Real Clear Politics (Average): Obama 48.7 Gingrich 43 (SPREAD: Obama +5.7)

[Toro]

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

So you define "pwn" as "stalking someone because he hurt my little feelings by mocking my candidates batshit crazy religion".

Sorry, guy, nope. "Wealth Redistribution" is nowhere in the constitution. The regulation of trade and commerce are.

lol

You've contradicted yourself.

Business owner: "I want to hire these people."

Government: "No. You have to hire these other people."

Ergo, the government has given itself the right to decide what goes into people's pockets. That is their "job."

At about this time, you should now post "But Romney is fourth in Iowa!"

 

[JoeB131]

lol

You've contradicted yourself.

Business owner: "I want to hire these people."

Government: "No. You have to hire these other people."

Ergo, the government has given itself the right to decide what goes into people's pockets. That is their "job."

At about this time, you should now post "But Romney is fourth in Iowa!"

No contradiction at all. The government does what the constitution says it should do. Nothing more nothing less.

The problem is the big corporations you love have gotten them to neglect their duties.

You can build that factory in China. But you should pay a HUGE tariff when it comes back in and you should be completely excluded from any government contracts. (As government spends more than the GDP of any other country in the world, this would be a big deal.)

Government isn't using that power to get our people back to work, because they've put the interests of corporations above those of Americans.

You see, guy, I'm an American before a conservative...

A concept you don't seem to get.

I've worn the uniform of this country because I believe in this country.

 

[Toro]

No contradiction at all. The government does what the constitution says it should do. Nothing more nothing less.

You asked

Ummmm, guy, when is it the government job to decide what is in people's pockets?

And you answered your own question by citing intrastate commerce and international trade.

The problem is the big corporations you love have gotten them to neglect their duties.

The "duty" of a corporation is to maximize profits.

You can build that factory in China. But you should pay a HUGE tariff when it comes back in and you should be completely excluded from any government contracts. (As government spends more than the GDP of any other country in the world, this would be a big deal.)

Government isn't using that power to get our people back to work, because they've put the interests of corporations above those of Americans.

But you think they should that power. Ergo, you want the government to interfere in people's lives to engineer a social outcome you agree with.

Hmm, sort of sounds like a li..li..lib...

You see, guy, I'm an American before a conservative...

A concept you don't seem to get.

I've worn the uniform of this country because I believe in this country.

Many of the board liberals agree with you.

And thank you for your service.

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously, you took a sentence out of context to make your point...

The problem is the big corporations you love have gotten them to neglect their duties.

to which you answered.

The "duty" of a corporation is to maximize profits.

My reference to "them" was to the government. Not To Corporations.

Yes, that's kind of the problem. Corporations are ONLY about profit now, and short term profit, not for being an intregal part of the community/society/nation, with which they should have a symbiotic relationship. Instead, they want a parasitic relationship. They benefit, the whole of society suffers.

It SHOULD be the job of government to make sure that the interests of the community are served. That's their job.

It's not the government's job to dictate salaries, which is what board liberals want them to do.

It is their job to make sure corporations aren't dumping carcinogens into the water supply.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

When is it the government's job to decide where corporations should build a plant?

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

Sorry, but government should have no place in the United States to dictate what a corporation can or cannot do, much like the decision of Boeing to build in South Carolina. This administration has overstepped it's bounds by influencing its power into the decisions of GM, Dodge, and now Boeing when it had no right to do so. There is nothing written in the Constitution that gives the Congress, or the Executive Branch, the power to control CEO Corporate based decisions in the private sector. ZERO.

Also the Federal Government wasn't provided with the Constitutional authority to take from one class of individuals and pass those finances out to another. The government set up by our Founders under the Constitution, never allotted for a government system that takes from one class of people (based on it's success) and allows distribution to those without. You'd be pressed to show me a statement given by the Continential Congress, our Founders, or from the early statements made by the United States Supreme Court (prior to 1900) that supports such "redistribution". I will however, defend my argument by providing two views from our Founding Fathers. Neither statement gives support to the claim of "wealth redistribution" as the role and responsibility of government.

"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'”
― Thomas Jefferson

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

 

[JoeB131]

When it gave itself the right to regulate interstate and international commerce.

That's why I can't buy Cuban Cigars, dumbass...

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

Sorry, but government should have no place in the United States to dictate what a corporation can or cannot do, much like the decision of Boeing to build in South Carolina. This administration has overstepped it's bounds by influencing its power into the decisions of GM, Dodge, and now Boeing when it had no right to do so. There is nothing written in the Constitution that gives the Congress, or the Executive Branch, the power to control CEO Corporate based decisions in the private sector. ZERO.

I think Boeing gave up its right to be free of government interference when it took all those big government contracts. GM gave up its right when it went hat in hand looking for a bailout. After all, if the government is just another customer, it could have Airbus make the planes and Toyota make the Humvees.

