The Perils for Obama of Not Talking About Poverty in America

[editec]

The flight of capital won't just happen because of taxes.

True. That is merely one reason that capital seeks havens offshore

It will happen ANY time any company can identify a way to become more efficient overseas to make more money.

Yes

But what does that do? It takes money overseas and puts it in the hands of India, Mexico, and other countries that ARENT the United States of America.

Yes

Where is your patriotism there? Why won't they lose a little profit to help American workers? "Oh you can't ask them to do that!! That's not fair!!"

Oh, you can ask if you want, Can, but history shows us that Capital won't do it.

Wait wait wait. They're creating the problem by moving jobs overseas, but yet you want to defend their right to profit? The gap in logic is astounding.

Where the fuck have you read me defending these folks? Clearly you are no longer responding to anything I've written, and are now just on a free form tear bitching about the right wing.

Continue to blame Obama and your stereotyping of liberals as tax and spenders.

To whom is this complaint addressed?

Me?!

I don't disagree that Obama and liberals have their faults, but the conservatives in this thread just dont want to face facts that people with money and power in big business are using their money and power to suck up all the money and power...and it's not as easy as Joe Plumber just starting his own business and living the American success story.

The issue for our consideration, Van, was raising taxes.

Your post is all over the board.

Do you understand why I say that I believe raising taxes at this time is not good policy?

Because, as we have BOTH noticed, that creates CAPITAL FLIGHT from this economy.

We're on the same page, and you post at me as though I was a right wing asshat.

I'd appreciate it if you'd spare me a drubbing for things I have not written.

If you insist of grappling with straw men, be my guest, but do NOT try to make me one, okay?

Thanks.

 

[Photonic]

I'm sending this article to Obama.

No surprise there. Posting articles is all I've ever seen from you. Not much on the 'thinking for yourself' thing eh?

Anyway, is this the kind of poverty in America you're referring to:

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Oh those poor, poor Americans, playing X-Boxes with A/C on...must suck.

Considering the wealth and power of the United States, they should have much, much more than that.

 

[Missourian]

Obama's speech on poverty:

"Two years into my administration, when Democrats had held overwhelming majorities in Congress, the poverty totals in America hit a 50 year high.


Were we dealing with that crisis? Hell no. We were busy ramming through a healthcare bill so shitty, we don't even mention it anymore.

And don't forget the trillion dollars we flushed down the commode, Porkulus I.

Remember, unemployment will be under 8% after the "Summer of Recovery"?

Unfortunately, that didn't work out...sorry.

But now we must pass this bill, half the size of Porkulus I, Son of Porkulus, cuz that will work, I swear.

Now tell me, is that change you can believe in, or what."

U.S. poverty totals hit a 50-year high

Census Bureau's grim statistics show recession's lingering effects, as young adults move back home and 1 million more Americans go without health insurance.




September 14, 2011|By Don Lee, Noam Levey and Alejandro Lazo, Los Angeles Times



Reporting from Washington — In a grim portrait of a nation in economic turmoil, the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million — the most in at least half a century — as 1 million more Americans went without health insurance and household incomes fell sharply.


Poverty hits 50-year high, U.S says - Los Angeles Times
​

 

[Dragon]

Once again proving yourself a nincompoop.

Companies are not in business to be "patriotic".

He wasn't being a nincompoop, but it's unfortunate he brought that business about patriotism up because it gave you a loophole to exploit. You didn't touch on his main point at all, merely making use of his side-drift.

Here's the point once more. Taxes are a trivial factor in the decision an investor makes as to where to invest. Much more significant is the question of return. Capital is invested in building factories in third world countries because labor costs are dramatically lower in those countries, allowing a higher ROI than if the same capital was invested here. By comparison with the difference in labor costs, all other costs, including taxes, are insignificant. Thus, the fear that raising taxes on the rich will produce "capital flight" has no basis in reality.

Also, it betrays a misunderstanding about why capital is invested in ANY wealth-producing job-creating activity ANYWHERE in the world. The driver for this investment is demand for the products that the investment is meant to produce. At present, consumer demand is very low, because so many people are unemployed and those who do have jobs are mostly underpaid. Most accumulated capital at present is, therefore, excess capital. One of the best things the government could do in order to boost economic performance is to raise taxes on the rich a LOT -- say, a marginal rate of 50% at $500,000 and above, and 90% at $1 million up -- and use the proceeds to give every unemployed man, woman and child who wants one a government job. This would not actually be taking any money out of the economy, since all of that is idle capital anyway, not productive capital. It would, on the other hand, boost consumer demand and so increase the incentive to productively invest what's left, and also it would tighten the labor supply and drive up wages, further increasing demand and so increasing investment.

