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

[blu]

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.

no one has ever been able to show with hard numbers that tax cuts to rich people == better wages or working conditions for employees. At best it allows more people to work in shit conditions for shit pay while making rich people even richer.

 

[blu]

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?

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Government's only proper role in business is to set the table and step back. That is, they provide the the rules of the game, ensure a proper fair method of dispute settlement (court system). Reasonable regulation to ensure one segment of the population is not overly damaged by imperfect information.

That said, on the sliding scale of more and less regulation, more regulations that companies are required to comply with will impose more costs upon those companies. Sometimes those costs are societally justified and sometimes not. But, when government intervention leads to uncertainty, corporations will fail to be profitable. This usually happens when government starts to money with the "table" they are supposed to set.

You can see that very thing happening today. And, it isn't helping any of us.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

You realize that's the result, not of pure capitalism, but of socialism much like social democracy, right? Especially the matter of the poor being able to eat- in large part due to food stamps, welfare, Social Security/SSDI, etc.

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?

Very High Human Development

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7
Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


Canada beat us on both, apparently.

 

[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.


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?

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

You realize that's the result, not of pure capitalism, but of socialism much like social democracy, right? Especially the matter of the poor being able to eat- in large part due to food stamps, welfare, Social Security/SSDI, etc.

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?

Very High Human Development

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7
Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


Canada beat us on both, apparently.

That's why people are rushing to Canada and Norway from the US. Voting with their feet to get the hell out of the hell hole that is America at any cost.

Oh wait......their not. Nutter.

Guess they forgot to measure something in their statistics huh? Might it be because like most UN things, they are against the US? Nah.....that couldn't be it, not at all.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

It's easy to find because the first three pages of Google show the "80% have air conditioning" to be a con talking point of the day, with every right-wing blogger picking up on the same exact story. I looked no further than three pages in Google to counter the argument since that much was clear.

But it really only proves one thing: Every day it's some "new statistic" or hopefully injurious "story" written by someone that takes off among the wide reach of the right wing noise machine, and ultimately filters down to someone posting the subject on message boards like this one. Aren't you people aware that you're suffering from severe tunnel vision?

But back to the subject. Here's a fact for ya: A small window air conditioner costs about $80.00. Big fucking deal. If you're somewhere on the east coast today sweltering in 100+ degree heat and humidity, only I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU assholes would imply that a family should be spending $80.00 on something else instead of deciding to buy a fucking air conditioner.

 

[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?

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.

It's easy to find because the first three pages of Google show the "80% have air conditioning" to be a con talking point of the day, with every right-wing blogger picking up on the same exact story. I looked no further than three pages in Google to counter the argument since that much was clear.

But it really only proves one thing: Every day it's some "new statistic" or hopefully injurious "story" written by someone that takes off among the wide reach of the right wing noise machine, and ultimately filters down to someone posting the subject on message boards like this one. Aren't you people aware that you're suffering from severe tunnel vision?

But back to the subject. Here's a fact for ya: A small window air conditioner costs about $80.00. Big fucking deal. If you're somewhere on the east coast today sweltering in 100+ degree heat and humidity, only I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU assholes would imply that a family should be spending $80.00 on something else instead of deciding to buy a fucking air conditioner.

You know, people used to live here without Air Conditioners. Just sayin'

You don't NEED it. I hear the stories every time I visit with my grandparents. When I first got to DC I lived in a house with no AC and they had the hottest May on record. Over 18 days above 90 degrees. But, I might not be poor enough for you to care.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

You realize that's the result, not of pure capitalism, but of socialism much like social democracy, right? Especially the matter of the poor being able to eat- in large part due to food stamps, welfare, Social Security/SSDI, etc.

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?

Very High Human Development

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7
Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


Canada beat us on both, apparently.

That's why people are rushing to Canada and Norway from the US. Voting with their feet to get the hell out of the hell hole that is America at any cost.

Oh wait......their not. Nutter.

Guess they forgot to measure something in their statistics huh? Might it be because like most UN things, they are against the US? Nah.....that couldn't be it, not at all.

The heritage foundation is against the US?


There's one for the Conspiracy Theories forum

 

[JBeukema]

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.

You realize that's the result, not of pure capitalism, but of socialism much like social democracy, right? Especially the matter of the poor being able to eat- in large part due to food stamps, welfare, Social Security/SSDI, etc.

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?

Very High Human Development

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7
Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


Canada beat us on both, apparently.

like most UN things, they are against the US

 

[blu]

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?

