaide driker but some shit is just true...

where I part ways with some of the right wing nut jobs is I realize rich people do shit to influence the laws to make more money, I mean what the hell is the point of having money if you can't intelligently place it to do the most evil?

my thing is you Faux news junkies need to wake up to the brain jerk-off crap they feed you...

 

[Harrekin]

Bro, seriously is 90% of education straight of the EIB radio network? Gheez...

FYI I'm in a high income tax bracket...hell I hate and I mean hate being taxed to death because I got a decent income only to see 40% of my income go to some lazy bitch too stupid to use birth control and/or get a education

...and yeah, I sould like a card carrying EIB koolaide driker but some shit is just true...

where I part ways with some of the right wing nut jobs is I realize rich people do shit to influence the laws to make more money, I mean what the hell is the point of having money if you can't intelligently place it to do the most evil?

my thing is you Faux news junkies need to wake up to the brain jerk-off crap they feed you...

We don't get Fox News here, you fucking retard.

And you think its only the right wing that monied interests use to influence politics in America?

Shall we compare a list of Obama's campaign donors with Romney's?

 

[BigNBushy]

Bro, seriously is 90% of education straight of the EIB radio network? Gheez...

FYI I'm in a high income tax bracket...hell I hate and I mean hate being taxed to death because I got a decent income only to see 40% of my income go to some lazy bitch too stupid to use birth control and/or get a education

...and yeah, I sould like a card carrying EIB koolaide driker but some shit is just true...

where I part ways with some of the right wing nut jobs is I realize rich people do shit to influence the laws to make more money, I mean what the hell is the point of having money if you can't intelligently place it to do the most evil?

my thing is you Faux news junkies need to wake up to the brain jerk-off crap they feed you...

I'm calling bullshit. It might be a false alarm but something doesn't smell right.

The top 39.5% tax bracket is north of 300k per year. However, unless your income is well over 1million dollars per year your rax rate is no where near that percentage, because the first few hundred thousand dollars you make are taxed at a much lower rate, and high income people know that, and pay close attention to it.

 

[Harrekin]

I'm calling bullshit. It might be a false alarm but something doesn't smell right.

The top 39.5% tax bracket is north of 300k per year. However, unless your income is well over 1million dollars per year your rax rate is no where near that percentage, because the first few hundred thousand dollars you make are taxed at a much lower rate, and high income people know that, and pay close attention to it.

I ignored that part of his post, too many bullshit claims backed up by anonomity.

I can fly and have a 37inch penis, see how that works?

 

[Red1966]

Ahh, so basically, you want to take money out of politics. Ban corporate donations and put a cap on private donations...but then your only complaint against rich people above would be completely moot.

You seem to ignore the source of the majority of donations, unions.

 

[schuylaar]

You seem to ignore the source of the majority of donations, unions.

kock brothers

 

[Red1966]

I mean what the hell is the point of having money if you can't intelligently place it to do the most evil?

Wow..just wow

 

[JohnnySocko]

I'm calling bullshit. It might be a false alarm but something doesn't smell right.

The top 39.5% tax bracket is north of 300k per year. However, unless your income is well over 1million dollars per year your rax rate is no where near that percentage, because the first few hundred thousand dollars you make are taxed at a much lower rate, and high income people know that, and pay close attention to it.

I'm calling your bullshit bullshit.....
if I explained the other aspects of my tax situation then I'd be telling to much about myself on a cannabis forum...
but fuck it: lets say its 25% if that makes it more believable....I'm thinking anything about 20% makes my point regardless

 

[Red1966]

kock brothers

Wrong. Or a lie. Rollie insisted I add the last part. (The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.)

 

[JohnnySocko]

I ignored that part of his post, too many bullshit claims backed up by anonomity.

I can fly and have a 37inch penis, see how that works?

The part about you I don't get is why are you even debating anything here? I've yet to even read a single post of yours that makes any kind of intelligent point whatsoever...

I'm thinking you might get more satisfaction with like minds on some Nazi/right wing butt sniffing forum

 

[Red1966]

I'm calling your bullshit bullshit..... if I explained the other aspects of my tax situation then I'd be telling to much about myself on a cannabis forum... but fuck it: lets say its 25% if that makes it more believable....I'm thinking anything about 20% makes my point regardless

You folded so easy, I'm going to assume you were lying.