The other great thing would be to correct the incentives in tax and trade policy that encourage investment in third-world countries. We have to be careful about this, and not implement blanket protectionism, because other First World countries are good trading partners for us and we want to encourage capital flow across those borders (it's two-way, as shown by the Japanese and European companies with offices/factories in the U.S.). But investment in ultra-cheap poor-country labor on-site is a modern phenomenon highly destructive of the global economy and that needs to be corrected.

You noted that more manufacturing jobs have been lost to increased efficiency (e.g. automation) than to outsourcing, and that's true but the loss of manufacturing jobs isn't the real problem. Moving the bulk of our population into service jobs rather than factory jobs would have been fine, provided the service jobs were unionized and at high wages. The problem has been that they're not, and so we have suffered a decline in real wages and so a reversal of the factors that created the hugely prosperous four postwar decades.

 

[The Rabbi]

If impose a fine (tax) on speeders to discourage speeding why would we impose a tax on income to discourage income?
Taxes are one of many reasons companies invest overseas. Labor costs are another. Transportation costs are another. Raw materials accessibility is another. But the US is a net beneficiary of outsourcing.
As for your "proposal", what a joke.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama's speech on poverty:

"Two years into my administration, when Democrats had held overwhelming majorities in Congress, the poverty totals in America hit a 50 year high.


Were we dealing with that crisis? Hell no. We were busy ramming through a healthcare bill so shitty, we don't even mention it anymore.

And don't forget the trillion dollars we flushed down the commode, Porkulus I.

Remember, unemployment we be under 8% after the "Summer of Recovery"?

Unfortunately, that didn't work out...sorry.

But now we must pass this bill, half the size of Porkulus I, Son of Porkulus, cuz that will work, I swear.

Now tell me, is that change you can believe in, or what."

U.S. poverty totals hit a 50-year high

Census Bureau's grim statistics show recession's lingering effects, as young adults move back home and 1 million more Americans go without health insurance.




September 14, 2011|By Don Lee, Noam Levey and Alejandro Lazo, Los Angeles Times



Reporting from Washington — In a grim portrait of a nation in economic turmoil, the government reported that the number of people living in poverty last year surged to 46.2 million — the most in at least half a century — as 1 million more Americans went without health insurance and household incomes fell sharply.


Poverty hits 50-year high, U.S says - Los Angeles Times
​

......."son of porkulus" That's classic!!

 

[FA_Q2]

At present, consumer demand is very low, because so many people are unemployed and those who do have jobs are mostly underpaid. Most accumulated capital at present is, therefore, excess capital. One of the best things the government could do in order to boost economic performance is to raise taxes on the rich a LOT -- say, a marginal rate of 50% at $500,000 and above, and 90% at $1 million up -- and use the proceeds to give every unemployed man, woman and child who wants one a government job. This would not actually be taking any money out of the economy, since all of that is idle capital anyway, not productive capital. It would, on the other hand, boost consumer demand and so increase the incentive to productively invest what's left, and also it would tighten the labor supply and drive up wages, further increasing demand and so increasing investment.

Unfortunately, the massive gap in your line of thought is that the government providing a job to everyone does not work. When you are guaranteed to get a government job there is zero motivation to produce. What would that government job pay? It would not matter because if it was more than the McDonalds worker, all the McDonalds worker would do is quit and get the government job that he can sit on his ass and do nothing to get a paycheck. Hence, McDonalds would have to pay far more and the cost of a Big Mack suddenly becomes 100 bucks. What you end up with is hyper inflation and everyone being super poor. Not to mention that even more capitol would flee this system for a foreign one. People are not going to invest here or produce here if all the fruits of their labor are going to be taken from them. The government cannot, nor should it, guarantee a job. It always proves a colossal failure.

 

[Dragon]

Unfortunately, the massive gap in your line of thought is that the government providing a job to everyone does not work. When you are guaranteed to get a government job there is zero motivation to produce. What would that government job pay? It would not matter because if it was more than the McDonalds worker, all the McDonalds worker would do is quit and get the government job that he can sit on his ass and do nothing to get a paycheck.

