- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I am somewhat surprised that you do not know where jobs suddenly come from. They come from free people making decisions, choosing, for themselves in freedom, with the smallest possible interference and the fewest possible number of obstacles put in their place by the state. We have not seen that for a very long time. Nor have you. I remember it. It does not seem that you do.And where are these jobs going to suddenly appear from?
Are you familiar with Pavlov's experiments?
What other firms were able to provide the services that Haliburton provided?
I have been aware for roughly 40 of my 59 years. And you?
Oh sure you can. And obviously did.Pavlov and his cute little doggies. I regret I cannot link to your implication here.
No. There were not. There was one who was able to deliver. Nice try though.You mean what other firms could offer privitization of warfare services? Or is logisitic services? or a few billion in overbilling services? or build temporary housing that electrocutes shower takers? or multiple instances of rape and abuse of female contractors? there were a ton of other companies.
Many companies sprouted up to nibble around the edges. Such is the way of a free market. KBR came later.That's a good question. And the answer to your question about competitors providing the same services is an emphatic NO, particularly since Kellogg and Brown & Root (first offshore platforms), have now been subsumed by Halliburton.
Many companies sprouted up to nibble around the edges. Such is the way of a free market. KBR came later.
I meant they came to the theater later. In the beginning the military looked for alternatives. They found none. This is a side-show.Yes, KBR came much later. But check your facts: Brown and Root was founded the same year as Halliburton, 1919.
I relied upon your statements, the statements of an expert, to draw my conclusion. From each...to each is pretty telling. You said you view each individual's wealth as the nation's wealth. How are your taxes? Are they steeply progressive. If so you are much farther along the path to Marxist socialism than you are willing to admit.
I'd check that math boss.by the time he is finished the national debt will go from the 7 trillion he has added to it to near 30 trillion and things wont be better. We'll see.
Look, you haven't got a clue how a marxist government and economy is configured.
I do did not say an individual's wealth is the nation's wealth. I said that the majority of our wealthy don't have a problem with paying a little more if that is required FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION AND ITS ECONOMY.
Taxes are progressive in much the same fashion as the US and every other country on the planet. Its obvious you don't have a road map, or you'd realize how foolish your prediction is, and how much you don't know about marxism.
I said, "The poor need jobs. They do not need maternalistic government. They need the dignity of standing on their own rather than crouching and kissing the hand that feeds them in return for their vote."
To which you replied,
I am somewhat surprised that you do not know where jobs suddenly come from. They come from free people making decisions, choosing, for themselves in freedom, with the smallest possible interference and the fewest possible number of obstacles put in their place by the state. We have not seen that for a very long time. Nor have you. I remember it. It does not seem that you do.
You have a problem with that? Man, healthcare mandates, personal responsibility . . . Republicans will give up any of their values/ideas if they come out of Obama's mouth. He should just recite the Republican platform at the next debate and suddenly Republicans will be the liberal party.His whole campaign gets curiouser and curiouser! :roll:
Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country' | The Weekly Standard
For a President to say that nobody is is entitled to success in the USA? :roll:
That's plain wrong.
And yet you did claim that the central tenet of Canadian government is to take from the people based on their ability to pay. And you did say that people are cared for based upon their needs. You seem quite proud of the plundering mindset that comes from the marxian heart.
You did say that your taxes are steeply progressive. This was an essential part of Marxism's need to wreck capital formation. It strips the individual of his sovereignty and elevates the dictatorship of the proles.
And I am pretty certain you were amost gloating about how the wealth of the people is really the wealth of the state. [whisper] You are actually way closer to Radical Karl's utopia than you think.[/whisper]
Because they don't NEED to. If they don't NEED to hire another person, WHY do so, regardless of sales figures?Really? so why aren't companies creating those jobs in america right now?
American corporations? Almost no such thing anymore, sunny jim. Sure, they might have an OFFICE in the country. But a warehouse? A factory? Not when the cost of doing so is four times that of shipping that work elsewhere.American corporations have enjoyed 4 years of record corporate profits and have amassed over $5 trilllion in profits that for some strange reason they are not willing to invest in america.
I doubt his desire for freedom is a simple "kick".You know this freedom kick you're is spurious.
Ditto for the US.there has never been a time in the past 100 years of Canadian history, where industry did not have regulations, subsidies, tax breaks etc.
Yes. Last I checked, it's responsible for the modern world. If you don't LIKE the modern world...well, I assume you live in Canada...lots of space up there to go hardcore back woodsman.But you seem to be in favour of laissez faire capitalism. Worked real well at the turn of the 20th didn't it?
And I am constantly amazed that people who support more government control ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification)I am constantly amazed that people who espouse such economic freedom, would rather ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification inparticular).
Depends on the timeline your looking at. Over a long enough time period, EVERYTHING fails.there has never been a laissez faire capitalist system that didn't scew itself up.
Hell look at what wall street et.al. did five years ago - or did you conveniently forget what reduced regulations and lack of oversight accomplished?
The housing crisis was a result of our government REQUIRING mortgage companies to approve "minorities" (read: people with worse credit ratings) for home loans. THAT was Clinton's baby. So, the bakers approved these people for loans that they otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE. Because they had more loans and thus more paperwork to plow through, they had to hire more and more staff to handle the load. I mean, overnight, the ellegable customer base for home loans nearly doubled. If you've ever bought a house in the US, you are aware of the amount of crap involved. The banks, fearing (rightly so) that these loans were unstable, sold them off. To investment firms. The investment firms, using perfectly legal means, bundled those toxic loans (toxic = risky) with other LESS risky loans, in order to sweeten the sale, and called them securities, in a nice little bit of double speak. Insurance companies where the major customers for these, because they have to have high assets as a nature of the business they do. All of this continued right on through Bush, up till the crash. Was there corruption involved? A lack of oversight? Yes. On the part of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You see, many of our elected officials came to those government jobs BY WAY of jobs at places like Goldman Sachs, or, hey, Bane Capital. And many of them, should they not get re-elected, had those jobs to go BACK to. In other words, they are COMPROMISED. Many of them have SWEET retirement packages, as a result of certain deals done, papers signed, while in office. Some of them have investment returns not allowed to the rest of the general public, more results of the same actions.
Do you see the problems here? The only REAL corruption we have...is NOT on the private side. It's on the public side.
Hahahahahahahah.
No, the central tenant is to provide for the social compact and that in order to do so, Canadians pay according to their ability to do so. A tad different, but it seems you have trouble even with obvious nuance. We are very proud of the society we have crafted - over multiple generations and multiple political parties in power.
No, I said our taxes were progressive. I made no mention of steepness. It certainly does not wreck capital formation. How you get this notion of stripping individual sovereignty is beyond me. Individual sovereignty is constrained in every society in one fashion or another. Dictatorship of the proles - now that is just hilarious.
AGain you attempt to read into my statements meaning that is not there. In Canada, our right to private property is entrenched in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So how do you figure an individuals wealth is really the wealth of the state? OTOH, most canadians recognize that giving back within reason to their nation is appropriate since it is the nation that provided the financial/economic opportunity, helped create our standard of living, enshrined our rights, helped define and certainly implemented our social compact. We view that as all positive reasons for supporting our nation with a few extra bucks here and there.
You take a different tack. But notions of marxism dancing in your head are perfectly positioned.
Because they don't NEED to. If they don't NEED to hire another person, WHY do so, regardless of sales figures?
A very large % of those record profits came at the expense of american workers. Those companies that laid of millions of workers and then demanded that those that remained work longer and harder to maintain production/service without any appreciable increase in income.
At some point they will need to invest those profits, they are years behind in the competitive race. They seem content to sit back and maintain the status quo, while other nation's and their corporations, unfettered by inertia invest heavily in themselves to position themselves for future competitiveness. It a price that will surely be paid down the road.
American corporations? Almost no such thing anymore, sunny jim. Sure, they might have an OFFICE in the country. But a warehouse? A factory? Not when the cost of doing so is four times that of shipping that work elsewhere.
Nonsense. There are tens of thousands of American Corporations headquartered in the States. There are millions of warehouses, hundreds of thousands of factories. You seem to ignore that US workers are the most productive in the world.
Yes. Last I checked, it's responsible for the modern world. If you don't LIKE the modern world...well, I assume you live in Canada...lots of space up there to go hardcore back woodsman.
And I am constantly amazed that people who support more government control ignore human nature (particularly greed, corruption and ego gratification)
Okay I'll agree about its contribution to upper societal stratum and industrialization. I do not support more government control, I support appropriate government control.
The housing crisis was a result of our government REQUIRING mortgage companies to approve "minorities" (read: people with worse credit ratings) for home loans. THAT was Clinton's baby. So, the bakers approved these people for loans that they otherwise WOULD NOT HAVE. Because they had more loans and thus more paperwork to plow through, they had to hire more and more staff to handle the load. I mean, overnight, the ellegable customer base for home loans nearly doubled. If you've ever bought a house in the US, you are aware of the amount of crap involved. The banks, fearing (rightly so) that these loans were unstable, sold them off. To investment firms. The investment firms, using perfectly legal means, bundled those toxic loans (toxic = risky) with other LESS risky loans, in order to sweeten the sale, and called them securities, in a nice little bit of double speak. Insurance companies where the major customers for these, because they have to have high assets as a nature of the business they do. All of this continued right on through Bush, up till the crash. Was there corruption involved? A lack of oversight? Yes. On the part of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. You see, many of our elected officials came to those government jobs BY WAY of jobs at places like Goldman Sachs, or, hey, Bane Capital. And many of them, should they not get re-elected, had those jobs to go BACK to. In other words, they are COMPROMISED. Many of them have SWEET retirement packages, as a result of certain deals done, papers signed, while in office. Some of them have investment returns not allowed to the rest of the general public, more results of the same actions.
Do you see the problems here? The only REAL corruption we have...is NOT on the private side. It's on the public side.
So corruption, de-regulation and lack of oversight all contributed to the financial meltdown. And the solution is laissez faire? Feed corruption, strangle regulation and tie up any govenment enforcement in the courts for decades is the right balanced formula where america and americans can live happily ever after?
And the citizens of Canada are most likely OK with this because their government is not composed of corrupted, compromised individuals whose primary purpose is to serve one corporation or another. They don't have a government that is more willing to spend money to take life, than to save it. they don't have a government that is building tanks and jets it's military doesn't need, just to appease the unions that make them. The list goes on and on and on...but the message is, americans, the ones with any amount of sense and money, anyway, have a real problem handing over hard earned money to an entity that, for all intents and purposes, is going to mismanage it, waste it, or outright lose it.
Did you miss the crucial parts about a free people operating with the lowest possible interference from government?Really? so why aren't companies creating those jobs in america right now?
It is a perfectly sensible thing to say the way you mean it.What the hell are you talking about? My question is, is Obama trying to trick people into believing he's conservative? :lol:
It is a perfectly sensible thing to say the way you mean it.
He means you are not entitled to your success. "if you've got a business you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
He means the state should take your wealth because you are not entitled to your success. He is a thug and a tyrant. You are neither. And that makes all the difference.
nonsense. he doesn't believe that.
I do.But if you insist that obama does believe that and that he is a thug and a tyrant,
It was a realistic assessment. About half of the nation are takers who would not vote for Romney no matter what. They want Obamaphones, Obamabucks, Obama's stash. Many of them have been losers all of their lives. Obama validates their miserable lives.what do you make of romney's arrogant dismissal of 47% of America?
Of course he does. He is a collectivist. he is a Marxist. he is a thug. He wants a reason to steal the wealth from the people who created it to give to the people stupid enough to vote for him.
It was a realistic assessment. About half of the nation are takers who would not vote for Romney no matter what. They want Obamaphones, Obamabucks, Obama's stash. Many of them have been losers all of their lives. Obama validates their miserable lives.
Been there. Done that. Here is the abbreviated version:No he's not, yes he is, no he's not, yes he is.
how about we actually settle this. Explain to me the marxist doctrine that Obama and the dems support. Collectivism is at the core of your economy and of your government. It does not predominate, but its an integral part.
That was five sentences.IN that one sentence you have highlighted what is so wrong about right wing ideology.
It is accurate. About half of those who work either pay no federal income tax or they get back more than they paid in as direct payments from the government. If you want to argue that it is not 47% it is only 41% I will shrug my shoulders.NOt only is it inaccurate, it vilifies half the country, unfairly.
First your statement, while interesting, is not provable, and secondly, it is irrelevant.Welfare fraud represents a very small portion of payments,
First this is a mischaracterization. Second it is a straw man. It is irrelevant to my statements.but of course you have to extrapolate that to everyone and imply it predominates when it surely does not.
Nice try. No not really. The takers are not the ones who serve in the military. Of course, you already know that. Senior citizens might be takers. Some, no doubt are. Some may have been takers for much of their lives. Others have been makers of wealth during their economically productive years.And of course all military personnel that don't pay taxes are losers too? How about all the senior citizens? Such callousness towards fellow americans is not what built america
Been there. Done that. Here is the abbreviated version:
From each...to each. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
Steeply progressive taxes. Marxist, Canadian (based on your words) and Democratic Party doctrine.
You are not entitled to your success. Statist and Democratic Party doctrine.
I said, "It was a realistic assessment. About half of the nation are takers who would not vote for Romney no matter what. They want Obamaphones, Obamabucks, Obama's stash. Many of them have been losers all of their lives. Obama validates their miserable lives."
To which you replied
That was five sentences.
It is accurate. About half of those who work either pay no federal income tax or they get back more than they paid in as direct payments from the government. If you want to argue that it is not 47% it is only 41% I will shrug my shoulders.
First your statement, while interesting, is not provable, and secondly, it is irrelevant.
Well if it is a mischaracterization, please enlighten me. Funny I think it is a relevant inferance from your posts.First this is a mischaracterization. Second it is a straw man. It is irrelevant to my statements.
Nice try. No not really. The takers are not the ones who serve in the military. Of course, you already know that. Senior citizens might be takers. Some, no doubt are. Some may have been takers for much of their lives. Others have been makers of wealth during their economically productive years.
What built America was small, Constitutionally-limited government with citizens who worked. That America no longer exists.
Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with mine. It is a common ploy to commingle things and then say "See?"Those that work and pay no federal income tax but pay federal payroll taxes as well as state sales and property taxes represent 32% of the 47%, so now we are talking about 15% or so of the population. Seems you don't have a handle on what is actually going on when it comes to income tax credits.
Dishonest try. And a miss.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?