"When Is Big Too Big Part II": Another liberal failure.

[bucs90]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

 

[Oddball]

Funny thing is that none of the usual hand-wringing suspects dared to look up and post how much "profit" the District of Columbia Corporation raked in, while producing absolutely nothing that anyone would want to buy.

Well, more pathetic than funny.

 

[bucs90]

Funny thing is that none of the usual hand-wringing suspects dared to look up and post how much "profit" the District of Columbia Corporation raked in, while producing absolutely nothing that anyone would want to buy.

Well, more pathetic than funny.

Yeah, there are dozens of industries that make more in profit margin than oil companies. Good stat you posted on how the government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil company does. Now I know why Obama and Bush are one in the same.

But yeah, a system that produces companies that rich, and a poor class that is that well off despite being the "poor" of their country????? WHAT exactly did Obama want to "CHANGE" about a country that produces such wealth for it's people?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It doesn't matter to them.... they see the Gubmint as omnipotent. It can do no wrong as it confiscates wealth and in most cases, just earnings, promises to spread it around and then blows it bailing out its cronies in the private sector and funding pet projects.

Yes, these folks are as clueless as they come. They still think "the rich" are going to pay for it all.

 

[Woyzeck]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Fannie? Freddie?

 

[bucs90]

I don't think liberals grasp the idea that their boss is rich. Their boss works for a company that is rich. If we take from the rich, they rich are not going to say "Aw shucks, guess I gotta sell one of my boats and cancel my European vacation now."

No. They will layoff working people. They will downsize. They will relocate out of state/country (See Illinois, California, NY, NJ). They will find a way to get by. But the pain will be felt at the bottom, not the top.

BUT.....of course, that means those who are laid off or take pay cuts or can't find jobs then do what? They become dependent on the government to fill that void of needs.

Libbies, THAT is the true intent of taxing the rich. Not to help anyone, but to create more dependent people. Probably too complex a thought for most left wingers to grasp though.

 

[Flopper]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

It doesn't take big government to lessen the influence of the multinationals, it takes some legislators with enough guts to pass real campaign reform.

 

[bucs90]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

It's very well documented. Google it. Why do liberals always need the material directly in front of you to know it? Can't you folks RESEARCH anything??? Well, guess not, no one researched Obama in summer of 08.


Oh, and yes, "YAY FOR US" is OK with me. Is it not for you? Does Wal-Mart FORCE those people in 3rd world countries to work there? Nope. They volunteer to work there. Hey, maybe Wal-Mart should leave those countries and just not offer those jobs, right?

Whats wrong with yay for us? Isn't that what every country on the planet wants, a better life for their people?

 

[bucs90]

It doesn't take big government to lessen the influence of the multinationals, it takes some legislators with enough guts to pass real campaign reform.

You mean legislators with enough guts to violate the constitution. The Supreme Court already ruled that corporations have the same freedom of speech as we do as individuals. Thats why Dictator Obama scolded them in front of the world, like a true thug.

Hey, I'm not crazy about the idea of a corporation that influences government. But I'm less crazy about a government that silences and crushes any opinions from corporations. After all, what % of population works for a corporation, and what % works for a government???

 

[bucs90]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America | The Heritage Foundation

That took like 10 seconds with a google search. You guys gotta learn to research topics and political candidates a bit more.

80%+ of the "poor" in America have air conditioning. Let them whine to the people in Africa about how evil American rich people are now.

 

[Woyzeck]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

It's very well documented. Google it. Why do liberals always need the material directly in front of you to know it? Can't you folks RESEARCH anything??? Well, guess not, no one researched Obama in summer of 08.

If it's so well-documented, it shouldn't be too much trouble to post what you're getting this information from. This is how it works you know, you make an assertion, someone wants a link of where you got it from, you provide it, otherwise why should I be taking your word for it?

Oh, and yes, "YAY FOR US" is OK with me. Is it not for you? Does Wal-Mart FORCE those people in 3rd world countries to work there? Nope. They volunteer to work there. Hey, maybe Wal-Mart should leave those countries and just not offer those jobs, right?

Whats wrong with yay for us? Isn't that what every country on the planet wants, a better life for their people?

A better life at the expense of other human beings is hardly different from pre-Revolutionary France. The difference is, we've outsourced far and away out of our realm of perception. Wal-Mart does not have a great reputation for providing great and safe jobs in these third world countries. When brought to their attention, they stop doing business with such factories, but Wal-Mart subcontracts to thousands of companies, so there is a small chance they can inspect them all for grave working violations.

 

[Flopper]

It doesn't take big government to lessen the influence of the multinationals, it takes some legislators with enough guts to pass real campaign reform.

You mean legislators with enough guts to violate the constitution. The Supreme Court already ruled that corporations have the same freedom of speech as we do as individuals. Thats why Dictator Obama scolded them in front of the world, like a true thug.

Hey, I'm not crazy about the idea of a corporation that influences government. But I'm less crazy about a government that silences and crushes any opinions from corporations. After all, what % of population works for a corporation, and what % works for a government???

No, I don't want special rules for big corporations. I would like to campaign spending limited. Say, $200,000 for Congressmen. That would allow people to run without selling their souls to big corporations and special interest groups.

 

[Flopper]

I think what some people are missing here is that government regulations does not equate to socialism. Capitalism without regulation just doesn’t work. Without regulation eventually a few companies will grow to such a size that they will control the market as well the government. Look back at our history to the days of Morgan and Rockefeller or the growth of unregulated capitalism in Africa. Capitalism was a disaster for the common man. Socialism without free markets such as in the USSR and North Korea has been equally disastrous. It is only through regulated capitalism can we achieve real long-term growth and prosperity.

 

[Oddball]

Morgan and Rockefeller built their empires on gubmint-granted monopolies on rights-of-way and mineral rights.

Any more myths you have handy to be debunked?

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

Actually, our own president has called for closing the poverty gap in our country. And thats a noble cause.

But isn't it true "poverty" in America isn't really that bad? The "poor" in our country are often fat (food plentiful). They have cars. TV's. Refridgerators and air conditioning. Cable TV. Cell phones. Video games. Microwaves. So, it's all relevant. Poor by USA standards, not by global ones.

So, I suppose my conclusion is this: Our country produces private companies that are richer than many of the entire nations on the planet. Our country produces a lower class of citizens that have AC, TV, microwave, car, cell phone, cable tv, and are obese.

Ain't capitalism grand? So, lets look at long term effects of capitalism vs socialism.

Capitalism in America: Richest nation on Earth, produces companies that are richer within their company than many other nations, a poor class that lives better than 95% of the rest of the world. With our recessions and occassional depressions, I'd say the hurt is far worth the spikes and fruits of this system.

Now, lefties, show me examples in the world of more left leaning, government dominant socialist type nations that produce a better outcome for their people than what we have here? I, for one, am proud to see that companies like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Microsoft thrive to such an astounding degree in this nation that they are richer than so many of the other nations on Earth.

And on a final note, some libs said it's not right that a corporation would have so much influence on government decisions. Well, once again, the lefties are showing their desire for a government so strong and large, that neither the people nor the private companies can have any influence.

It doesn't take big government to lessen the influence of the multinationals, it takes some legislators with enough guts to pass real campaign reform.

Anti-democratic methods never work in this country. Only more democracy works here. Attempting to suppress free speech will not solve any problems, it only creates more.

 

[MaggieMae]

;2479085]This is partly in response to the first "When is big too big" thread, and another of my examples of the failure of the progressive ideology.

The post asked if Exxon Mobile's billions of dollars in earnings is "too big". It pointed out that Exxon Mobile is richer than some dozens and dozens of actual countries in the world. Well, in fact, if you took seperate only the African American population of the United States, they would be the 5th richest nation on Earth. Fact.

I don't quite get your point, unless you're suggesting that Exxon Mobil could theoretically subsidize all the black citizens in the United States.

Personally, I don't care how much Exxon Mobil earns. But I do not think they should get away with paying zero in taxes PLUS reaping a tax refund for 2009 because of unanticipated payments to their 2008 pension fund. Oil company subsidies remain, to the tune of $3 billion per year, although the OA has attempted to at least divert those subsidies to struggling entrepreneurs who need seed money for alternative energy startups.

 

[Tech_Esq]

lolwhut? How is someone below the poverty line have all that? I hope you have a link for this. Out of curiosity, does this statastic include homeless people too?

And of course, the irony of your pride in Wal-Mart as part of providing a better outcome, is that Wal-Mart employs people in third world countries and pays them horrendously low wages. So yeah, they help provide a better outcome for us, while screwing over someone else. Yay for us?

It's very well documented. Google it. Why do liberals always need the material directly in front of you to know it? Can't you folks RESEARCH anything??? Well, guess not, no one researched Obama in summer of 08.

If it's so well-documented, it shouldn't be too much trouble to post what you're getting this information from. This is how it works you know, you make an assertion, someone wants a link of where you got it from, you provide it, otherwise why should I be taking your word for it?

Oh, and yes, "YAY FOR US" is OK with me. Is it not for you? Does Wal-Mart FORCE those people in 3rd world countries to work there? Nope. They volunteer to work there. Hey, maybe Wal-Mart should leave those countries and just not offer those jobs, right?

Whats wrong with yay for us? Isn't that what every country on the planet wants, a better life for their people?

A better life at the expense of other human beings is hardly different from pre-Revolutionary France. The difference is, we've outsourced far and away out of our realm of perception. Wal-Mart does not have a great reputation for providing great and safe jobs in these third world countries. When brought to their attention, they stop doing business with such factories, but Wal-Mart subcontracts to thousands of companies, so there is a small chance they can inspect them all for grave working violations.

Regulating working conditions in foreign countries is a job for the relevant country, not a corporate entity. If they were so bad, I'm sure our country wouldn't agree to do business with them, right? Isn't that really what governments are for, to manage these macro issues? Your blaming Walmart and you should be blaming government.

You need to stop wanting the government to do the things a corporation should do and stop wanting corporations to do things that a government should do. All of this sounds a little more corportist than is reflective of my actual feelings about corporations, but blaming them for all the ills of the world is just silly, stupidity.

 

[MaggieMae]

Funny thing is that none of the usual hand-wringing suspects dared to look up and post how much "profit" the District of Columbia Corporation raked in, while producing absolutely nothing that anyone would want to buy.

Well, more pathetic than funny.

Yeah, there are dozens of industries that make more in profit margin than oil companies. Good stat you posted on how the government makes more off a gallon of gas than the oil company does. Now I know why Obama and Bush are one in the same.

But yeah, a system that produces companies that rich, and a poor class that is that well off despite being the "poor" of their country????? WHAT exactly did Obama want to "CHANGE" about a country that produces such wealth for it's people?

So much for your barely true analysis. About two-thirds of Exxon Mobil's profits come from oil and natural gas production outside the United States. They don't just sell gasoline in East Podunk USA.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think liberals grasp the idea that their boss is rich. Their boss works for a company that is rich. If we take from the rich, they rich are not going to say "Aw shucks, guess I gotta sell one of my boats and cancel my European vacation now."

No. They will layoff working people. They will downsize. They will relocate out of state/country (See Illinois, California, NY, NJ). They will find a way to get by. But the pain will be felt at the bottom, not the top.

BUT.....of course, that means those who are laid off or take pay cuts or can't find jobs then do what? They become dependent on the government to fill that void of needs.

Libbies, THAT is the true intent of taxing the rich. Not to help anyone, but to create more dependent people. Probably too complex a thought for most left wingers to grasp though.

Funny that those bosses didn't do any of that in the 90's when the tax rate was 39% instead of 34%.