We are not suffering from a labor shortage. We are not suffering from a problem on the production side. We are suffering from a problem on the demand side.

Hence, McDonalds would have to pay far more and the cost of a Big Mack suddenly becomes 100 bucks.

The cost of a McDonalds burger might increase slightly but $100 is, of course, nonsense.

Driving wages up in this economy would be a GOOD thing, not a bad one. We are suffering from stagnant wages, not too-high wages, and from depressed demand, not high inflation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not yet anyway. But give Geithner and Bernanke a little more time and we'll see what happens.

The criticism made is very valid. If you gave people make-work jobs you would take them out of the productive economy. Milton Friedman's comment about using spoons to dig tunnels comes to mind.

You and this administration operate under the misapprehension that there is a "multiplier" effect for money spent by the gov't. In this fantasy every dollar the gov't spends returns 1.38 or whatever to the economy. But there is no free lunch. Otherwise gov't would just borrow and tax all the money they could and spend it and we would enjoy limitless prosperity. The truth is that the "multiplier" is less than one, meaning we lose money every time the gov't spends.

 

[Photonic]

Not yet anyway. But give Geithner and Bernanke a little more time and we'll see what happens.

The criticism made is very valid. If you gave people make-work jobs you would take them out of the productive economy. Milton Friedman's comment about using spoons to dig tunnels comes to mind.

You and this administration operate under the misapprehension that there is a "multiplier" effect for money spent by the gov't. In this fantasy every dollar the gov't spends returns 1.38 or whatever to the economy. But there is no free lunch. Otherwise gov't would just borrow and tax all the money they could and spend it and we would enjoy limitless prosperity. The truth is that the "multiplier" is less than one, meaning we lose money every time the gov't spends.

Pretty much dead on what Winston Churchill said (And was right about).

"For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle."

 

[editec]

We've chased CAPITAL out of this national economy by paying our workers a living wage.

Now that was fine when our economic system was protected from imports by tariffs but since we've been systematically destroying those safeguards, naturally CAPITAL has migrated to those places where, thanks to low wages and fewer regulations, the cost of production is lower.

What I am finding somewhat annoying about posting this obvious fact is this:

Pretty much anyone who reads my thoughts on this subject and agrees with it, didn't need me to post it to begin with.

 

[Vanquish]

We've chased CAPITAL out of this national economy by paying our workers a living wage.

Now that was fine when our economic system was protected from imports by tariffs but since we've been systematically destroying those safeguards, naturally CAPITAL has migrated to those places where, thanks to low wages and fewer regulations, the cost of production is lower.

What I am finding somewhat annoying about posting this obvious fact is this:

Pretty much anyone who reads my thoughts on this subject and agrees with it, didn't need me to post it to begin with.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Joseph A. Palermo: The Perils for Obama of Not Talking About Poverty in America

Did Obama really think he could "jump start" the economy by leaving millions of home "owners" to the tender mercies of Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America? Did he really believe he could "stimulate" the economy with a largely Republican package of tax incentives when virtually every dollar of federal "stimulus" money was erased by draconian budget cuts at the state and local levels? Does he really think that "triggers" inside the debt ceiling "deal" are going to have a moderating influence on his nemeses among the Far Right?

Without a significant tax hike on the richest people in this country the $825 billion bailout of the big investment banks and insurance companies of September 2008 represents a massive transfer of wealth from working people to Wall Street and another hit against ordinary taxpayers. Where's the fairness in that? Where's Obama's sense of outrage toward those who ransacked the middle class? Why doesn't he feel any righteous anger toward those who promulgated the terrible policies during the Bush years that kicked the country to its knees economically? Why is Obama so implacable and emotionless in the face of those who have done so much damage to the country he supposedly loves? That guy really must have ice water running through his veins. He simply takes in stride the onslaught that has so crippled the nation, destroyed the lives of millions of unemployed Americans who had no responsibility whatsoever in bringing about this sorry state affairs. He and other "leaders" sit on the sidelines while many of our most important public institutions that bind us together as a people are ruined or cut back to nothing including public schools, public health, public services, public parks, public safety.

I'm sending this article to Obama.

You may as well, you haven't any original thoughts in that pea brain of yours.

 

[The Rabbi]

We've chased CAPITAL out of this national economy by paying our workers a living wage.