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

um most of these places dont even have proper governments in place to that sort of thing.

also if you want to see real exploitation of native people look what we did in places like Pohnpei, we took them over as protectorates and then let corporations go wild on them with no education on dangers of products they were dealing with or proper exericse etc.

after a couple decades there over 50% of the population had diabetes and the population basically was cut in half due to less and less babies being born and living because we let companeis sell cigarettes and alcoholwith no education to women about dangers of those during pregnancy.

walmart was of course the biggest company tehre and its products responsible for much of the death and sickness there. they didn't give a shit though they took their millions from it and never looked back just like they have done across the world

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

And here my history books say that Rockefeller built his fortune in oil and J.P. Morgan in banking. Regardless of their lucrative investments, they also ultimately became two of the greatest philanthropists of the time. Can you say the same about, say, Bank of America or Citibank?

 

[Tech_Esq]

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

um most of these places dont even have proper governments in place to that sort of thing.

also if you want to see real exploitation of native people look what we did in places like Pohnpei, we took them over as protectorates and then let corporations go wild on them with no education on dangers of products they were dealing with or proper exericse etc.

after a couple decades there over 50% of the population had diabetes and the population basically was cut in half due to less and less babies being born and living because we let companeis sell cigarettes and alcoholwith no education to women about dangers of those during pregnancy.

walmart was of course the biggest company tehre and its products responsible for much of the death and sickness there. they didn't give a shit though they took their millions from it and never looked back just like they have done across the world

Stop being a racist. They are allowed to have whatever kind of government they want. You don't get to judge them and find them wanting. You don't know their culture and shouldn't tell them what they can and can't do or should or shouldn't do.

Such hypocrisy.

 

[Flopper]

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?

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

No, that's not Walmart's fault. Walmart acts in the best interest of it's stockholders, not it's employees, nor it's customers. If they get fat, Walmart will sell them diet pills, if they get diabetes Walmart will sell them insulin. If they all die, Walmart will relocate the store.

The company's only allegiance is to it's shareholders. Employers are the tools of the trade. Customers provide the revenue. Both are replaceable. It is not the job of the company to protect it's employees or customers. That's the governments job.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

You realize that's the result, not of pure capitalism, but of socialism much like social democracy, right? Especially the matter of the poor being able to eat- in large part due to food stamps, welfare, Social Security/SSDI, etc.

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?

Very High Human Development

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States

Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3 2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0 3 Australia 82.6 0.0 4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1 5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9 6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7 7 Canada 80.4 -0.1 8 United States 78.0 -2.7
Index of Economic Freedom: Link Between Economic Opportunity and Prosperity | The Heritage Foundation


Canada beat us on both, apparently.

That's why people are rushing to Canada and Norway from the US. Voting with their feet to get the hell out of the hell hole that is America at any cost.

Oh wait......their not. Nutter.

Guess they forgot to measure something in their statistics huh? Might it be because like most UN things, they are against the US? Nah.....that couldn't be it, not at all.

Oh please. Most citizens of ANY country don't look to another country and yearn to pack up and move there. Your response was a non sequitur of the worst kind. The general question was posed, and it was answered accordingly.

 

[JBeukema]

walmart and big companies like that don't give people better lives you jackasses. you should read accounts of any small country that prevously lived off the land and other traditional things before walmart came. now the people, who know nothing of sugar, trans fat, etc are all fat as fuck and lazy due to industry (cars, bikes, etc) as well as having the highest diabetes and lung cancer rates in the world b/c the corps teach them nothing about the dangers of eating sugar all day while smoking three packs of cigarettes. all of which just further enriches multi millionaries while thousands of people die painful deaths.

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

No, that's not Walmart's fault. Walmart acts in the best interest of it's stockholders, not it's employees, nor it's customers. If they get fat, Walmart will sell them diet pills, if they get diabetes Walmart will sell them insulin. If they all die, Walmart will relocate the store.

The company's only allegiance is to it's shareholders. Employers are the tools of the trade. Customers provide the revenue. Both are replaceable. It is not the job of the company to protect it's employees or customers. That's the governments job.

The Corporation

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

It's easy to find because the first three pages of Google show the "80% have air conditioning" to be a con talking point of the day, with every right-wing blogger picking up on the same exact story. I looked no further than three pages in Google to counter the argument since that much was clear.

But it really only proves one thing: Every day it's some "new statistic" or hopefully injurious "story" written by someone that takes off among the wide reach of the right wing noise machine, and ultimately filters down to someone posting the subject on message boards like this one. Aren't you people aware that you're suffering from severe tunnel vision?

But back to the subject. Here's a fact for ya: A small window air conditioner costs about $80.00. Big fucking deal. If you're somewhere on the east coast today sweltering in 100+ degree heat and humidity, only I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU assholes would imply that a family should be spending $80.00 on something else instead of deciding to buy a fucking air conditioner.

You know, people used to live here without Air Conditioners. Just sayin'

You don't NEED it. I hear the stories every time I visit with my grandparents. When I first got to DC I lived in a house with no AC and they had the hottest May on record. Over 18 days above 90 degrees. But, I might not be poor enough for you to care.

