For all you Liberals

[Red Dawn]

Tired of continually getting yer arses handed to you by your Right Wing Lunatic Fringe Brethren?Click on this link and learn how to counter their arguments in just 3 minutes (about the amount of time they have for an attention span)

 

[freegeeks]

You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives

In fact, if you're a cheap-labor conservative reading this, you should be getting sick of that phrase right about now. Exxxxcellent.


LOL

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives

LOL

Cheap-Labor-Conservatives amuse me, they constantly beg for the axe to cut thier own throat. Guess they never heard the term "be careful what you ask for." Or "Liberia has an open immigration policy."

 

[BigJelly]

My basis for being a conservative is that the democrates message is the hard working are forced to care for the lazy.

My sister thought i was nuts, being a conservative since i was 14 years old; however, things changed when she got her first sallery job and the government takes over 50%. And the programs the government wastes on is to help the lazy scum of society.
Which brings me to another point, there are two types of liberals: those RICH enough to be liberals and those that are lazy. The liberals that are rich enough to be liberals expain themself--notice about 99.999% of them inherated their money or are in show buisness (though job, real hard workers

) Then the liberals that are lazy/not hard workers, one word describes them--teachers. This doesn't reply to all teachers, my public school teachers are the best the state had to offer and would beat any private school in quality. But look at the facts people, the schools keep getting more and more money and the test scores keep going lower and lower. If the teachers cared more for the students and less about their pay checks, our schools would be in a much better shape--but that would be too much work. Also labor unions, originally big buisness would just rape their employees--hazardous conditions, low pay, and insain hours. But now labor unions want to do less and less but want more money and then complain when a company goes belly up. Just for the record almost all labor union employees got a tax refund from Bush, guess every labor worker is super rich--according to the left.
Wow that brings me another point, this article says that the right is the party of brainwashers, but neglects the brainwashing from the left. I know brainwashing occurs on both side of the political spectrum, but neglect the left's brainwashing destroys anyone's credibility. First of all the idea of schools, the idea of giving them more and more money. Acutually if you compare test scores to government money you'd find an inversly proportional relationship (the more money we give to education the lower the test scores). For those who don't believe me, where the he!! have you been; the news always reports lower scores and the government always gives the educational system more and more money this year. (When a liberal says a conservative is a against eduacation and wants to cut their budget, 99.9% of the time the conservative still is INCREASING the education budget--just not as much as the liberal wanted to increase it.
Well i could go on and on but i don't have time.

 

[Zebo]

My basis for being liberal is: if you think people cheat on online gaming just wait until real money is involed in the game called life.

BJ (sorry could'nt resist), I agree with much of what you say that's why we have this dual party system, for balance. When people start loosing thier jobs in massive numbers again, no money for schools, working in slave labor conditions, we'll all get liberal real qucik like again when we look on the hill and see billionairs like Gates.

 

[Ferocious]

I was a conservative having voted for Reagan and Bush SR. twice.....and was a Gingrich supporter initially.

But as I gained more real world experience.....I realized the modern Republican party is simply dominated by anti- middle class people and ideas.

The Democrats are barely any better.....but they are a bit better.

 

[Zebo]

however, things changed when she got her first sallery job and the government takes over 50%.

You must have missed the cheap-labor-conservative ploy here "Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water". . Sorry , Cheap-labor conservatives have shifted the tax burden to middle and middleupper class because of this. Taxes used to be around 10% for your average american and 70-90% for the uber rich from the time of Eisenhower until Reagan came along. Your blame is misdirected.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

But as I gained more real world experience.....I realized the modern Republican party is simply dominated by anti- middle class people and ideas.

That's usually what happens when people get more real world experience and start trying to see it though others' eyes.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Zebo

however, things changed when she got her first sallery job and the government takes over 50%.

You must have missed the cheap-labor-conservative ploy here "Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax like the devil hates holy water". . Sorry , Cheap-labor conservatives have shifted the tax burden to middle and middleupper class because of this. Taxes used to be around 10% for your average american and 70-90% for the uber rich from the time of Eisenhower until Reagan came along. Your blame is misdirected.

Sorry you are again misdirected because my argument is that the middle class is screwed by the government's wasteful spending and the liberals always supporting the scum of society. After welfare was cut heavily, over 50% of the people on welfare got jobs. Not only are they not sucking the money out of the middle class' pockets but they are paying taxes.
And like i said if politicians would stop wasting money on useless programs and stop throwing money on problems (education system) no one, of any class, would need to be taxed 50%. Your comment, about the upper class being taxed 70-90%, just screams the brainwashing of the left--let the strongest few hold up the laziest society has to offer. What this country needs is a new party one for the middle class that says to current politicians--stop wasting tax dollars, to the lazy people--work or starve, and tells the rich--pay your share; no more, no less. (Keywords YOUR SHARE not everyone else's share).