Now that was fine when our economic system was protected from imports by tariffs but since we've been systematically destroying those safeguards, naturally CAPITAL has migrated to those places where, thanks to low wages and fewer regulations, the cost of production is lower.

What I am finding somewhat annoying about posting this obvious fact is this:

Pretty much anyone who reads my thoughts on this subject and agrees with it, didn't need me to post it to begin with.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

Geez what a moron. Are you really supposed to be a lawyer? I didnt know Wal Mart sold degrees.
No one is entitled to a job. Let's get that straight right off. Labor is a competitive field. And manufacturers are offered labor at different rates on different terms throughout the world. They look at all the pluses and minuses and make the decision that makes the most sense for their company.
If that means avoiding unionized shitholes like the northeast where lazy thugs think they are owed a paycheck and health insurance then so be it. I would be pretty sure workers in AL are grateful to all the asshole union members in Detroit for their jobs.
But that happens on a worldwide basis. And instead of knocking Chinese workers American workers ought to figure out how they can compete. And if they can't compete they need to go do something else.

 

[FA_Q2]

We've chased CAPITAL out of this national economy by paying our workers a living wage.

Now that was fine when our economic system was protected from imports by tariffs but since we've been systematically destroying those safeguards, naturally CAPITAL has migrated to those places where, thanks to low wages and fewer regulations, the cost of production is lower.

What I am finding somewhat annoying about posting this obvious fact is this:

Pretty much anyone who reads my thoughts on this subject and agrees with it, didn't need me to post it to begin with.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

It does not matter because it is not the responsibility of the company to ensure the continued success of the country, that is the governments domain. As such, we conservatives rightly put the buck back on the government to come up with a viable solution to the issue. As editec pointed out, tariffs was one such protection though it will cause harm as prices surge up it also keeps employment at a better place. That is a viable, constitutional and proper role for the government to take. Expecting companies to source in America as they go out of business when their competitors do not is asinine. You are essentially shifting the blame of the government not doing its job to companies that not only cannot do such a thing because they will go out of business but also have no place doing it.


By the way, companies do not represent the nation as a whole and owe no allegiance to it. They represent shareholders. That is it. The government is there to set up a legal framework that makes the system benefit the country.

 

[Vanquish]

We've chased CAPITAL out of this national economy by paying our workers a living wage.

Now that was fine when our economic system was protected from imports by tariffs but since we've been systematically destroying those safeguards, naturally CAPITAL has migrated to those places where, thanks to low wages and fewer regulations, the cost of production is lower.

What I am finding somewhat annoying about posting this obvious fact is this:

Pretty much anyone who reads my thoughts on this subject and agrees with it, didn't need me to post it to begin with.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

It does not matter because it is not the responsibility of the company to ensure the continued success of the country, that is the governments domain. As such, we conservatives rightly put the buck back on the government to come up with a viable solution to the issue. As editec pointed out, tariffs was one such protection though it will cause harm as prices surge up it also keeps employment at a better place. That is a viable, constitutional and proper role for the government to take. Expecting companies to source in America as they go out of business when their competitors do not is asinine. You are essentially shifting the blame of the government not doing its job to companies that not only cannot do such a thing because they will go out of business but also have no place doing it.


By the way, companies do not represent the nation as a whole and owe no allegiance to it. They represent shareholders. That is it. The government is there to set up a legal framework that makes the system benefit the country.

Ahhhh so a GOVERNMENT solution. That's amazing!!!!! Responsibility on the government!! Yeah, the citizenry, including business is just able to have NO RESPONSIBILITY and fuck everyone. The job of government is to stop business from fucking everyone? I love it. How insanely wrong.

How hard is it for you to understand the idea of "indirect consequences"? We're living in one of the worst times in our country because big business has either paid off or pissed on members of government to get them to bend to their will. They're making record profits, but instead of helping American workers, you just sit there and say "that's capitalism. you don't give away your money if you dont have to."

This is going to be the highlight of my day...your quote about how government is supposed to fix everything.

 

[Full-Auto]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

It does not matter because it is not the responsibility of the company to ensure the continued success of the country, that is the governments domain. As such, we conservatives rightly put the buck back on the government to come up with a viable solution to the issue. As editec pointed out, tariffs was one such protection though it will cause harm as prices surge up it also keeps employment at a better place. That is a viable, constitutional and proper role for the government to take. Expecting companies to source in America as they go out of business when their competitors do not is asinine. You are essentially shifting the blame of the government not doing its job to companies that not only cannot do such a thing because they will go out of business but also have no place doing it.


By the way, companies do not represent the nation as a whole and owe no allegiance to it. They represent shareholders. That is it. The government is there to set up a legal framework that makes the system benefit the country.

Ahhhh so a GOVERNMENT solution. That's amazing!!!!! Responsibility on the government!! Yeah, the citizenry, including business is just able to have NO RESPONSIBILITY and fuck everyone. The job of government is to stop business from fucking everyone? I love it. How insanely wrong.

How hard is it for you to understand the idea of "indirect consequences"? We're living in one of the worst times in our country because big business has either paid off or pissed on members of government to get them to bend to their will. They're making record profits, but instead of helping American workers, you just sit there and say "that's capitalism. you don't give away your money if you dont have to."

This is going to be the highlight of my day...your quote about how government is supposed to fix everything.

If everyone was making record profits then we wouldnt be in a down turn or the number of millionaires that have been reduced.

I know you have your eye on the international profits. Just confused onhow to tap that.

 

[Vanquish]

If you listen to what the majority of conservatives say, they blame Obama for the stockpiles of cash not being spent. "They're afraid of what healthcare is going to cost / do to the markets." Blame it on the boogeyman.

I know you have your eye on the international profits. Just confused onhow to tap that.

Good question. It's hard for America to win in the modern economy where we don't lead in technology...we don't lead in efficiency of our work force...we can't lead in price...we don't have specific markets that can't be copied. Every product can be copied by some other country, produced more efficiently by some other country, and made cheaper due to cost of living than some other country.

Isolationist trade tariffs may be the answer...or be our total downfall.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Why do companies come to Alabama to open shop? Because we have some of the WORST pay rates and WORST worker protections in the country. Why do companies go to India, China, and Mexico? for exactly the same reason.

Because of the high American standard of living, companies will go elsewhere to (referencing another post above) increase their ROI.

When I said patriotism above...I was attempting to use words that conservatives seem to go ga-ga over...to explain why they should stay in America instead of maximizing profit outside the U.S.

The results might be indirect, but by directly hurting the country, these companies are hurting themselves. Shooting themselves in the foot over the long run. Yes, there's a quick buck to be made, but it's certain death at the end of the road.

I love the apologists for corporate greed like Rabbi. "Fuck everyone. Who the fuck are you to say people can't make as much profit as possible?" Go for it. Make the quick buck and fuck the country. America's decline isn't going to stop until the rest of the world's standard of living comes up...or ours goes down. World economic equilibrium.

It does not matter because it is not the responsibility of the company to ensure the continued success of the country, that is the governments domain. As such, we conservatives rightly put the buck back on the government to come up with a viable solution to the issue. As editec pointed out, tariffs was one such protection though it will cause harm as prices surge up it also keeps employment at a better place. That is a viable, constitutional and proper role for the government to take. Expecting companies to source in America as they go out of business when their competitors do not is asinine. You are essentially shifting the blame of the government not doing its job to companies that not only cannot do such a thing because they will go out of business but also have no place doing it.


By the way, companies do not represent the nation as a whole and owe no allegiance to it. They represent shareholders. That is it. The government is there to set up a legal framework that makes the system benefit the country.

Ahhhh so a GOVERNMENT solution. That's amazing!!!!! Responsibility on the government!! Yeah, the citizenry, including business is just able to have NO RESPONSIBILITY and fuck everyone. The job of government is to stop business from fucking everyone? I love it. How insanely wrong.

How hard is it for you to understand the idea of "indirect consequences"? We're living in one of the worst times in our country because big business has either paid off or pissed on members of government to get them to bend to their will. They're making record profits, but instead of helping American workers, you just sit there and say "that's capitalism. you don't give away your money if you dont have to."

This is going to be the highlight of my day...your quote about how government is supposed to fix everything.

You prove yourself a bigger fucking moron with every post.
Do you think conservatives believe gov't has no responsibility at all? If so, what would we need it for? Obviously gov't is both necessary and has responsibilities. And FA has outlined what those are.
The old "it takes a village to run a business" meme is over.

 

[Vanquish]

Rabbi, apparently you havent noticed...I don't respond to your posts. You're so fucking full of shit and couldnt carry on an honest discussion if your mom's life depended on it. Keep talking if you must, just don't expect a response.