[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[bripat9643]

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country. When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?

 

[PMZ]

You're a king sized jackass, PMS. The fact that I don't know what the acronym you invent refers to doesn't mean I don't know what Mergers and Acquisitions are.

If you had any good arguments, you'd post them instead of the cheap shots you're so fond of.

The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.

Typical ranting about what you wish was true.

It doesn't matter who invented it. Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.

I agree. That's why I called you for making an issue of it.

 

[PMZ]

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country. When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?

I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.

Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole. She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.

 

[RKMBrown]

Certainly corporations aren't on average having any trouble with profits now after achieving the high unemployment that they treasure.

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then your response to me not hiring you is your demand for free health care. ROFL Hire me or I'll drive you to bankruptcy. ROFL dude eventually I will leave or start shooting the criminals who take my property from my family.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that you think that I invented the acronym is evidence enough that you are uninformed about the topic.

Typical ranting about what you wish was true.

It doesn't matter who invented it. Only a jackass without any facts or logic would make an issue of it.

I agree. That's why I called you for making an issue of it.

You made an issue of it, jackass.

 

[bripat9643]

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country. When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?

I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.

Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole. She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.

The word "optimize" is meaningless babble. Government doesn't "optimize" anything. Neither do corporations. The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.

Furthermore, conservative government never fails. Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.

 

[PMZ]

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care. ROFL

My point is not what you wish it was. It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is. We control government by voting and business by buying.

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We, the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country, we, the people, then we ought to, and do, have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it.

Of course, one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.

 

[PMZ]

Why would any corporation try to "optimize" the entire country. When did that idea every get into any corporate charter?

I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.

Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole. She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.

The word "optimize" is meaningless babble. Government doesn't "optimize" anything. Neither do corporations. The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.

Furthermore, conservative government never fails. Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.

Words have meaning. They have the prescribed meaning to us even if you would prefer a different meaning.

 

[bripat9643]

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care. ROFL

My point is not what you wish it was. It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is. We control government by voting and business by buying.

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We, the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country, we, the people, then we ought to, and do, have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .

What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose? That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism. The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.

[Of course, one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.

More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm just pointing out one of the reasons why conservative government always fails.

Ayn Rand was the first to propagandize that optimizing each piece always optimizes the whole. She was just plain wrong as my example plainly demonstrates.

The word "optimize" is meaningless babble. Government doesn't "optimize" anything. Neither do corporations. The former taxes you and then doles out the money to its favored cronies, while the later produces products and services in exchange for your money.

Furthermore, conservative government never fails. Of course, we've haven't had a real conservative government since Calvin Coolidge, who actually managed to cut government spending by 25%.

Words have meaning. They have the prescribed meaning to us even if you would prefer a different meaning.

You never use the correct words because you're basically illiterate. "Optimize" is meaningless in terms of business or government. First you would have to determine what the "optimum" is, and no one agrees on that.

 

[PMZ]

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care. ROFL

My point is not what you wish it was. It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is. We control government by voting and business by buying.

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We, the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country, we, the people, then we ought to, and do, have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .

What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose? That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism. The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.

[Of course, one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.

More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?

Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country. That is Constitutionally unsupportable.

 

[bripat9643]

My point is not what you wish it was. It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is. We control government by voting and business by buying.

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We, the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country, we, the people, then we ought to, and do, have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it. .

What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose? That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism. The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.

[Of course, one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.

More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?

Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country. That is Constitutionally unsupportable.

You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.

I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse." Of course you don't want to explain that. Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.

 

[PMZ]

What kind of "loss" are you suggesting, and what manner of "recourse" do you propose? That sounds suspiciously like you're proposing something indistinguishable from socialism. The last thing this country needs is even more meddling by politicians with business.



More "effective" at what, send the nation swirling down the toilet bowl?

Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country. That is Constitutionally unsupportable.

You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.

I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse." Of course you don't want to explain that. Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.

I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we, the people.

It is our country to run.

I explained our recourse. What we buy, and whom we vote for.