Again, my solution is that CEO's should have a lot of latitude, but if they mess it up, they suffer the full consequences. What we have is capitalized reward and socialized risk. "oops, you're Too Big to Fail", so here comes a bailout.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

... which is the same right the government has to decide what is in people's pockets because it dictates to American savers and businesses who they can and cannot not hire. That is the government injecting itself into the redistribution of wealth amongst Americans.

Not to mention that the government has given itself the right to also do so through social security, income taxation, welfare, etc.

So sorry you to pwn you twice this morning with your own contradictions. But it was pretty easy.

Sorry, but government should have no place in the United States to dictate what a corporation can or cannot do, much like the decision of Boeing to build in South Carolina. This administration has overstepped it's bounds by influencing its power into the decisions of GM, Dodge, and now Boeing when it had no right to do so. There is nothing written in the Constitution that gives the Congress, or the Executive Branch, the power to control CEO Corporate based decisions in the private sector. ZERO.

I think Boeing gave up its right to be free of government interference when it took all those big government contracts. GM gave up its right when it went hat in hand looking for a bailout. After all, if the government is just another customer, it could have Airbus make the planes and Toyota make the Humvees.

Again, my solution is that CEO's should have a lot of latitude, but if they mess it up, they suffer the full consequences. What we have is capitalized reward and socialized risk. "oops, you're Too Big to Fail", so here comes a bailout.

Competing for a government contract and having "government" as your customer, should not allot you to be treated different than any OTHER corporation working to satisfy their customers needs. If that's the case, why would any corproation in the right mind take on the Federal Government as their customer?

As far as the bailouts of GM and Dodge, I never supported that. No other corporation that I can recall was ever "hand picked . . . singled out by a Federal Government" to receive a bail-out because they were too big to fail. The Airline industry had their financial troubles following 9-11 and they were able to restructure, undergo corporate mergers or take overs, all without government involvement. A system to handle a corporation's financial issues is already in place and it has been working in every filed case until this "meddling" by the Federal Government.

Corporations thrive, they merge, they down size, and they fail . . . it's all part of corporations ability to meet up with the quality needs of the consumer and build assurance among its corporate investors.

 

[JoeB131]

Competing for a government contract and having "government" as your customer, should not allot you to be treated different than any OTHER corporation working to satisfy their customers needs. If that's the case, why would any corproation in the right mind take on the Federal Government as their customer?

As far as the bailouts of GM and Dodge, I never supported that. No other corporation that I can recall was ever "hand picked . . . singled out by a Federal Government" to receive a bail-out because they were too big to fail. The Airline industry had their financial troubles following 9-11 and they were able to restructure, undergo corporate mergers or take overs, all without government involvement. A system to handle a corporation's financial issues is already in place and it has been working in every filed case until this "meddling" by the Federal Government.

Corporations thrive, they merge, they down size, and they fail . . . it's all part of corporations ability to meet up with the quality needs of the consumer and build assurance among its corporate investors.

As I recall, after 9-11, we had a pretty severe recession, so I'm not sure if that is a good example to use.

Fact is, every western Democracy has this kind of meddling to a greater degree than we do. And in many cases, their companies outperform ours.

Take a look at the Japanese car companies. Why are they doing so well? Because there is a great deal of co-operation between them and their unions and the Japanese government. It's real partnership.

Also, their CEO's would consider an 8 figure salary for failing to be obscene. They never get 8 figure salaries.

 

[hortysir]

Competing for a government contract and having "government" as your customer, should not allot you to be treated different than any OTHER corporation working to satisfy their customers needs. If that's the case, why would any corproation in the right mind take on the Federal Government as their customer?

As far as the bailouts of GM and Dodge, I never supported that. No other corporation that I can recall was ever "hand picked . . . singled out by a Federal Government" to receive a bail-out because they were too big to fail. The Airline industry had their financial troubles following 9-11 and they were able to restructure, undergo corporate mergers or take overs, all without government involvement. A system to handle a corporation's financial issues is already in place and it has been working in every filed case until this "meddling" by the Federal Government.

Corporations thrive, they merge, they down size, and they fail . . . it's all part of corporations ability to meet up with the quality needs of the consumer and build assurance among its corporate investors.

As I recall, after 9-11, we had a pretty severe recession, so I'm not sure if that is a good example to use.

Fact is, every western Democracy has this kind of meddling to a greater degree than we do. And in many cases, their companies outperform ours.

Take a look at the Japanese car companies. Why are they doing so well? Because there is a great deal of co-operation between them and their unions and the Japanese government. It's real partnership.

Also, their CEO's would consider an 8 figure salary for failing to be obscene. They never get 8 figure salaries.

Good idea.

Let's strive to be more Japan