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I was a conservative having voted for Reagan and Bush SR. twice.....and was a Gingrich supporter initially.

But as I gained more real world experience.....I realized the modern Republican party is simply dominated by anti- middle class people and ideas.

The Democrats are barely any better.....but they are a bit better.

That is completely backwards.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Zebo: WHAT two party system are you talking about? You must be in some other country because America HAS NO TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

Jason

 

[Tom]

Generic question for tax haters-

Would you rather pay 40% of $50,000 income in taxes or 20% of $30,000 ?

Because without all the stuff you get from the taxes you pay, the overall economy would be much smaller and less productive and average wages would be commensurately smaller.

And besides having more money with the first option you also live in a society that can respond to stuff like terrorism, SARS, sick people, lock up criminals, have someone come keep your house from burning down, etc, etc.

If people ever get over the selfish notions that dominate current politics, and instead decide to fully fund government programs that actually improve quality of life and productivity; even if the tax percentage goes up the average person will be better off because their piece of the economy will be enough larger that they would actually be better off.

 

[LunarRay]

generic answer...

I belong to my party. I am interested in my condition tax wise and not yours. I vote accordingly. I support policies that enable me to enjoy life better. What ever party or whomever the candidate is that supports legislation that is consistent with this position is who or what I support with my vote.

The bigger picture is supported by those folks so every position is supported and at the end of the day everyone loses or gains a bit...

 

[Tom]

exactly what i was talking about. everyone acting in their own interest doesn't result in the best outcome for the group or for the individual members of the group.

 

[Dari]

What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

yes and no. you reward hard workers and fire those that can't/don't want to perform. and you should hoard profits in case you need more capital to expand business, use as a buffer in bad times, or to uphold your credit ratings.

In my world, the employee and employer would negotiate a fluctuating salary where performance pays. Government interference would be illegal.

EDIT: Unions would also be illegal because they promote complacency, laziness, and too much arbitration.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

yes and no. you reward hard workers and fire those that can't/don't want to perform. and you should hoard profits in case you need more capital to expand business, use as a buffer in bad times, or to uphold your credit ratings.

In my world, the employee and employer would negotiate a fluctuating salary where performance pays. Government interference would be illegal.

EDIT: Unions would also be illegal because they promote complacency, laziness, and too much arbitration.

I am not sure if I follow you completely. One's interference could be anothers protection. How would you protect labor against unsafe or inhumane practices?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

yes and no. you reward hard workers and fire those that can't/don't want to perform. and you should hoard profits in case you need more capital to expand business, use as a buffer in bad times, or to uphold your credit ratings.

In my world, the employee and employer would negotiate a fluctuating salary where performance pays. Government interference would be illegal.

EDIT: Unions would also be illegal because they promote complacency, laziness, and too much arbitration.

I am not sure if I follow you completely. One's interference could be anothers protection. How would you protect labor against unsafe or inhumane practices?

the laws on the books are good enough.

A truly global system with borderless migration policies is good for both sides. it is good for those seeking laor and good for employers. not only does it answer the complaints of liberals that complain that we don't help the world's poor, but it also opens up everyone's economy for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, it's a win-win-win situation (for employer-employee-consumer). Nothing could be better.
But no unions. they are too expensive, corrupt, and slow for everyone.

 

[Tom]

How come unions are bad but corporations are good ?

They are both groups of people seeking to gain maximum advantage for themselves.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
exactly what i was talking about. everyone acting in their own interest doesn't result in the best outcome for the group or for the individual members of the group.

The saying isn't group rights, it's individual rights. It's what the country was founded on, I know y'all would like to forget that though.

And about your 40% of 50,000 or 20% of 30,000. What if that 20% of 30,000 was turned into 0% of 30,000? Say someone had a 30,000 job but had the ability to work overtime to earn another 20,000 dollar, do you think he would knowing every hour he spends at work is going straight to some welfare case. But since it's for the group, yeah he should. Any other bright ideas?

KK

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
exactly what i was talking about. everyone acting in their own interest doesn't result in the best outcome for the group or for the individual members of the group.

The saying isn't group rights, it's individual rights. It's what the country was founded on, I know y'all would like to forget that though.

And about your 40% of 50,000 or 20% of 30,000. What if that 20% of 30,000 was turned into 0% of 30,000? Say someone had a 30,000 job but had the ability to work overtime to earn another 20,000 dollar, do you think he would knowing every hour he spends at work is going straight to some welfare case. But since it's for the group, yeah he should. Any other bright ideas?

KK

I'm talking about what factors an individual might consider when excersizing their individual right to vote. That's all.

I think I didn't make my point about the income scenario. My point is that the way to maximize a particualr person's income isn't necessarily the simplistic notion of lowering taxes. Much of the money that is paid in taxes goes to pay for things that directly or indirectly increase the output of the society and therefore increase the income of an individual.

Another fact that seems to be completely misunderstood is that the amount of money that goes to welfare programs is a very small part of government spending, and much of it goes to children. If you think it would be better to turn these kids out in the streets, think about this, it's cheaper to feed and educate a person and have them become a contributor to the output of the society, than it is to hire more police and prison guards to protect you from the inevitable result of abandoning them.

And another thing, you should stop thinking about poor people as some other group that is seperate from you, they are just as entitled to participate in our society as you are. You can argue in some kind of social Darwinism where you are entitled to a bigger share than them because you work harder, but that is largely BS. Poor people aren't lazy, they just haven't had the same opportunities to succeed.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Because without all the stuff you get from the taxes you pay, the overall economy would be much smaller and less productive and average wages would be commensurately smaller.

What?? What exactly to I get from all the taxes that I pay??? Better yet, what does taxing me to death do for the economy?

I tend to think that if I didn't have an approximate 60% tax burden on me, I'd have a lot of extra money to put straight into the economy. IMO, that would be a far bigger boost than the government taking the money from me.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

yes and no. you reward hard workers and fire those that can't/don't want to perform. and you should hoard profits in case you need more capital to expand business, use as a buffer in bad times, or to uphold your credit ratings.

In my world, the employee and employer would negotiate a fluctuating salary where performance pays. Government interference would be illegal.

EDIT: Unions would also be illegal because they promote complacency, laziness, and too much arbitration.

In your world I'd not trust you to be the determiner of my performance... I like my world where regardless of my performance I'm protected by the union contract. You can fire me for cause and I can arbitrate the dismissal... or if I ain't in a union I work at "the pleasure of Management" where if I'm good at what I do I'll be rewarded until I'm old and like in your world I'll be let go... with no where to find a job to support my family... cuz young folks will accept lower wages for similar work... Good for the government to oversee this condition with both eyes... and OSHA they keep you from cutting corners and endangering me and all hosts of needed issues... like workers comp and erissa and what you do with my pension money... good for the government ... I am the government and I don't trust you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Dari
What's wrong with cheap labor? Would you rather be paying your employees extravagant amounts? And please don't say "fair," because that means different things to different people.

Oh... I should think like the employer.. Ok. Lets see..

Fair... Maybe I can say fair... lets see.. I invest $ into a business.. that is my risk. I need an ROI that considers the risk free rate and the beta. OK... so if I get that plus a bit and pay my salary - cuz I'm pretty sharp.. I have a good idea of my direct cost structure - being sharp and all... so if I get some extra $ I can share it fairly with the work force or keep it for myself and my political agenda... PAC support to get government to buy more of my stuff and I make more $ and on and on... or I can be fair... and give some back to the folks who help me help them.. tuff choice... I'll keep it all and the heck with the PAC and the EE's... Just in case next year we get into a depression I've got all this gold stashed away..

yes and no. you reward hard workers and fire those that can't/don't want to perform. and you should hoard profits in case you need more capital to expand business, use as a buffer in bad times, or to uphold your credit ratings.

In my world, the employee and employer would negotiate a fluctuating salary where performance pays. Government interference would be illegal.

EDIT: Unions would also be illegal because they promote complacency, laziness, and too much arbitration.

In your world I'd not trust you to be the determiner of my performance... I like my world where regardless of my performance I'm protected by the union contract. You can fire me for cause and I can arbitrate the dismissal... or if I ain't in a union I work at "the pleasure of Management" where if I'm good at what I do I'll be rewarded until I'm old and like in your world I'll be let go... with no where to find a job to support my family... cuz young folks will accept lower wages for similar work... Good for the government to oversee this condition with both eyes... and OSHA they keep you from cutting corners and endangering me and all hosts of needed issues... like workers comp and erissa and what you do with my pension money... good for the government ... I am the government and I don't trust you.

In his world, if you don't trust how I run the ship - find a different ship to scrub the deck of - no one is forcing you to work for me.

CkG