 

[lakeview]

35% is fair, since you asked.

 

[bripat9643]

Clearly you are of the "mind" that business owns the country. That is Constitutionally unsupportable.

You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.

I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse." Of course you don't want to explain that. Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.

I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we, the people.

It is our country to run.

I explained our recourse. What we buy, and whom we vote for.

You're weaseling, as usual. What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.

We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?

Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses. Government and business are two separate things.

 

[PMZ]

You are of the mind that the federal government owns business, and that is Constitutionally unsupportable, not to mention idiotic and irrational.

I also didn't fail to notice that you didn't define what you mean by "loss" or "recourse." Of course you don't want to explain that. Like all leftists, you just like to have vague threats hanging in the air.

I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we, the people.

It is our country to run.

I explained our recourse. What we buy, and whom we vote for.

You're weaseling, as usual. What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.

We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?

Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses. Government and business are two separate things.

Customers have always determined how businesses are run. Capitalism 101.

 

[RKMBrown]

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then in response to me not hiring you is you demand free health care. ROFL

My point is not what you wish it was. It's that businesses should be held by the people of the country as accountable as government is. We control government by voting and business by buying.

Another control point is to use government to regulate business, an alternative as old as the country is.

We, the people have to become more informed and better organized to exercise the right to control both services to us.

If a win for a particular company results in a loss for the owners of the country, we, the people, then we ought to, and do, have recourse. We merely need to become more effective at it.

Of course, one way to become more effective is to oust Republicans from government until they return to servicing us.

Businesses are nothing more than a collection of people contracting to work together. Punishing businesses by placing responsibilities on them to take care of other people not associated with the collection of people in the business is, at best, asinine.

Additionally, our government is nothing more than a collection of people that work for the people of this country. Holding them accountable for YOUR welfare is, at best, asinine. They are tasked with the general welfare, not individual welfare in the form of redistribution from one citizen to the next based on your desires for a free ride through life.

Servicing you? Now you want free blow __s? Not enough you want my money now you want me on my knees at your pants? WTF?

 

[originalthought]

Backed up the claim that patents are property? Or backed up the claim that individuals hold rights? HUH?

Separation of state and what? First you say you are against property rights, then you say you are for property rights, then you say separation of law from the economy. ROFL you are all over the map.

Definition of Idiot: 2. A foolish person.

Where did I say I was against property rights? Quote me.

I went back and added bold emphasis to your stated lack of support of rights to property.

Where? Make it very simple for me to see. Tell me which post number, and quote where i said i am against property rights. The only bold part here is what you said I said, but have never said that? Are you a lier? Please quote me... Where did I say i am against property rights?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm in mind of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of we, the people.

It is our country to run.

I explained our recourse. What we buy, and whom we vote for.

You're weaseling, as usual. What do you mean by the words "loss" and "recourse?" You obviously don't want to say.

We already have recourse listed above, so what were you whining about?

Voters choose whatever scumbags they want to run the government, but they have no right to determine how owners run their businesses. Government and business are two separate things.

Customers have always determined how businesses are run. Capitalism 101.

You obviously aren't talking about customers choosing where to spend their dollars. Someone tried to pin you down on your dishonest use of language, so now you're weaseling.

 

[itfitzme]

Why should I hire someone I don't need with money I don't have?

That depends whether you are trying to optimize one corporation or the entire country. In the case of unemployment, those perspectives are mutually exclusive.

Therein lies the reason socialism does not work. You appear to believe that only I can create a job for you and if I refuse you believe you have the right to punish me with fines for refusing to hire you against all better judgement. This apparently because I have a job therefore I should be punished for it. Then you wonder why I would not hire you. Then your response to me not hiring you is your demand for free health care. ROFL Hire me or I'll drive you to bankruptcy. ROFL dude eventually I will leave or start shooting the criminals who take my property from my family.

Meaningless. There is no such thing as "punishment" in taxing. The only place this exists is in your subjective mind. At the very foundation, your reasoning is faulty.

There also is no "socialism" except in your own fantacy perception.