Why Are We Broke?

C

capncash

Well-Known Member
ULMResearch said:
That's great in theory, if those corporations in turn gave a fuck about people.

"He may be a bastard, but he was our bastard".

That quote is about Fulgencio Batista, the guy who ran Cuba before Castro took over. He let us [read: American corporations] exploit the fuck out of his people and then beat, tortured and killed the ones who tried to stand up for themselves. Hence Castro and Che overthrowing the government. We didn't hate Castro because he was a bad guy.. we hated him because he was a good one.
Click to expand...
Corporations are people.
 
Charlie Ventura

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
redivider said:
they know they have the people's only hope, the government, by the balls.....
Click to expand...
And here we have it in spades, ladies and gents. This is the entitlement mentality that is currently tearing London apart. "The people's only hope," really? What ever happened to individual responsibility, hard work, honest dealings, charity, spirituality, self confidence, a positive self image, and in a nut shell, character?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
capncash said:
Its a Mitt Romney quote, but thanks for being the forums grammar police!
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to correct your grammar, Actually was trying to pique your interest. You are NOT a person, you HAVE a person. A Person is a legal fiction assigned to you at birth. Its the reason all the bills that get sent to you are all in capitalized letters, because they are not for you as a human being to pay, they are for your PERSON to pay. You are John Doe, but your Person is JOHN DOE. He is the one getting the bills, has the license, has the car loan/mortgage etc etc etc. You see a Person isn't a human being, a person is a Corporation, that's how the legal system works.

A corporation is nothing more than a person with no soul to save and no body to incarcerate.

Watch:

[video=youtube;wkygXc9IM5U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkygXc9IM5U[/video]
 
Big P

Big P

Well-Known Member
BendBrewer said:
We were broke under Bush. I don't remember Fox News caring one bit about it then.

The Faux Outrage is amusing though. I like seeing people get their panties in a wad.
Click to expand...


bush spend 2 trillion in his 8 year in office. by the end of barack obamas 4 years we will have spend 6 trillion.


FACT
 
Big P

Big P

Well-Known Member
if they made america the most businees friendly nation on earth we would have so many companies over here paying taxes we could fund way more social programs and helthcare for the people


instead retards r putting the cart before the horse.


vote the clown out in 2012
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Corporations are Persons. Not people. But its close enough for a lollipop!
Click to expand...
corporations and people are persons in the eyes of the government which does not recognize us as people but only persons which may be traded as a commodity
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Yeah, its terrible isn't it?

Click to expand...
Willyßagseed;6087618 said:
If we are going to do the chart thing.

Just wanted to point out that neither of those graphs take into account gas tax, cig tax, property tax, sales tax, or any other tax that is collected at the state level, also if you look at the cost of healthcare you will see that a single male making about 24,000/year really pays over 50% of their income in taxes.
Click to expand...
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Yeah, its terrible isn't it?

Click to expand...
Willyßagseed;6087618 said:
If we are going to do the chart thing.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/pdf/low_tax_graphs.pdf
Click to expand...
undertheice said:
i'm afraid i'll have to answer with a resounding NO. that blind partisanship you are so quick to accuse me of seems to be a sin you are quite guilty of. as is par for the course with the statists of modern liberalism, you mix all corporations into one bag, all wars into another, then mix and match to suit your chosen argument. how often i've seen this same scenario played out i simply can't even number.

do some corporations profit from the wars we wage? of course they do. for some, the technology of war is their bread and butter and profit is, after all, the name of the game when conducting business. for others, the change in political climate caused by a military conflict is more conducive to their operations. to baldly claim that they have started such a conflict simply for the sake of profit is the sort of accusation that demands more proof than the "maybes" of conspiracy fanatics. that the corruption existing in our government might allow the unscrupulous to commit such deeds is yet another strike against your chosen philosophy.

the causes of our wars and the incompetence of those who dole out military contacts are different matters entirely. to simply lump all wars into one category in order to dismiss them is worse than disingenuous. afghanistan, a war of retribution, might be seen as an almost ethical incursion. the punishment of a regime that harbors those who committed heinous acts against our civilian population is one of the better reasons to commit the atrocity that is war. actions such as those in iraq and libya are of an entirely different order. both were engaged in for the express purpose of ousting regimes deemed abusive to their own people and dangerous to the rest of the world. as the self-styled global watchdog of democracy, we have often seen fit to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries for much the same reasons and i've never make any effort to disguise my disgust over this policy.

as to the ludicrous nature of our government's contract skills, this is still another strike against the institutionalized ineptitude of our federal bureaucracy. having negotiated more than a few contracts over the course of my various careers, i am constantly amazed at the incompetence shown at nearly every level in this matter. there is simply no consistency. in one instance a contract will be handed out to an unqualified bidder, merely because they have low-balled their price and left it open to increases to make up the difference. in the next they will offer the contractor the moon because it is something our government believes it just can't do without. no project ever comes in at the originally quoted price and, because someone else (the taxpayer) is footing the bill, no one ever thinks to complain. the military is far from the only segment of government guilty of this idiocy. the sheer magnitude of the contracts they oversee and the destructive nature of their purview merely makes them the most obvious target of our scorn. who do you wish to blame for this fiasco? would any responsible businessman pass up the opportunity to pad their bottom line a bit at the expense of one of the world's most abusive institutions?
Click to expand...
Um I do think it was just a democratic president that spear headed the bail out, which was one of the biggest payouts of corporate "entitlements" there has eve been. Also you like many others are falling into the fallacy that we have two political parties in washington, no we have two actors in a puppet show that play off each other to distract the masses from the stripping of their civil rights, property/cash, and you guessed it ability to think and stand up for one's self.

in the 1950s a woman stood up on national television and said that if america does not change its path it will be a worse totalitarian dictatorship than nazi germany within 50 years, well she may be 20-30 years early on the prediction but we are well on our way, AND NOBODY SEEMS TO REALLY CARE, they would rather complain about that other party, and those other people, cause them standin up for themselves is messin with my world. AND THIS KEEPS EVERYONE FROM SEEING WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING.
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
just look at minnesota, i think it was, they were broke, so they blamed it on those dam unions for costing so much of an hourly wage, then a bunch of idiots really believed that unions were bankrupting their state, they almost got away with that to, if it wasnt for the union's incredible ability to organize and protest the BS.

not saying that I support huge international unions that use the money they collect from their workers to influence political campaigns and legislation, but I do believe in our inalienable right to organize and express our dissatisfaction in any way we see as necessary.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
BendBrewer said:
Expecting to be protected with other people's money is for pussies and is socialism.
Click to expand...
Did you just have an epiphany or do you not realize the conflict of your statement with your beliefs?
You expect everyone to pay their "fare share" to protect everything except that which is most valuable... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top