Not my point. When one can be purchased for $80.00, why not? Twenty years ago the same air conditioner cost $180.00. Now that's different. I would go without and sweat it out--like we did back in the day.

My main point is why shouldn't poor people have things you might consider "luxuries" but which in the real world have become ordinary household items?? I notice in some retort, it was even mentioned that they had microwaves and refrigerators. I mean, puleeze, this is the 21st Century. Poor people should be living as though it were still the early 20th Century and remain in their place on the outside looking in? That seems to be the message I'm getting.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's easy to find because the first three pages of Google show the "80% have air conditioning" to be a con talking point of the day, with every right-wing blogger picking up on the same exact story. I looked no further than three pages in Google to counter the argument since that much was clear.

But it really only proves one thing: Every day it's some "new statistic" or hopefully injurious "story" written by someone that takes off among the wide reach of the right wing noise machine, and ultimately filters down to someone posting the subject on message boards like this one. Aren't you people aware that you're suffering from severe tunnel vision?

But back to the subject. Here's a fact for ya: A small window air conditioner costs about $80.00. Big fucking deal. If you're somewhere on the east coast today sweltering in 100+ degree heat and humidity, only I-GOT-MINE-SO-FUCK-YOU assholes would imply that a family should be spending $80.00 on something else instead of deciding to buy a fucking air conditioner.

You know, people used to live here without Air Conditioners. Just sayin'

You don't NEED it. I hear the stories every time I visit with my grandparents. When I first got to DC I lived in a house with no AC and they had the hottest May on record. Over 18 days above 90 degrees. But, I might not be poor enough for you to care.

Not my point. When one can be purchased for $80.00, why not? Twenty years ago the same air conditioner cost $180.00. Now that's different. I would go without and sweat it out--like we did back in the day.

My main point is why shouldn't poor people have things you might consider "luxuries" but which in the real world have become ordinary household items?? I notice in some retort, it was even mentioned that they had microwaves and refrigerators. I mean, puleeze, this is the 21st Century. Poor people should be living as though it were still the early 20th Century and remain in their place on the outside looking in? That seems to be the message I'm getting.

I'm sorry, I'm seeing a very American centric post here. I would suggest you might not be familiar with the "real world". Let me tell you what I've observed. I lived in Germany for 3 years. Germany is supposedly one of the most industrial and advanced countries in Europe. The living accommodations there probably would not meet your standard. I had friends that had to chop wood to heat the water in their water heater. I had an apartment that had a floor made of 2x4s with carpet tiles over it. That's not to say there weren't better places there, but we're talking average.

Now, think what the people in places a little less industrialized than Germany might live in. We're not even talking 3rd world. I'm talking first world. After you consider that, now think what it must be like in the many countries that are third world. Our homeless do better than most people in a third world country. Mildly motivated homeless ppl in DC make over $50k panhandling.

 

[blu]

'Cuz that's probably Walmarts fault.

Their government needs to take care of their people and control their county's engagement in trade with other countries including the US. That's their responsibility.

um most of these places dont even have proper governments in place to that sort of thing.

also if you want to see real exploitation of native people look what we did in places like Pohnpei, we took them over as protectorates and then let corporations go wild on them with no education on dangers of products they were dealing with or proper exericse etc.

after a couple decades there over 50% of the population had diabetes and the population basically was cut in half due to less and less babies being born and living because we let companeis sell cigarettes and alcoholwith no education to women about dangers of those during pregnancy.

walmart was of course the biggest company tehre and its products responsible for much of the death and sickness there. they didn't give a shit though they took their millions from it and never looked back just like they have done across the world

Stop being a racist. They are allowed to have whatever kind of government they want. You don't get to judge them and find them wanting. You don't know their culture and shouldn't tell them what they can and can't do or should or shouldn't do.

Such hypocrisy.

is this sarcasm?

 

[midcan5]

This thread is an example of why wingnuts are wingnuts. Connecting 'too big to fail' to your partisan ideological economic nonsense is a prime example of idiocy in the extreme. TBTF is a real problem and a separate issue from business behemoths. Businesses can fail and do. TBTF is a modern phenomena that combines banking and gambling, and privatizes profit as it socializes risk.

Who was it exactly who bailed out the banks, and under what administration, and what were the ideas that led to this collapse? Any ideas.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Fearful-Rise-Markets-Synchronized-Meltdowns/dp/0137072996/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Fearful Rise of Markets: Global Bubbles, Synchronized Meltdowns, and How To Prevent Them in the Future…[/ame]


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics-Course-Future-Finance/dp/1594202508/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance (9781594202506): Nouriel Roubini, Stephen Mihm: Books[/ame]


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/How-West-Grew-Rich-Transformation/dp/0465031099/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World (9780465031092): Nathan…[/ame]



"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith