Minimum Wage - From another topic

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:44 pm

clonan wrote:And donated an average of 3:1 to McCain over Obama.


Not according to the figures I found. I found them hard to believe and double checked them. Another popular myth that I believed true melted before my very eyes. The truth is, the ratio was about 3 times as much was donated to President Obama's campaign as was donated to John McCain's campaign by banks and insurance companies.

clonan wrote:Of course AIG and bankers are going to be some of the largest single investors. When you have a wealth distribution like we do in the US, AIG and the others could donate their pocket change and they would still be some of the biggest contributors.


Better look at our budget again, clonan.

clonan wrote:You are kidding right??? :?: Are you seriously suggesting that the financial industry thought Obama was going to be MORE lax on them than McCain?


Well, let's see. It was the Bushbaby, for whom I have no love whatsoever, who wanted to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Who stood in the way? Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a long list of "liberals". Who has been handing out money as though it were candy since the Bushbaby and Paulson left? Why, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! Gee, I wonder why?

clonan wrote:Think about what you just said man!


I always do and it almost always pisses off everyone of every political stripe. I call 'em like I see 'em and I check my numbers first. I NEVER but NEVER swallow a party line. I have yet to meet a politician I thought I could trust.

clonan wrote:Notable and respected...again, did you think about what you said?

Unless you do something dramatic like maybe give birth to IVF Octuplets when you are unemployeed you HAVE to be extremly wealthy to develop any sort of national noteriety. This goes for Right and Left.


And your point is? Who owns the microphones and controls access to them? The liberals. Who constantly advocates punitive taxation? The liberals. Who does everything that they can think of to hinder the individual trying to rise above his beginnings? The liberals. Why? They think everybody should be the same, and if they are not the same, they should be force to be as much like everyone as possible. They can kiss my shiny metal ass over that one.

clonan wrote:All you are saying is that money buys air time...


And your point is? They are championing the political philosophy you favor.

clonan wrote:It is a proven fact that the GOP members tend to have more money then the Dem. members...


And you should quit swallowing leftist propaganda hook line and sinker.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Postby clonan » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:05 am

MSimon wrote:Look at the results and tell me who is crazy.


Yes lets...

We are a superpower because we were the only industrialized nation NOT decimated by two world wars. We then manufactured the reconstruction for the world. We are not a superpower because of some inherent feature of American society.

Lets look at America vs the rest of the world..

We have higher rates of:

Depression
suicide
violent crime
obesity
heart attacks/strokes
mental illness (schizophrenia etc)
diabetes
etc
etc
etc

We have more expensive:

Healthcare
transportation
education
etc
etc
etc

I am not suggesting that a pure socialist systems work. Pure socialism works as well as pure capitalism...as in NOT.

I think we need to tone down the individualism to about 90% of what we have and fill in the gap with social cooperation.

This will lead to cheaper living expenses and a vibrant economy.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Postby clonan » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:11 am

MSimon wrote:Let me see: they colluded with government to eliminate competition. They were not competing interests.


Review your recent history. In almost every case Bush cut funding for regulation and transitioned to "self" monitoring. While Bush did add thousand of pages of regs, most of those were to provide exemptions or limit state powers to regulate.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Postby clonan » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:38 am

Billy Catringer wrote:
Not according to the figures I found. I found them hard to believe and double checked them.


The please provide a link to your figures. I would be VERY interested in seeing them. Every reference I have seen over the last 25 years suggest that finance spends on conservative candidates at 2-4 times the rate of liberals. There are hundreds of studies out there...I would love to see the one you are talking about.


Billy Catringer wrote:Better look at our budget again, clonan.


Huh? Why would the federal budget have any bearing on AIG's money? Or are you talking about the distribution of money? You are aware that the average HOUSEHOLD income in the US is 44K. You are aware that 100K HOUSEHOLD income puts you in the top 3%.


Well, let's see. It was the Bushbaby, for whom I have no love whatsoever, who wanted to reign in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Who stood in the way? Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a long list of "liberals". Who has been handing out money as though it were candy since the Bushbaby and Paulson left? Why, President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi! Gee, I wonder why?


I do wonder why because the "liberals" were talking about re nationalizing Fannie and Freedie and zeroing out investors...a real boon for those finance investors...

I NEVER but NEVER swallow a party line. I have yet to meet a politician I thought I could trust.


Good for you! But you obviously haven't met many politicians...they are always very good at making you THINK you can trust them.


And your point is? Who owns the microphones and controls access to them? The liberals. Who constantly advocates punitive taxation? The liberals. Who does everything that they can think of to hinder the individual trying to rise above his beginnings? The liberals. Why? They think everybody should be the same, and if they are not the same, they should be force to be as much like everyone as possible. They can kiss my shiny metal ass over that one.



I must disagree with you here. Most media is OWNED by right or right leaning people. Fox news, MSNBC, Disney, Universal etc.

As you point out I am a liberal and proud of it. I can tell you that I and EVERY liberal I know thinks it is absolutely disgusting to try and force everyone to be the same. Not only is it stupid but it is impossible.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that individuals often need support to START to improve themselves where as those that already succeeded can better fend for themselves.

Conservatives feel that without protection the wealth will be lost. Personally, I have far more confidence in the successful.

I have been poor and I am currently rich. I know I could end up poor again and I know I could become rich again if I needed too.

Those who have already succeeded are getting a disproportionate share of the resources of the country. They don't get direct pay-outs but they make huge incomes from the stability the country affords them. (Go to a less stable country and try to make the same income) Therefore since the rich get more from the country than the poor AND since the rich need the stability to maintain their income AND since progressive taxing structures generate stability in societies THEN rich should pay more to help the poor start the journey to becoming rich.

I and everyone I know STRONGLY feel that all people should have food, shelter and basic education. EVERYTHING else must be earned. A car is a luxury and must be earned through work. TV is a luxury and must be earned through work. Eating out is a luxury and must be earned.
Last edited by clonan on Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:52 am

Yeah. Americans are less civilized. It is part of our charm. We prize individual liberty. A lot of folks find that attractive.

Of course liberty is not for every one. Even a lot of Americans don't like it. Pity.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:53 am

EVERYTHING must be earned.

Because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Postby clonan » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:51 am

MSimon wrote:Yeah. Americans are less civilized. It is part of our charm. We prize individual liberty. A lot of folks find that attractive.

Of course liberty is not for every one. Even a lot of Americans don't like it. Pity.


I disagree...I think Americans are MORE civilized. I am an American and proud of it. I strongly feel that generally the US is on the right track. But the last 30 years has taken the generally good principle of individualism too far.

Take it back to about 90% of what it is today and I think you will see dramatic improvments in EVERYBODIES liberty. The price is that everyone may have to give up the POTENTIAL of making the last one tenth of one percent of your wealth so that everyone can have the oportunity to make the first 99.9% of thier wealth if they choose to work for it.

MSimon wrote:EVERYTHING must be earned.

Because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


Not in the US...

remember we are guaranteed Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness under the constitution. We have a constitutional mandate to provide all people (not just citizens) in the US these inalienable rights.

You don't earn your very first breath...what else don't you earn in life and only have because society as a whole feels it is important for YOU to have it?

MSimon wrote:Of course liberty is not for every one. Even a lot of Americans don't like it. Pity.


Very true, it is a pity that some don't appreciate it. Others like you and I will fight for it. I realize that liberty means more than just freedom from formal government. It also means freedom from oppressive businesses as well. You must have the mostly free market to put vitality in your society. You must have a government to keep the market free. Without both we can not have a vibrant society.

This has been a very fun and distracting conversation but speaking of oppressive businesses, I must go back to work. :)

pfrit
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 pm

Postby pfrit » Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:52 am

MSimon wrote:EVERYTHING must be earned.

Because there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


That's fair dickum, mate.

Does the Simon in MSimon refer to Simon Jester? Is the M for Mike? Is the name Bork taken yet? :)
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:28 am

clonan wrote:The please provide a link to your figures. I would be VERY interested in seeing them.

In truth, I should have demanded that you supply the source for your figures. You are the one making the unfounded assertions. However, since you asked, this is one of the sites I consulted. I'll let you dig around in there and satisfy yourself that I am not pulling your leg.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

clonan wrote:Huh? Why would the federal budget have any bearing on AIG's money? Or are you talking about the distribution of money? You are aware that the average HOUSEHOLD income in the US is 44K. You are aware that 100K HOUSEHOLD income puts you in the top 3%.

The overwhelming majority of the Federal Budget is devoted to socialist programs and it has been that way since Lyndon Baines Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater. The Republicans you are so quick to gripe about have done absolutely NOTHING to reduce this kind of expenditure. They want to brag about how they have and you and yours like to cry about how they have, but they haven't done any such thing.
clonan wrote:I do wonder why because the "liberals" were talking about re nationalizing Fannie and Freedie and zeroing out investors...a real boon for those finance investors...

Yes, and Maxine Waters has been threatening to nationalize the oil companies. That changes absolutely NOTHING about what they actually did on the floor of the US House and Senate. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are as about as independent of the Federal government as the US Postal Service. That is to say, they have never been and are not now actually separate from the Federal government. Their "private" nature is completely bogus and has been from the start of their existence.
clonan wrote:Good for you! But you obviously haven't met many politicians...they are always very good at making you THINK you can trust them.

I was a member of the Republican National Committee for several years, clonan. I know whereof I speak. No, I am NOT rich. No, I most certainly never will be. I decided that I don't want to be. I would have to play your nasty little game to keep the money. I would rather have the time than I had the money.
clonan wrote:I must disagree with you here. Most media is OWNED by right or right leaning people. Fox news, MSNBC, Disney, Universal etc.

Disagree with me all you bloody well please, it will not change the facts. Rupert Murdoc is a self-avowed socialist. MSNBC has the most far out on the left news coverage and commentary as there is to find, sometimes even further to the left than Current. CNN is still run by the people that Ted Fonda and her wife put in place. Where are you from?
clonan wrote:As you point out I am a liberal and proud of it. I can tell you that I and EVERY liberal I know thinks it is absolutely disgusting to try and force everyone to be the same. Not only is it stupid but it is impossible.

Okay, so I'll lay it on you straight. You are either a completely delusional idiot, or you are a practiced liar. Take your pick. What you are claiming is by no means or in any way a reflection of the real world.
clonan wrote:The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that individuals often need support to START to improve themselves where as those that already succeeded can better fend for themselves.

If your friends on the left were serious about such help for the legal citizens of the United States you would have long ago done something about controlling our border with Mexico. I could fend for myself a lot better if I did not have you and yours treating me as though I were as wealthy as Bill Gates.
clonan wrote:Conservatives feel that without protection the wealth will be lost. Personally, I have far more confidence in the successful.

Now you just proved that you don't know jack-diddly about conservatives.
clonan wrote:I have been poor and I am currently rich. I know I could end up poor again and I know I could become rich again if I needed too.

Hooray for you. Let me know how well you are doing four years from now--assuming that forums like this one are not then being policed.
clonan wrote:Those who have already ... THEN rich should pay more to help the poor start the journey to becoming rich.

If you really meant this, you would be out championing the phase-out of Social Security.
clonan wrote:I and everyone I know STRONGLY feel that all people should have food, shelter and basic education. EVERYTHING else must be earned. A car is a luxury and must be earned through work. TV is a luxury and must be earned through work. Eating out is a luxury and must be earned.


Yeah, right! Forty acres and a mule. I wonder how much longer you and your leftist buddies are going to keep telling that lie.

Here is what I think. If you have a problem, you need to recognize that it is YOUR problem, not a problem that someone else is obliged to solve for you. Why? Because if you ask someone else to solve your problem, they will solve it in a way that suits them best. The Democrats are supremely good at that and so are the Republicans.

Here is the real deal. Never take your problems to the government. The government might actually try to solve your problem and you will be in real trouble. Let's just hope that ice cream makers do not decide that they need a bail out. We'll be having frozen feces in our parfait.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:39 am


MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:11 am

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

==

As to names. Simon is my real name. M. is my first initial. You can find out what it stands for. Because the truth is out there. But I'm not going to tell.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:19 am

You must have a government to keep the market free.


Not really. The illegal drug market is the freest there is. Against government wishes. What you need government for is to settle commercial disputes with the minimum of violence.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Billy Catringer
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Location: Texas

Postby Billy Catringer » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:53 am

MSimon wrote:I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson

==

As to names. Simon is my real name. M. is my first initial. You can find out what it stands for. Because the truth is out there. But I'm not going to tell.


Simon Jester has a really nice ring to it, Chief.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:44 pm

Or are you talking about the distribution of money? You are aware that the average HOUSEHOLD income in the US is 44K. You are aware that 100K HOUSEHOLD income puts you in the top 3%.


Not even close. 15% of households are over 100K.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ted_States

Where did you get that stat from, the Daily Worker? Sheesh.


We are a superpower because we were the only industrialized nation NOT decimated by two world wars.


Actually, we were a superpower anyway due to our size, free markets, and technological strength; at the start of WWII we had 41% of the world's industrial capacity. There were several other industrialized nations such as Switzerland and Australia that suffered relatively little damage. And despite being devastated a newly liberalized Japan emerged to become the second-largest economy, while countries like China and Russia were barely treading water or even declining under Communism.

They don't get direct pay-outs but they make huge incomes from the stability the country affords them. (Go to a less stable country and try to make the same income)


Nonsense. The richest guy in the world is from Mexico; he has a state-guaranteed monopoly. Yasser Arafat became a billionaire by stealing aid from his own people. I could cite lots of other examples, from Suharto to Marcos to Fidel Castro. The absence of stability is a boon to the unscrupulous. Only those trying to get ahead honestly need law and civility.

I can tell you that I and EVERY liberal I know thinks it is absolutely disgusting to try and force everyone to be the same.


Really? I guess I imagined all that fuss over political correctness. Back in the real world, Larry Summers lost his job for suggesting maybe men had some intrinsic advantage in math and science.

In almost every case Bush cut funding for regulation and transitioned to "self" monitoring.


Shrug. It was under Clinton we dismantled Glass-Steagal in 1999, and Democrats insisted that Fannie and Fredie continue to underwrite bad loans in the name of social justice. It was a bipartisan disaster.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests